Sitting of 25 January 1956

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
NEW WRIT
For Leeds, North-East, in the room of the Right honourable Osbert Peake, called up to the House of Peers.—[Mr. Heath.]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (COLNE VALLEY SEWERAGE BOARD) (No. 2)
  Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Housing and Local Government relating to the Colne Valley Sewerage Board, presented by Mr. Sandys; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 88.]
PETITION

  Road Accidents, North Lanarkshire
  Miss Herbison: I beg to ask leave to present a humble Petition signed by 2,682 of my constituents in the villages of Salsburgh, Dewshill, South Blair, Eastfield and Harthill.
  This Petition shows that very grave concern and righteous indignation are felt concerning the number of fatal accidents in these villages, particularly fatal accidents that are happening to children.
  The Petition concludes:
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that a thirty mile per hour speed limit be imposed on that part of the road that passes through the village of Salsburgh and on that part of the road which passes through the village of Eastfield. They also pray that every other possible step will be taken to make this road more safe both for pedestrians and all other road users.
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

    Television Act, 1954
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Postmaster. General how many complaints of alleged breaches of the Television Act, 1954, on matters where he has a duty under the Act to intervene, he has received; and what action he has taken in each case.
    The Postmaster-General (Dr. Charles Hill): Since the Independent Television Authority started I have received three letters of complaint and I have answered five Parliamentary Questions. In none of these cases is there imposed on me a statutory duty to intervene.
    Mr. Swingler: Is the Postmaster-General aware that this reveals a totally unsatisfactory situation, as it is evident that there have been many more breaches than complaints? Is he further aware that the majority of people have the impression that the programme contractors are now flagrantly defying Parliament's intention without any responsibility being accepted by the Minister? When will the right hon. Gentleman take any action?
    Dr. Hill: I scarcely think that the figures I gave in reply to the Question—three letters and five Parliamentary Questions—justify the sweeping assertion made by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that on repeated occasions there have been breaches of the intention of this House when we discussed the Bill, and surely the right hon. Gentleman has an obligation to see that proper monitoring is undertaken with regard to these programmes so that the I.T.A. will not have to take action as a result of questions raised in the House when the Postmaster-General fails to do his duty?
    Dr. Hill: I am responsible neither for the day-to-day programmes of the B.B.C. nor those of the I.T.A. This House placed responsibility for those programmes upon the Independent Television Authority, which is seeking to carry out a difficult task, not helped, I suggest, by sweeping and unfair generalisations.
    Mr. Hobson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Section of the Act which deals with the predominant British character of the programme is flagrantly broken with regard to short films, and will he take up this matter with the I.T.A. or, failing that, could he advise hon. and right hon. Gentlemen whether they should address their questions to the Attorney-General?
    Dr. Hill: If the hon. Gentleman, or any other hon. Gentleman, will give me evidence to support such contentions as he has made, I will see to it that they are properly considered.
    Sir R. Grimston: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that at present a campaign is being waged against the I.T.A.? Does it really help if the head of one corporation attacks another corporation for not doing its duty?
    Dr. Hill: It would not be proper for me to comment on that, but I suggest to the House that, all past controversies apart, it is only fair to give the Independent Television Authority a reasonable chance to do its work.

    Licences
    Sir F. Medlicottasked the Postmaster-General how many persons it is estimated are using radio sets and television sets, respectively, without a licence.
    Dr. Hill: It is, I am afraid, impossible to give a firm estimate. It is significant that last year there were 26,000 successful prosecutions for evasion.
    Sir F. Medlicott: Will the Postmaster-General continue to watch this situation so as to prevent a minority of people receiving radio at the expense of their more honest neighbours?
    Dr. Hill: I agree with my hon. Friend. At the moment I am re-examining the steps taken to discover evasion and looking into the methods of collecting licensing fees. I have no doubt that my predecessors have done likewise. It is an exceedingly difficult problem.

    North Hessary Tor Transmitters
    Mr. Hay manasked the Postmaster-General when the new television transmitter on North Hessary Tor will be
    180
    radiating at full power; and what are the limits in West Cornwall to good reception.
    Dr. Hill: The B.B.C. hopes to have the station working on full power well before the summer and reception should then be satisfactory over practically the whole of Cornwall.
    Mr. Hayman: Will the Postmaster-General inquire whether the B.B.C. is not holding up transmission from this great transmitter because it is waiting for spare parts in case the service should break down? Will he also ask the B.B.C. whether it could not start now on the main transmitter and use the temporary transmitter in case of breakdown?
    Dr. Hill: I will pass the hon. Gentleman's points to the B.B.C.
    Mr. G. R. Howard: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in a letter to me on this subject the B.B.C. informed us that the people of West Cornwall would get satisfactory reception, whereas the engineers of the B.B.C. say that that is not the case? Can he therefore ask the B.B.C. to ensure that there is adequate reception over the whole of Cornwall?
    Dr. Hill: I understand it is hoped that reception will be satisfactory for practically the whole area. There is some doubt about the south-western tip of Cornwall, but we must await events.
    Mr. Haymanasked the Postmaster-General when very high frequency transmissions will begin from the transmitter at North Hessary Tor; and what kind of reception people in West Cornwall may expect.
    Dr. Hill: The B.B.C. expects to start transmission this summer. It hopes that reception will be satisfactory in most parts of West Cornwall, but only experience will show what can actually be achieved.
    Mr. Hayman: Will the Postmaster-General ask the B.B.C. to consider putting a booster transmitter on the 800 foot contour line south of Redruth if West Cornwall does not get good reception?
    Dr. Hill: I will pass the hon. Gentleman's suggestion to the B.B.C.

  POST OFFICE

    Christmas Greeting Cards
    Mr. Russellasked the Postmaster-General if, in order to overcome the unpredictable delay in the delivery of mails before Christmas every year, he will investigate the possiblity of providing separate posting boxes for greetings cards in future.
    Dr. Hill: What my hon. Friend suggests would not ease the situation, unless all sorting and dispatching arrangements were also duplicated. To do this would create more problems than it would solve.
    Mr. Russell: In the coming months, will my right hon. Friend investigate whether there is any other possible way of avoiding the difficulty? Is he aware that it is the unpredictable nature of it more than the actual delay which causes trouble, particularly to business firms?
    Dr. Hill: Following what my predecessors have always done at this time of the year, we are reviewing Christmas experience, but, bearing in mind the immense burden on the Post Office at Christmas time—on the peak day a year ago 110 million letters and cards were posted—I hope the House will agree that in all the circumstances the Post Office staff, with its temporary help, does a magnificent job at Christmas.

    Services
    Lieut-Colonel Bromley-Davenportasked the Postmaster-General, in view of the fact that the express letter service rate has been increased by 100 per cent., what steps he is taking to ensure that the service given to such letters will also be increased in a similar proportion.
    Dr. Hill: The object of this increase in the rate for express letters was to meet rising costs. If my hon. and gallant Friend has any difficulties with this service, I shall be glad to look into them.
    Lieut-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Does my right hon. Friend think that there really will be any improvement despite his increased charges? Does he not in his heart of hearts think that his Department is only following the example set by other nationalised industries, which is to give the public worse service at increased cost?
    Dr. Hill: I am aware that in such a service as this there are bound to be errors and mishaps from time to time, but I believe it is wrong to make sweeping generalisations on the basis of occasional incidents.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he could accede to his hon. and gallant Friend's request the letters would be received before they were posted?
    Dr. Hill: I take the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question as an opportunity to point out that in this special delivery service letters proceed by post in the ordinary way to the delivery office and it is only thereafter that they are sent by a special method to secure prompt delivery.
    Lieut-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: How can my right hon. Friend say that the service is improving? Does he not know that I have recently lost two letters and a book which set me back 19s., and only this morning I had another instance of one of my letters being lost?
    Dr. Hill: It is a most unfortunate fact of life that these things seem always to happen to my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Lieut-Colonel Bromley-Davenportasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the increased charges made for various postal services, including letter rate, messenger rate, express rate, telephones, etc., he will urge all Post Office staff to ensure a proportionate improvement in the efficiency of the service to customers.
    Dr. Hill: Not only is the Post Office staff aware of the importance of giving an efficient service, but it is doing its utmost to give it.
    Lieut-Colonel Bromley - Davenport: Can my right hon. Friend say what the position of this country would be today if those engaged in our export trade had followed the same example as the Post Office, which is to give our customers worse service at increased cost?
    Dr. Hill: I suggest that that question is as hypothetical as it is irrelevant.
    Mr. W. R. Williams: Is the Postmaster-General aware that the difficulty which

    183
    his hon. and gallant Friend is experiencing with public boards is as nothing compared with the difficulties which they experience with him?

    Book Postage (Increased Charge)
    Mr. G. Jegerasked the Postmaster-General from which educational associations and bookselling organisations he has received protests against the increase in book postage.
    Dr. Hill: I have received representations from about 150 sources, of which about 20 are private individuals and the others educational associations and societies and business interests, including book-sellers.
    Mr. Jeger: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that a large volume of complaints when thinking of a previous answer he gave me? In view of the necessity of extending, in particular, technical education in this country, much of which is carried on by means of postal exchange of technical books, will he reconsider his decision with regard to book postage as against newspaper postage?
    Dr. Hill: There has been a substantial volume of complaints, and I have met two or three deputations on the subject. I have given a good deal of anxious thought to the matter, but my difficulty is that there has been a loss of £2 million a year on the service as a whole, including books, and even with the increased rates the loss is still £1 million a year.
    Mr. Awberyasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the increase in charges for book postage places a burden upon those students in extra-mural classes who supplement their studies by independent reading and have to pay postage on books both ways, that it will reduce the demand for educational books, diminish the services given by libraries to adult education, and create further difficulties in this field of social activities, and if he will exempt books of this class from the extra charge.
    Dr. Hill: I have considered the matter very carefully and sympathetically, but even with the new charges the printed-paper post is running at a substantial loss, and I am sorry that I cannot meet the hon. Member's wishes.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that thousands of men who take extramural courses with colleges and the W.E.A. have to pay the postage on their books both ways and that the cost has jumped 100 per cent.? Books weighing 3 lb. previously cost a student 2s. 1d. in postage, but now the cost is 4s. 1d. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this is a tax upon acquiring knowledge, and will he have another look at the matter?
    Dr. Hill: I do not think it is fair to describe as a tax on educational knowledge an increase in charges in the direction of meeting additional costs. Following representations that I have received, I have looked at the matter very earnestly and carefully, and I really cannot see my way to separate educational books from other books. I feel that the decision of the House must stand.
    Mr. Vane: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that students in the position which has just been described by an hon. Member opposite can avoid postage altogether by ordering their books in good time from the county library and themselves fetching them from the county depot?
    Dr. Hill: I cannot pretend to be an expert, but I have no doubt that there are many circumstances in which, as was suggested, it is necessary for the book to be conveyed by post.

    Inland Parcels and Telegrams (Rates)
    Lieut-Colonel Liptonasked the Postmaster-General whether he will reduce the rates for inland parcels and telegrams to the lowest rate for corresponding services to addresses outside the United Kingdom.
    Dr. Hill: No, Sir.
    Lieut-Colonel Lipton: Will the Postmaster-General explain why a 24-word telegram to France costs 4s. while a similar inland telegram costs 6s.; why a 5 lb. parcel to the Irish Republic costs 2d. less than a similar inland parcel? Why are the rates being doctored in this peculiar fashion by the Postmaster-General?
    Dr. Hill: There is no such doctoring. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has made a convenient selection. In general,

    185
    except for two stages to the Irish Republic for quite different reasons over which we have no control and for certain rates for the short telegram to France, the inland rates are lower than the overseas rates, contrary to the assertion in his Question.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    Congleton
    Air Commodore Harveyasked the Postmaster-General what steps are being taken to improve upon the date of 1960 for the installation of the automatic telephone exchange in Congleton.
    Dr. Hill: The date has been advanced to early 1960, but, in the circumstances, this is the best we can do.
    Air Commodore Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that for many years past Congleton has suffered from severe unemployment and is at the present time finding difficulty in getting jobs for men and is trying to attract new industries? Anything my right hon. Friend can do to improve the date, or at any rate to keep to the one which he has given, will be much appreciated.
    Dr. Hill: I am doing my best, but there are 1,350 other manual exchanges and I could only improve the position of Congleton on the list by upsetting that of others with no less claim.

    Calls, Kelsall
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Postmaster-General the average length of time taken for a subscriber on the Kelsall Telephone Exchange to get a reply from the operator in Chester when making a call through that exchange.
    Dr. Hill: Just under five seconds during the day, and seven seconds in the evening.
    Mr. Johnson: Will the marked improvement in the time in answering by the operator in Chester since I put down this Question be maintained? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the figures he has given bear no relationship whatsoever to the experience of people served by the exchange?
    Dr. Hill: I know the danger of averages, but a special count was made in the three months ended 31st December in the automatic exchanges attached to
    186
    Chester, and the figures that I have given are based on 700 day and 300 night observations.
    Mr. Hobson: In view of the repeated complaints about the exchange, can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that spot checks are taken without any previous notice to the supervisor?
    Dr. Hill: I believe that is so, but I will look into the hon. Gentleman's point.

    Manchester
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Postmaster-General how many new telephones were installed in Manchester in the years 1950 and 1955, respectively; and how many applications are still outstanding.
    Dr. Hill: In 1950, 7,128 telephones were installed; in 1955, 12,263. At present 10,606 applications are outstanding, and 3,446 either in course of being met or under investigation.
    Mr. Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this great improvement has given considerable satisfaction to the people of Manchester, and may we expect that it will be maintained?
    Dr. Hill: A great deal of work is going on now and more is planned for new starts this year in the Manchester area.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Personal Case
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Air why the body of Flying Officer Peter F. Topham, reference number P.440989S.14. (Cas.), has not been buried, despite his death in a flying accident nearly four months ago in Italy; why there was a delay of nearly four months before a report on the accident was sent to Mrs. Topham, of Kendal Rise Road, Birmingham; and whether, in these special circumstances, he will arrange for the body to be brought to England at public expense or at least taken back to Flying Officer Topham's base in Germany from which the relatives could arrange repatriation.
    The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Nigel Birch): After the military funeral on 3rd September, the coffin was placed in a private sepulchre belonging to a chaplain of the Italian Air Force. As

    187
    soon as it was known that the coffin was not to be brought back to this country, arrangements were made to buy a plot of ground in Brindisi Civil Cemetery, in which the coffin has now been buried.
    A court of inquiry was convened within a week of the accident. Investigations had to be pursued in several foreign countries. Mrs. Topham was informed of the findings as soon as the report was received in the Air Ministry. As the hon. Member knows, it has not been Government policy before or since the war to bring the bodies of Servicemen back to this country at the public expense.
    I am sure that the House would wish to join with me in expressing sympathy with Mrs. Topham in her bereavement.
    Mr. Chapman: Will not the Minister, whom we are glad to congratulate on his promotion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] —agree that there was some delay in this case and that a graceful apology might be made on behalf of the R.A.F.? In the very special circumstances, if there is an offer of some help to Mrs. Topham to go to see her husband's grave, will not he, too, on behalf of the R.A.F., make some offer to contribute towards the cost of getting her out there?
    Mr. Birch: These cases are very sad. I had a lot to do with them when I was at the Ministry of Defence. On the actual handling of the case, all that could be done was done. I would certainly like to look into the second part of the Question.
    Air Commodore Harvey: Can my right hon. Friend arrange for Mrs. Topham to fly to Italy in a Transport Command aircraft, which should not cost the Services anything? May I have an answer?

    Houses and Seco Huts (Cost)
    Mr. John Hallasked the Secretary of State for Air (1) the cost of erecting Seco huts, providing accommodation for six officers;
    (2) the cost, per house, under the last completed contract for the erection of married quarters for aircraftmen built in terraces; and what is the estimated cost of the same accommodation to be built during the current financial year.
    Mr. Birch: It would be contrary to established Government practice to disclose contract prices. I can, however, say
    188
    that I expect that the cost of airmen's married quarters now under construction will be only very slightly in excess of the costs of the last few completed contracts.
    Mr. Hall: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that very informative reply, may I ask him whether it is not true that the cost of erecting an aircraftsman's married quarters is £3,500 per three-bedroom house? Is that not vastly in excess of normal building costs, and can he make any comment?
    Mr. Birch: It is not so.

    Staff (Ratios)
    Mr. John Hallasked the Secretary of State for Air what were the ratios of Air Ministry, civilian and Service personnel, respectively, to personnel maintaining and operating front line aircraft in 1938;and what are the ratios at the present day.
    Mr. Birch: The detailed figures for 1938 are not available. I can however give the ratio of the staffs service and civilian at the Air Ministry Headquarters to the total strength of the Royal Air Force. In 1938 it was about 1 to 15 and in 1955 about 1 to 30—much better.

    Buildings, Caernarvonshire (Condition)
    Mr. G. Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that three emergency water supply buildings were left in a dangerous condition on land held by his Department between Rhiwlas and Deiniolen in Caernarvonshire when the Department relinquished their tenancy of the land some years ago; and if, in view of the increasing danger to people, and especially to children, as well as to farm animals, he will arrange for these buildings to be made safe.
    Mr. Birch: My Department fulfilled its obligations by paying terminal compensation in accordance with the terms of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939. The state of the buildings must therefore, I am afraid, now be a matter for the owner.
    Mr. Roberts: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him to look a little further into this matter, because I think that the local authority is also involved, and his Department might be able to help to straighten out the actual obligations?
    Mr. Birch: If the hon. Member will come and see me or will write to me about it, we might do it.

    Chaplains
    Wing Commander Bullusasked the Secretary of State for Air the establishment for Royal Air Force chaplains, full time and part-time; and what are the totals at present so employed.
    Mr. Birch: The establishment of full-time chaplains in the Royal Air Force is 279. The present strength is 268. There are at the moment 650 part-time chaplains for whom there is no fixed establishment.
    Wing Commander Bullus: Can my right hon. Friend say what proportion of these appointments is with companies of National Service men, and can he further say whether chaplains' pay was considered in the recent Services pay review?
    Mr. Birch: The establishment of chaplains is worked out as a proportion of Regulars and National Service men together. As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, both categories have immortal souls. The question of chaplains' pay does come up in the review of Services pay.

    Prime-cost Contracts
    Captain Pilkingtonasked the Secretary of State for Air how many of the contracts placed by his Department in 1955 were prime-cost contracts.
    Mr. Birch: One, Sir.
    Captain Pilkington: Can my right hon. Friend say roughly out of how many?
    Mr. Birch: No. There is an enormous number, but I cannot say how many.

  TRANSPORT

    Accidents (Statistics)
    Sir F. Medlicottasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if, in order to remove misunderstanding, he will arrange for statistics to be kept over a reasonable period so as to ascertain how many road accidents are caused by men drivers and women drivers, respectively, in proportion to the total numbers of men and women drivers.
    The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I do not think that the additional work which
    190
    would be involved in my hon. Friend's proposal would help me in measures to increase road safety.
    Sir F. Medlicott: Is my right hon. Friend aware that women are very much better drivers than is generally conceded—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—as their driving, although often irritating, is usually careful? Accurate statistics on this matter would not only restore confidence to a much-maligned section of the community, but would save a great deal of argument.
    Mr. Watkinson: At this early stage in my Ministry, I think that I ought to try to avoid controversy.
    Miss Herbison: Will the Minister resist the suggestion, in spite of what his hon. Friend has said, and use any available manpower for cutting down the number of bad drivers, whether men or women, and thus cut down accidents?
    Mr, Watkinson: I have said that I cannot do anything.

    Road Safety (Buses and Coaches)
    Mr. Pageasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when he expects to receive the Report of the Bus and Coach Sub-Committee, which first met in February, 1953, of the Departmental Committee on Road Safety.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): I understand that this Sub-Committee is to consider at its next meeting a first draft of its Report to the Departmental Committee. I expect the Departmental Committee to be able to present a Report to my right hon. Friend in about three months' time.
    Mr. Page: Having regard to the fact that this Committee has now been sitting for three years, and that accidents occurring inside buses and coaches have increased phenomenally in the past twelve months or so, can my hon. Friend do something to hasten the Report of the committee?
    Mr. Molson: No, Sir, certainly not. This is a matter which has raised a number of difficult questions. There has not been agreement inside the Sub-Committee upon the subject, and before it reports to the Departmental Committee it will go into the matter further. The

    191
    Departmental Committee will also consider the Report before it submits it to my right hon. Friend.

    Levy
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the total sum obtained from the transport levy from its inception to the closing date of 31st December, 1955.
    Mr. Watkinson: About £8,238,000 for 1954 and 1955.
    Mr. Dodds: Can the right hon. Gentleman, by any yardstick he chooses, deny that this ranks as one of the biggest swindles ever perpetrated on traders, who get no benefit whatever from this costly and unsavoury business?
    Mr. Watkinson: That has nothing to do with the Question. The hon. Member asked for the facts and he has got them.

    Member's Letter (Reply)
    Mr. D. Jonesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when the hon. Member for The Hartlepools can be expected to receive a reply from him to the letter that was sent him on 14th December, 1955, relating to the universal dipping of headlights.
    Mr. Watkinson: I replied to the hon. Member's letter on 23rd January. I am sorry for the delay that occurred.
    Mr. Jones: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why it takes his Department from 14th December to 23rd January to reply to a simple question, namely, why a body which has been in communication with his Department for over two years was deliberately left out of consultation in connection with this important matter?
    Mr. Watkinson: I have already told the hon. Gentleman that I am sorry for the delay that occurred. As far as I am concerned, it will not occur again.
    Mr. Champion: Is the Minister aware that I, too, had reason to complain to his predecessor about the length of time his Department takes to answer letters? Will he look into the correspondence section of his Department in order to ensure that hon. Members are treated with a little more courtesy in this respect?
    Mr. Watkinson: I am only too anxious that letters shall be answered quickly, but I am a little amazed to find that my
    192
    responsibilities extend as far as lighthouses in the Red Sea and to all sorts of similar things. I shall try to see that all hon. Members' letters are answered as soon as possible.
    Mr. Callaghan: If we cannot get the question of automatic control settled in six years, how can we expect to get replies to letters in six weeks?

    British Transport Commission and Air Corporations
    Sir J. Hutchisonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will give general directions to those nationalised industries for which he is responsible, instructing them to undertake not to raise their prices for a fixed period in order to arrest the rise in prices and to provide a background for restraint in wage claims.
    Mr. Watkinson: No, Sir. I do not think it would be desirable or practicable to bind the British Transport Commission or the Air Corporations in this way.
    Sir J. Hutchison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a considerable section of industry has already taken this helpful and public-spirited step? Is nationalised industry really going to fall behind in giving a lead or following a step which has an importance of the kind I have indicated?
    Mr. Watkinson: I am in great sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. All I say is that I believe the better way of doing this is for me to work closely with my nationalised industries to improve their efficiency—and that is what I propose to do.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: On a point of order. We seem to be making a big jump in Questions, Mr. Speaker. I did not get an opportunity of asking my Question No. 49.
    Mr. Speaker: I called the hon. Gentleman quite clearly, and he did not rise. I thought he must have left the Chamber. I am sorry; I cannot go back.

  CIVIL AVIATION

    British West Indian Airways Services
    Mr. Russellasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to what extent the air services of British West

    193
    Indian Airways have been speeded up as a result of the introduction of Viscount aircraft.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Profumo): By amounts varying from twenty minutes between Trinidad and Barbados to one hour fifteen minutes between Trinidad and Kingston. In general flights take about three-quarters of the time that they took before. Frequencies have also been increased on some sectors.
    Mr. Russell: Can my hon. Friend say whether this has also brought increased passenger traffic and, therefore, increased revenue?
    Mr. Profumo: Not without notice, but it is hoped that that will follow from this policy.

    B.E.A. Hangar, Gatwick
    Mr. Mikardoasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how much money is to be contributed from public funds towards the cost of the British European Airways hangar at Gatwick.
    Mr. Watkinson: None, Sir. British European Airways will build what it requires at its own expense on land leased to it by my Ministry.
    Mr. Mikardo: Is not it a fact that a large part of the work which will be done in this hangar at Gatwick is work formerly done at Renfrew? Is not it a bit silly to shut down the Renfrew base on the pretext that B.E.A. wants to centralise all the work in London and then proceed to disperse some of it outside London?
    Mr. Watkinson: That is quite another question. I am the landlord of Gatwick, not the operating company.
    Mr. Strachey: Would not the Minister agree that this illustrates the fact that the decision to abandon the Renfrew base has turned out to have been a catastrophic mistake?
    Mr. Watkinson: If the right hon. Gentleman will put down a Question about Renfrew, I shall be delighted to answer it.

    Queen's Building, London Airport
    Mr. Mikardoasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what consultations he has had with the relevant trade unions about the facilities to be provided for workers in the second terminal building at London Airport.
    Mr. Watkinson: I have had no direct consultation as I am in continuous touch with the organisations, such as the airline operators, who will be my tenants in Queen's Building. Consultation with the unions on facilities to be provided for employees is carried out by them as this is naturally a matter for the employers and not for me.
    Mr. Mikardo: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the first terminal building is gravely deficient as regards both the conditions it supplies for certain workers and efficiency in operation; and that notwithstanding that those defects were pointed out by representative trade unions, precisely the same mistakes have been copied in the second building?
    Mr. Watkinson: That is a matter which I will certainly look into.

    Customs Facilities, Greatham
    Mr. D. Jonesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what replies he has given to the application of the West Hartlepool Town Council for On-Call Customs facilities at Greatham aerodrome.
    Mr. Profumo: This application is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer he received from him yesterday. The town council has been so informed.
    Mr. Jones: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the closure of this airport cost the local authority over £3,000 last year to put it on a care-and-maintenance basis, whereas in 1953, when Customs facilities were in operation, it cost the Customs authorities only £4 for the part of the season during which it operated? Does this not make complete nonsense of the Chancellor's request to local authorities to try to save money when the Government are forcing this authority to spend more than £3,000?
    Mr. Profumo: No, Sir; I cannot accept that. The hon. Member will be glad to know that the corporation has informed us of its intention to apply for re-issue of a public-use licence as from the middle of April this year.
    Mr. Shinwell: Since this matter has been raised, may I ask the hon. Gentleman, together with his right hon. Friend, to look into the whole question of the provision of adequate air facilities in the North-East? Is he aware that there is only one private company—the Hunting Clan Company—which provides air travel between London and the North-East, and that the schedules are most unsatisfactory? Will the hon. Gentleman look into the matter?
    Mr. Profumo: That hardly arises out of this Question. It is no part of my right hon. Friend's business to force any air line to run any route, nor is he in a position to do so. That is a matter for the air lines themselves, whether nationalised or private, and they should apply to the Air Transport Advisory Council.

  ROADS

    Accidents
    Mr. Patrick Maitlandasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the number of accidents, fatal and causing bodily injury, respectively, which have occurred each year since the war on the Stirling-Carlisle road opposite Burnwood Camp, Carluke, Lanarkshire.
    Mr. Molson: As the Answer consists of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Maitland: In thanking my hon. Friend for that rather uninformative and unforthcoming Answer, may I ask him whether he will give some indication of the trend of the figures?
    Mr. Molson: In the last ten years there have been one fatal casualty and six nonfatal casualties.
    Mr. Maitland: Can my hon. Friend say what they were due to? Is there a common cause?
    Mr. Molson: No, Sir. They were due to divergent causes.
    Following is the Answer:

    ACCIDENTS INVOLVING PERSONAL INJURY ON THE STRLING-CARLISLE ROAD AT OR NEAR THE ENTRANCE TO BURNWOOD CAMP, CARLUKE, LANARKSHIRE

    —

    Fatal

    Non-fatal

    1946

    …

    …

    —

    1

    1947

    …

    …

    —

    —

    1948

    …

    …

    —

    —

    1949

    …

    …

    —

    —

    1950

    …

    …

    —

    —

    1951

    …

    …

    —

    2

    1952

    …

    …

    —

    —

    1953

    …

    …

    —

    —

    1954

    …

    …

    —

    1

    1955

    …

    …

    1

    2

    Mr. Patrick Maitlandasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the circumstances in which a fatal accident took place on the Stirling Carlisle road opposite Burnwood Camp, Carluke, on 18th December, 1955.
    Mr. Molson: I am informed that this accident resulted from a collision between a 3-ton lorry and a 14-cwt. van. The driver of the van was killed and his son, who was a passenger, seriously injured. The accident is to be the subject of a fatal accident inquiry which will be held by the Sheriff under the Fatal Accidents Inquiry (Scotland) Acts. My hon. Friend will appreciate that until the inquiry has taken place it would not be proper for me to comment.
    Mr. Maitland: Is my hon. Friend aware, and will he draw the inquiry's attention to the fact, that it has been widely stated that this accident, like others before it, was due to a pothole which has been in this road for fifteen years, and is not it possible to fill up a pothole?
    Mr. Molson: I have no doubt that many statements will be made before the inquiry, and that in cases where such things can be substantiated evidence will be produced.
    Mr. Pageasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation upon what considerations he bases his decisions to hold or not to hold an inquiry into any particular road accident.
    Mr. Watkinson: Investigations into road accidents are carried out by the

    197
    police in the normal course of their duties. Serious accidents involving goods vehicles or public service vehicles are also investigated by officers of my Department. An inquiry under Section 23 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, is held when it seems desirable to investigate more closely the causes of a particular accident, especially where it seems likely that such an investigation may suggest measures for obviating similar accidents in the future.
    Mr. Page: Has not the power under Section 23 been used very sparingly in the past years? Does not my right hon. Friend think that he could obtain more information from detailed inquiries into a number of road accidents, in the same way as railway accidents are inquired into, rather than by relying on the rather unreliable statistics of the police?
    Mr. Watkinson: I will certainly look into that matter, but I cannot give an answer now.

    Dartford-Purfleet Tunnel
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what progress has been made in the construction of the Dartford-Purfleet Tunnel; and what part of the work is expected to be carried out this year.
    Mr. Watkinson: The overhaul of the existing plant and equipment is nearly completed. Tenders have been invited by 29th February for the main tunnelling work, but I cannot give any useful estimate at this stage as to future progress.

    Dahl-stent Safety Kerb
    Captain Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to what extent he envisages a greater use of the Dahl-stent safety kerb on roads under his control in this country.
    Mr. Molson: This depends upon the outcome of trials which will continue for some time.
    Captain Pilkington: Can my hon. Friend say how long these trials already have been going on?
    Mr. Molson: No, Sir. The point is that in July last, my right hon. Friend the then Minister issued a circular dealing with the whole question of kerbs—vertical kerbs, splayed kerbs and flush kerbs. This was the result of careful
    198
    investigation of how to arrange kerbs in a way that would result in the greatest possible road safety. This new proposal is intermediate, and before we depart from the principle so recently laid down it is necessary to make quite certain that these new kerbs will be an improvement.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will my hon. Friend put a speedy halt to the absurd practice of putting down kerbs, of whatever kind, at great public expense on main roads which in a very short time will be widened anyway?
    Mr. Molson: That is a matter which we are already trying to deal with. At the same time, there are instances where it is essential to put in kerbs, and where the widening will not take place for a considerable time. I am sure that my noble Friend would not wish us to disregard questions of safety merely because widening is to take place some time in the future.

    Pedestrian Crossings (Lighting)
    Mr. P. Williamsasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will now take steps to encourage all local authorities to provide adequate street lighting in the region of pedestrian crossings.
    Mr. Molson: Good street lighting in the vicinity of pedestrian crossings undoubtedly increases their safety value at night and we will certainly do what we can to encourage local authorities to provide it. But, except on trunk roads where my right hon. Friend has power to make grants, we have no responsibility in this matter.
    Mr. Williams: Although the Minister may not regard himself as having final responsibility in the matter, would he not agree that there are many parts of the country where pedestrian crossings are quite inadequately lit? In the interests of road safety, would he not bring to the attention of local authorities the importance of having pedestrians fully lit up at night?
    Mr. Molson: I should hesitate to ask my right hon. Friend to issue a circular to local authorities in exactly those terms. At the same time, it is difficult for my right hon. Friend to urge local authorities to incur expenditure upon lighting if he is not paying for that lighting himself.

    199
    From the point of view of safety, it is undesirable to have the lighting in the vicinity of pedestrian crossings very much brighter than it is in other parts of the same highway.
    Mr. Wade: Will the Minister give this matter his urgent attention? Even in daylight it is often difficult for a driver to see whether a pedestrian is about to cross the road. In bad light it is particularly difficult to see whether a pedestrian is crossing or about to cross at a pedestrian crossing.
    Mr. Molson: As to whether we will give this matter our urgent consideration, I am afraid the answer must be that we do not at present intend to increase the responsibility of the central Government for the provision of lighting on highways.
    Mr. Page: Will my hon. Friend recommend to his right hon. Friend that the time has now come to reconsider the flashing beacons and all the lighting on pedestrian crossings? Have they not been in operation long enough for us to see whether that type of lighting is sufficient, and whether one might not go back to some of the floodlighting methods with which experiments were made before the beacons were installed?
    Mr. Molson: There is a certain confusion of thought there. The purpose of the flashing beacons is to indicate to motorists the existence of a pedestrian crossing. It is not the purpose of the beacons to show up pedestrians who may be standing there. The effect of having very bright lights at a pedestrian crossing would be to throw a shadow in the wrong direction, and we do not think that it would add to road safety.

  RAILWAYS

    Automatic Train Control
    Sir F. Medlicottasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to make a statement as to the reason for the delay in adopting throughout British Railways the system of automatic train control which has been working satisfactorily on the Great Western section for so many years.
    Mr. Watkinson: The system of automatic train control used on the former Great Western Railway has certain technical disadvantages which precludes its
    200
    universal adoption on British Railways, especially on electrified lines, though it has been very successful under steam operation. The British Transport Commission has been developing an improved system which has been under trial on the east coast main line between New Barnet and Huntingdon for some time. The development of this new equipment has reached an advanced stage and the trial stretch is being extended to cover the 210 track miles of both the lines between King's Cross and Grantham. The ground equipment has already been installed on the down line between King's Cross and Peterborough.
    Sir F. Medlicott: Is the Minister aware that there has never been any adequate explanation why this system has not been adopted on comparable stretches of railway either before or after nationalisation; and will he do all he can to see that either this system or the improvement to which he refers is put into operation at the earliest possible moment?
    Mr. Watkinson: The explanation is that unfortunately the system used on the Great Western is not suitable for electrified lines. We are about to undertake a pilot scheme with the new system on a really workable length of main line. It is terribly important that we should get this absolutely right, and that the drivers should trust it implicitly, and that is why I want to do the bigger pilot scheme.
    Mr. Callaghan: Does not the Minister think that if he looks at the papers he will find that this sort of answer was being given six years ago?
    Mr. Watkinson
    Mr. Callaghan: With great respect, I know it was. May I ask the Minister if he will not look into the papers to see why it has taken six years to reach these conclusions and to get pilot schemes going? For goodness' sake, get the British Transport Commission to hurry up and give a decision on it.
    Mr. Watkinson: The hon. Gentleman has got the matter quite wrong. The fact is that my inspecting officers are responsible for this delay.
    Mr. Callaghan: They had better buck up.
    Mr. Watkinson: The reason for the delay is that I am not going to be responsible for installing a system on British Railways that is not absolutely as fault-free as we can make it. We want it to be trusted by the men who have to use it.
    Mr. Callaghan: Does the Minister really think that it is justifiable for the inspectors to take a period of six years in which to make up their minds about a system of this sort? Is not he aware that this problem was investigated immediately after nationalisation, and that some decision should have been reached long ago?
    Mr. Watkinson: What happened when the hon. Gentleman was on this side of the House I do not know, but since we have been responsible—and I have been into this matter personally—I am satisfied that we have been doing all we can to perfect the new system.

    Pensioners
    Mr. G. H. R. Rogersasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will now make regulations requiring the British Transport Commission to give more generous financial assistance to railway superannuitants.
    Dr. Kingasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will now review the position of veteran railway pensioners and annuitants, in view of the fact that the actual value of their pensions has considerably deteriorated in the past two years.
    Mr. Watkinson: Discussions are taking place with the Commission on the question of further assistance to pensioners, but I am not yet able to make a statement.
    Mr. Rogers: Will the Minister be a little more helpful than his predecessor in this matter? We tried to get his predecessor to encourage the Transport Commission to give more generous assistance to these very hard-pressed people, and I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would be a little more helpful in this matter than was his predecessor.
    Mr. Watkinson: The hon. Member will, I think, agree that this is something I must look at myself. I have not yet had time to discuss it with the Chairman of the Transport Commission.
    Mr. Collick: Is the Minister aware that railway men with over fifty years of service are getting as little as 3s. superannuation a week? Surely the Government can find means of making their position a little better. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking accordingly?
    Mr. Watkinson: I am well aware of the position, and I have just said that I will discuss it with the Chairman of the Transport Commission as soon as I can.
    Dame Irene Ward: When does my right hon. Friend think he will be in a position to give an answer? May I thank him for saying that he will look into the whole matter himself, which is a distinct improvement on what has happened in the past?
    Mr. Monslow: Will the Minister take into consideration that there has been no discrimination as between the respective grades?

    Safety and Efficiency
    Lieut-Colonel Bromley-Davenportasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will institute a Government inquiry under Section 20 of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, into the working of all sections of British Railways with wide terms of reference to include investigation into cleanliness of carriages and stations, together with the necessary comfort for passengers in summer and winter, the age and condition of rolling stock, the condition and inspection of railway lines and tunnels, and the qualifications and suitability of staff in all grades from the highest to the lowest.
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will make a statement on the causes of all the railway accidents which took place during the Christmas Parliamentary Recess; and indicate, in each case, what recommendations he has made, and proposes to make, to prevent a recurrence of such accidents.
    Mr. Watkinson: As regards particular railway accidents, I must await the detailed technical reports of my Inspecting Officers of Railways. I have, however, had a number of discussions with the chairman and members of the British Transport Commission and with representatives of the trade unions about railway

    203
    safety and the general efficiency of the railways as a whole. The Commission and the trade unions have given careful consideration to these matters and, following a meeting of the British Transport Joint Consultative Council last Friday, a statement was issued about the steps to be taken. This is being brought to the notice of all the staffs and is to be pursued right down through the consultative machinery.
    Moreover, at their request, I met last Monday the chairman and deputy-chairman of the British Transport Commission, together with representatives of the trade unions, so as to hear from them the results of their discussions. I am glad to say that they gave me firm assurances of their determination to maintain safety on the railways and to make progress towards a more efficient railway service. I understand that the next meeting of the British Railways Productivity Council on Friday will consider further practical means of co-operating in these purposes.
    Lieut-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: We are all delighted at the steps which have been taken to raise the morale of railway workers, but will my right hon. Friend undertake to do everything in his power to raise the morale of the wretched passengers who have to go on these filthy trains which are nearly always late and, alas, none too safe?
    Mr. Watkinson: The best thing I can do is to invite my hon. and gallant Friend to do as I have already done, namely, to have a look at some of the modern trains which British Railways are putting into service. When those trains go into service they will show a very great improvement over anything which has been provided for the travelling public before. I am quite confident that we shall improve travelling efficiency in the reasonably near future.
    Mr. J. Harrison: Does the Minister recognise that the staffing difficulty which British Railways have experienced during the last three or four years is the main cause of many of the complaints which come from the ordinary passengers? Will he agree that criticism of the kind we have heard in the consideration of this Question does quite a lot to lower morale and make things worse on British Railways?
    Mr. Watkinson: It is quite a serious point. I believe that the key to improving
    204
    railway efficiency—which is a matter which should interest every hon. Member—is to be found in getting on with the modernisation programme, if it is accompanied by real progress towards better human relations and team work on the railways. The meetings which I have just mentioned to the House are a real sign that the Commission is making real progress on that front, and the whole House should welcome it.
    Mr. Remnant: Can my right hon. Friend give any indication of how long it will be before non-corridor coaches are taken out of use?
    Mr. Watkinson: I cannot, without notice—but I shall be delighted to answer that question if my hon. Friend will put it down.
    Mr. Popplewell: Can the Minister assure us that he will do everything in his power to see that the British Transport Commission does not run into any difficulty with regard to capital expenditure in relation to the provision of these urgently needed new coaches? Secondly, does not he agree that the new attitude now being adopted by the Commission, as shown in the speedy agreement which has been reached upon the recent negotiations for wage increases, is calculated to increase the morale of the men—if that is felt to be necessary? Will not he also now take the opportunity of paying tribute to these men for their very high standard of efficiency, which has kept railway accidents down to a minimum?
    Mr. Watkinson: I think I can best answer the hon. Gentleman by saying that about two-thirds of all railway costs arise from manpower considerations, and it is therefore obvious to us all that the Commission is doing the right thing, and that a sensible and quick pay settlement may make some contribution in the Commission's effort to carry its workers with it in a new attempt to improve the efficiency and safety of British Railways. I, personally, wish it well in that task.
    Mr. Usborne: When some of these new trains come into operation, will the Minister recommend to the Commission that it might consider putting one or more on the line from Victoria to Folkestone and Dover, which is used by a great many foreigners? That service is exceptionally squalid just now.

  SHIPPING

    Ports (Handling Delays)
    Mr. Russellasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to what extent delays in handling ships in port are due to too many being concentrated on major ports; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Watkinson: If more trade could be persuaded to flow through other ports, the pressure on the major ports would be relieved, but there are practical limitations on the extent to which trade can be switched at will from one port to another.
    Mr. Russell: Are the smaller ports being used to anything like their full capacity?
    Mr. Watkinson: I will send my hon. Friend some figures which show that the position is not quite as bad as he suggests.
    Mr. Callaghan: Can we have figures for the South Wales ports?

    U.S. Cargo Preference Act (Conference)
    Mr. Pageasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what reply he has sent to the invitation for the United Kingdom to be represented at an international conference for promoting better understanding of the United States Cargo Preference Act.
    Mr. Watkinson: No such invitation has been received.
    Mr. Page: In those circumstances, if the United Kingdom has not been invited to this conference, will my right hon. Friend initiate a conference which will make known the United Kingdom's views on flag discrimination of the sort mentioned in this Question?
    Mr. Watkinson: The Question does not mention flag discrimination.

  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

    National Service
    Mr. Leeasked the Minister of Defence whether he will now make a statement about the future of National Service.
    The Minister of Defence (Sir Walter Monckton): I would refer to the reply on this subject given by my predecessor to my hon. Friend the Member for More-cambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) on Wednesday, 23rd November.
    Mr. Lee: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the growing opinion in this country, that, in this period of hydrogen warfare, it is a colossal waste of manpower and of expense that about 200,000 young men should be called up each year and our industries be denuded to that extent? Have the reports which have appeared in certain sections of the Press been, or not been, inspired in any way by Government circulation?
    Sir W. Monckton: I am not sure to what Press reports the hon. Gentleman refers, but I can certainly say that I have not inspired them.
    Mr. Strachey: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider, now that the Prime Minister has stated publicly that it is the object of the Government to abolish National Service in the end, that an early statement by the Government about their fuller plans is very necessary so that the Services should know where they are and the basis on which they have to work?
    Sir W. Monckton: The statement which was made and elaborated in the debate which took place in the House in November stated the present position. I am well aware of what the Prime Minister said as recently as 19th January. I do not think it would be appropriate to make a further statement at this moment.

    CYPRUS
    Mr. J. Griffiths: On a point of order. In view of the very great importance of the matter, could the Secretary of State for the Colonies take the opportunity to answer the Questions on the Order Paper dealing with Cyprus and to make a statement on the subject, in particular upon the consultations which he is having with the Governor? If the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer now, could he give an undertaking to make a statement to us very shortly on this matter?
    Mr. Speaker: I have received no such request from the right hon. Gentleman, and it would be quite out of order for me to call upon him. Perhaps what the right hon. Member has said will be considered, and if he pursues it through the usual channels he will get satisfaction.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: May I ask the Leader of the House whether a statement can be made either today or tomorrow on the subject?
    The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Further to that point of order, which is the only way in which I can deal with the matter. I shall be glad to consider the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I hope that it will be possible for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies to make a statement on the subject of Cyprus tomorrow, after Questions.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (GUILLEBAUD REPORT)
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. BLENKINSOP: TO ask the Minister of Health whether he will make a statement regarding the report by the Guillebaud Committee on the National Health Service.
The Minister of Health (Mr. R. H. Turton): With permission, I will answer Question No. 90.
The Guillebaud Committee, which was appointed by my right hon. Friends the present Minister of Labour and the Secretary of State for Scotland to review the present and prospective cost of the National Health Service and to make recommendations, has now submitted its Report. The Report has been printed and will be available in the Vote Office this afternoon. It covers Scotland as well as England and Wales and the Secretary of State has asked me to make clear his agreement with what I am about to say.
The Committee's main conclusion is that it would be premature at this point of time to make any fundamental alteration in the structure of the National Health Service. Their view is that what is most needed at the present time is the prospect of a period of stability in order that the various authorities and representative bodies can think and plan ahead with the knowledge that they will be building on firm foundations. The Committee specifically indicate their support by and large of the main administrative features of the various services, including, for example, the present method of making Exchequer money available for
208
the hospital service. With the Committee's general conclusion and approach on these matters the Government are in agreement.
The Committee point out that the aim must be to provide the best service possible within the limits of the available resources; and that it must be for the Government to determine as a matter of policy how much of the national resources, in terms of finance, manpower and materials, can be made available for the Health Service, regard being had to the competing claims of other social services and national commitments. Subject to these general propositions the Committee make a number of recommendations about the organisation and management of the Service.
These include a recommendation about the desirable rate of capital expenditure in the hospital service. As the House knows, the Government decided some time ago that the present level of expenditure should be increased in the years up to 1957–58. The Committee propose that, after that, if the resources can then be made available, £30 million annually would be a desirable level at which to aim over the seven succeeding years.
The Committee further recommend that when financial circumstances permit, the existing Exchequer grant towards the capital cost of providing residential accommodation for the aged should be replaced by a 50 per cent. grant on the net total expenditure of local authorities on such accommodation. This proposal would involve legislation and will also require consideration in the wider context of the relationship of local government finance with the Exchequer.
There are a number of recommendations either for continuation or for development of measures already in hand or contemplated or for detailed adjustments in the present arrangements. These recommendations will require careful consideration. I must, moreover, make it clear that in view of the economic situation the Government cannot undertake any additional financial commitments in respect of the Health Services at the present time. The Committee's final comment includes a tribute to the Service's record of performance and a finding that any charge of widespread extravagance is not borne out by the Committee's evidence.

209
It is clear that this document is of great value. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members of this House will wish to join with the Secretary of State and me in expressing our gratitude to Mr. Guillebaud and his colleagues for the important task they have completed and for this very valuable analysis of our National Health Service.
Mr. Blenkinsop: While welcoming the announcement of the publication of this Report and of the very important and undoubtedly very valuable recommendations it is making, may I ask the Minister whether he does not agree that the Report provides a full vindication of the work that has been done in building up the National Health Service against all the attacks that have been made? Will he not also accept that this should provide him with a good opportunity for fresh approaches to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure a more effective use of the resources of the country than is possible today in the cramped surroundings of financial limitation, especially in regard to mental hospital provision? Will he not also agree that it is highly desirable that the House should have a full opportunity fairly shortly to debate what is obviously an extremely important Report?
Mr. Turton: The Report is a well-deserved tribute to the great deal of voluntary work that has been done all over the country to help the National Health Service. I am sure that the whole House can join in that tribute. The question of a debate is for the Leader of the House.
Mr. A. Woodburn: While associating myself with my hon. Friend's remarks, may I ask whether the Government are bearing in mind that real economy will come when the hospitals can be made more efficient by new capital expenditure? A great deal of the waste arises from old buildings and appliances and the difficulties of doctors and nurses carrying on their work in proper surroundings. Will the Government bear in mind that cutting down capital expenditure is not necessarily the way to economy and that it may be a greater economy to spend a little more now in order to save over the years? When he examines this Report, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not close his mind to further expenditure, if that is necessary in order to restore sick
210
people to work. It is not economy to delay people's recovery to health. It is greater economy to the nation that people should be in hospital as little as possible and that when they are they should be restored to working life as soon as possible.
Mr. Turton: The Government appreciate those points very much. That is why, in this programme for 1956–57 and 1957–58, there is provision for plant replacement, the very point touched on by the right hon. Gentleman.
Dr. Stross: May we interpret what the Minister has said as meaning that as soon as there is an acknowledged improvement in the economic situation of our country the essential recommendations in this valuable Report will be given the highest priority?
Mr. Turton: First we must study this Report and I must have consultations with the local health authorities on many of its detailed recommendations. Until we have all studied the Report, which is a very long one, it would be quite wrong of me to make any commitment.
Mr. Mikardo: Are not the broad conclusions of the Report a snub to Government supporters who are critics of the Health Service, and who hoped that the Guillebaud Committee would recommend slashing reductions of the Service?
Mr. Turton: When the hon. Member reads the Report I think that he will not come to that conclusion. The Report says that substantial improvements have been made in recent years and that those improvements have been undertaken without putting a very large increased cost on the Health Service. I should have thought that that was a matter in which all sides of the House could take pleasure.
Mr. Blenkinsop: Would the Minister say something, if possible, to allay the very great public anxiety there is about our mental hospital provision and what action he proposes to take in that field?
Mr. Turton: As I think the hon. Gentleman is aware, there is in the programme for 1956–57 and 1957–58 provision for new mental hospitals. I am as concerned as he is about the whole question of mental and mental deficiency hospitals, but I think that the House should not go into detailed discussion until hon. Members have read this very large and voluminous Report.

HOUSING SUBSIDIES BILL
Considered in Committee [Progress, 14th December.]
[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(INTRODUCTION OF NEW HOUSING SUBSIDIES.)
3.42 p.m.
Mr. William Blyton: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, at the end to insert:
"(not being such a new dwelling as is mentioned in subsection (8) of this section)."
The Chairman: I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if, with this Amendment, we take that in page 2, line 20, at the end add:
(8) Contributions shall continue to be payable under the said section one, subsection (2)or subsection(3), as the case may be, in respect of any new dwelling, as regards which the following conditions are satisfied, that is to say that—
Mr. Blyton: In this discussion, the basic industries of mining and agriculture are bound to be referred to a good deal. Those two industries are facing great difficulty in maintaining their present manpower, and the lack of recruits is, to say the least, appalling, and a danger to the nation. While I shall concern myself mainly with housing problems in the mining villages, the arguments apply equally to the housing situation in the agricultural areas. It must be apparent to the Minister that something must be done to get men into our mining and agricultural districts, and housing undoubtedly plays a big part in the retention of our present labour force. The provision of houses in the mining areas encourages miners who are redundant in certain areas to go to the mining development areas.
Mining manpower today is less than 699,000 and the number is still falling. In the expanding areas of the Midlands, where labour is so necessary, the constant complaint of the National Union of Mine-workers has been that the lack of houses has helped to retard recruitment. No miner redundant in one county will move to another unless he can get a house for his wife and family. Where that facility is not available, he enters another industry in his own area and so is lost to mining.
212
Nor can the National Coal Board be expected to do more than it is at present doing to provide houses. It has done its best, and it already has commitments which it should not be carrying. The Board cannot be expected to spend millions of pounds on importing coal and, in addition, build houses for miners. The Board has opened discussions on the industry's housing priority needs and one hoped that in this Bill at least a special allocation would be made to meet the difficulties not only in the mining development areas but in other mining areas.
In our opinion, this Clause does not go far enough. On 2nd September last, this whole question was raised with the N.U.M National Executive by our people in the Midlands, the Executive being strongly urged to take action to get houses provided in the Midland development areas. Shortly afterwards the N.U.M. passed the following resolution:
"That the N.C.B. be requested to join with the Union in an endeavour to press the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the local authorities to make more provision for housing miners and, where this was not possible, the Coal Industry Housing Association should be requested to endeavour to build more houses."
The Coal Board, through its Director of Labour Relations, Mr. Sales, replied to that resolution on 31st October, 1955, and referred to a statement made by the then Lord Privy Seal on 20th July. 1955, when he said:
"We, as a Government, recognise the need for houses for miners in those districts where coal production can be expanded. We shall encourage that provision by dealing sympathetically with applications for extra allocations from local authorities who are willing to build more houses for this purpose."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1955; Vol. 544, c. 497.]
It will be noticed that the qualification is that the district must be one where coal production is expanding.
The letter goes on to say that the Government have opened discussions with the Coal Board and concludes:
"The Board appreciate your Union's interest in this matter. In the circumstances I have outlined, they do not feel that a joint approach to Ministers as suggested by your National Executive need be proceeded with at this stage, but are fortified in the knowledge of your Committee's support for the policy of securing increased local authority housing provision, in aid of the industry's manpower difficulties"
The Board goes on to say that, if necessary, it would join with the Union in pressing the point.

213
The N.U.M. feels that the policy enunciated by the Lord Privy Seal does not go far enough in the present difficult situation in the mining districts. The local authorities in the mining areas are also very much alarmed. This House must face the problem of attracting and retaining the necessary labour. That is very important. If we cannot get houses for those who would work in the pits, and cannot get houses for those already in the pits but living with their parents, the outlook will be very bad indeed. If we cannot get the miners then the balance of payments position will get worse, and we cannot maintain full employment if the manpower is not there to get the coal. That is the view of the National Union of Mineworkers and of the Coal Board.
The local authorities in these mining areas consider that they have had a very raw deal. In the old coalfields of Durham, South Wales, Northumberland and Scotland are to be found some of the worst housing conditions, left to us by the old coal owners in 1947. When they sunk their shafts in the last century the houses were built around the pithead, and in many places the pit heap extends to the back doors of the houses.
After nationalisation, the local authorities had not only to build houses for general needs but they had to deal with the terrible housing conditions of the mining community who were living in these old colliery houses. They had to consider this problem fairly, In nearly every case they decided, out of their allocation, to build both for general needs and slum clearance of old colliery houses. If they had used their allocations in recent years for building for general needs and had not attempted to clear up some of these bad houses left by the colliery owners, they would have been better off today. They would have had the subsidy for all the houses and would have used that subsidy for building for general needs, and now, under this Bill, they could have tackled the problem of the slums and would have got the subsidy for those houses.
The local authorities do not accept the Government's statement that houses to meet the needs of slum clearance and industrial development will make up for the loss of subsidy for houses to meet general needs. Slum clearance subsidies will not be given except to house people
214
now living in slum properties. This means that no authority will be allowed to build houses to replace those already vacated.
In the large mining constituencies in particular, in County Durham, Northumberland, and Wales, the local authorities which have done their duty in the past in rehousing miners from the awful slum conditions left by the previous colliery owners are to be penalised, whereas those authorities which were not alive to their responsibilities are now to be able to build to clear the slums with a full subsidy. Each family which has left slum property and has been re-housed in the past few years has meant one house less in those areas to meet the general needs.
The least that the Government can do is to allow for these houses which have been built for slum clearance in the last few years so as to bring the number of houses up to what it would have been had these local authorities not tackled slum clearance in these mining areas. Failure to do this will penalise those local authorities which have used their allocations to ease the situation of the slum dweller and at the same time build for general needs.
I want to deal with another side of this problem. I should like to refer to houses constructed to meet the needs in Development Areas, and I should like to know whether the Government are concerned in preserving the existing communal life and traditions of the mining areas. Subsidies are proposed to be paid in respect of houses built to accommodate people who are coming into the Development Areas from outside.
This raises another large problem. Can we expect a local authority in an expanding area to provide accommodation for those coming into the area, when the needs of its own population are not being met? We have been pressed, as miners, to accept Italian labour. There is great opposition to this suggestion in the mining areas, particularly in those areas where labour is needed. No final decision has yet been taken, and if British labour cannot be obtained and the labour position gets worse, we may have to face a very difficult problem in our miners' lodges.
What will be the situation then? Are the sons of miners to be condemned to live with their parents or rent part of

215
someone else's house because the local authorities are not given the necessary assistance to build for them? If the Italians are accepted, are we to have a situation in which young married miners have to live with their families while Italians obtain houses under this part of the Bill? Can we not imagine the immense difficulties of the local authorities when the local population see people from outside the area getting the houses while they themselves get none? The Government's proposals are a complete disregard of the social life of our mining villages and are an encouragement to the creation of social tensions which will be disastrous. The Government should make available the full subsidy for all industrial workers already in the areas, as well as for those coming in from outside.
Therefore, this Amendment has as its objective the reinstatement of the subsidy for those within the mining areas as well as for those coming from outside. If we are to keep our young men in this industry—and I may say that 3,000 or 4,000 have left to join the Army—they must have some hope of getting houses. We must ensure that the local authorities in these areas are not penalised for dealing with slum clearance.
If the Minister wants the necessary manpower in this industry, and if he wants to keep the men already in the industry, he should accept our Amendment. To fail to get the necessary manpower will result in a serious economic crisis in this country. The Minister can help both in this industry and in agriculture if he will accept this Amendment. The Minister may say that we are seeking special treatment for the agricultural and mining areas, but surely the special circumstances in these two great basic industries merit special treatment. Everything that can be done in every sphere of Government activity ought to be done to build up the manpower in these industries. To fail to do so will be dangerous to our economy in the years ahead.
I shall not deal with the burden of the loan charges, for some of my hon. Friends will no doubt deal with that matter. Nor will I deal with the abnormally high rents which will be paid for these houses in the future. The trade unions will have to deal with that matter in the wages field in the future. Increased
216
wage demands are bound to come as this policy develops.
I have dealt with the problem only from the point of view of manpower and the local difficulties which I can foresee. The trade unions and the Coal Board are united in their endeavour to aid in the industry's manpower difficulties. By accepting the Amendment the Minister can play his part to help to solve these problems of manpower in these vital industries. I believe that not to do so will create social tensions in the areas, will most certainly further harden the men in their attitude to foreign labour, and above all will make it more difficult to keep the young men we now have and to bring others into the industry.
4.0 p.m.
Mr. Julian Snow (Lichfield and Tam-worth): The Committee is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) for the clear way in which he has described the social implications of the Government's proposals. I can speak only from the point of view of someone who has not his experience of the industry but who represents one of the receiving areas in this big movement of miners from the old played-out areas to the new, developing and expanding areas of the industry.
During the Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) asked whether the special subsidy would be applicable to the mining industry, and the Minister's reply was quite emphatic. He said:
"The answer is, no. It is the normal duty and responsibility of a local authority to provide houses for the people who live in its area."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1955; Vol. 546, c. 803.]
I draw the Committee's attention to the last few words, "who live in its area." It seems to me that the Government have set their faces against the planning of housing as applied to an industry where these great movements are going on. I, personally, acquit the Minister of this, but I cannot help feeling that, politically speaking, his party has a bias against the miner. It is a bias which one senses when one reads in the Press the speeches of back bench Members of the Conservative Party. It is a bias originating, I think, from the fact that politically I cannot see the miners ever voting other than Labour—and for very good reasons, too, historically.

217
Since I see the Minister frowning, I call in evidence a speech by the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch), to whom I gave warning that I would refer to this matter. At Devonport during September, on the subject of miners and their pay claims, he said, among other things:
"I think the most selfish workers in this country are the miners. Today, through their lack of efforts, we are having only 30 million tons of coal…instead of 50 million tons before the war…Millions of pounds have been spent on new machinery and equipment in the mines, providing baths and other amenities. For what effect? For less coal and to pay the miners £20 or £30."
It will not be uninteresting to note that that speech was suppressed by the Press department of the Conservative Central Office. I am not surprised; they were probably wise. But I am of the opinion—and I can but speak for myself—that this is symptomatic of the general attitude of the Conservative back benchers, and I think that the effect of this attitude on the Minister is reflected in the way in which the Bill is being handled. For that reason I am very happy to support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring.
At the receiving end, those of us who represent Midland divisions see a situation in which local authorities are confronted with problems which are virtually impossible to solve. Let us consider the effect on my own constituency of Lichfield and Tamworth and specifically the new and expanding area of Rugeley. A new pit, Lea Hall pit, is being sunk there, and already the Coal Industrial Housing Association has produced 705 houses to cope with the housing demand—but that is by no means a final answer to the problem. In addition, adjacent to the pit site is the new development of a big turbo-electric generating station which the local authority say will involve the employment of a further 500 men who, with their families, will have to be housed.
As my hon. Friend said, it is not just a question of finding accommodation for miners, their wives and their immediate families. Many of these miners, who are coming to the area from such constituencies as that of my hon. Friend, have sons and daughters of a marriageable age who are themselves demanding homes. I have often wondered whether the posi-
218
tion had been made clear to them before they left their original homes and whether they had been told that there would be no Government provision entitling them to a special allocation of houses. It by no means stops there, because very probably there has been a local demand for light industries to absorb the young women into industry. These light industries have attracted key workers and others who, in turn, have demanded houses.
I think I can best exemplify this situation by saying that whereas, in 1952, the population in Rugeley was approximately 8,000, it now stands at 12,000 and is increasing. The rateable value is about £50,000 and the housing indebtedness stands at £760,000. Here we have an authority being increasingly loaded with an industrial population for which, under the present terms of the Bill, the Government are making no provision. If this is to go on, the increase in rentals will be substantial and will create the sort of friction to which my hon. Friend refers.
The same thing, although to a lesser extent, applies to Tamworth, the population of which includes a substantial element from the North Warwickshire field. There the local opinion is that this Bill will mean complete stagnation in local authority building.
Beyond this immediate question of providing houses for an incoming mining population and their families, the whole of the Midland area is bedevilled by the question of overspill, because the uncertainty of some of the major decanting authorities about overspill means that the receiving, smaller authorities on the periphery do not know how to plan. This Bill makes the position considerably worse.
I am of the opinion that the Amendment is justified on the ground that it must force the Government to realise that if in the national economic interest industrial communities are shifted and new industry is imposed on an area, they must take responsibility for the provision of houses without imposing further financial burdens on the existing residents.
Mr. Jack Jones: I want to support the Amendment and to raise the question of another of our fine basic industries. I must declare a vested interest on this occasion; I have recently

219
been dealing with this very problem and am still dealing with it.
The steel industry is in the process of development, and it is very necessary that it should develop because it has a tremendous backlog of development to overtake. In the area in which I live, and in which I work part-time, we have 137 houses belonging to a steel corporation, built within a very few hundred yards of the point of production. This corporation is very anxious to rehouse these people, take down this property and develop so that it can produce more material and do work which, at present, it cannot do.
Land has been sought and the local authority has been approached, but the Government have come forward with the credit squeeze and are doing away with the subsidy so that the question arises whether that corporation, in addition to its development programme, can go ahead with its scheme for 137 houses in a decent part of the countryside adjacent to the works. The result is that it has to go slow to see what the position will be under this new Measure of the Government.
The word "development" should be more clearly defined; it should be made clear what is meant by "industrial development." I hope the Minister will tell us whether it means that steel corporations or companies seeking to modernise, getting every square foot of space available and in the process taking down property which should have been taken down long ago, will lose the subsidy which they might have had but for the declaration of the Government.
The steel industry does not make quite so much noise about this situation as the mining industry, but it is in exactly the same position. It is seeking to get young, efficient personnel to come into the industry and to stay in it. Unless guarantees can be given to young, able technicians that they, their wives and families, will be properly housed, the steel industry, in addition to the mining and agricultural industries, is bound to suffer. Good as the steel industry is and low as its prices are, the gap between our costs of production and those of Germany, Russia and other steel producing countries is decreasing.
220
The Minister knows something about the industry, as he was associated with it when at the Ministry of Supply. Knowing the need for this development, I hope he will tell us that corporations which are willing and ready to set up housing associations may benefit from the special subsidy as those developments are in the national and the international interest and that they will not be told that because of the credit squeeze and removal of subsidy their rehousing cannot go ahead.
Steel workers, like miners, would like to know whether the Government intend to see that every facility and financial advantage shall be given to their industry and to the mining and agricultural industries. Then we can bring about a situation in which we may house people at the lowest cost and in the best conditions to create the morale which will give the incentive to produce at the lowest cost and thus compete in world markets.
4.15 p.m.
Mr. Tom Brown: I wish to support this Amendment very strongly. There are many problems facing the mining industry today, but two of those problems transcend all others. One is the difficulty of maintaining manpower in the industry and the other the difficulty of recruiting more miners. One obstacle to maintaining manpower in the industry is without question the problem of housing and one of the difficulties in getting recruits for the mines is the question of housing.
Fortunately, or unfortunately, the National Coal Board has to do what private enterprise had to do—to go to districts where coal can be found. It cannot transfer the coal to districts where people live. In many districts where deep-mined production has been going on for many years the seams are becoming worked out. My division was purely a mining district—it has been giving deep-mined coal to Britain since 1546—but now in many parts of the division the seams are exhausted. Having exhausted the coal seams and sections which the Divine Creator gave us centuries ago, now, to earn their livelihood in coal pits, men have to go elsewhere. When they go elsewhere they find that houses are not provided for them and they reluctantly leave the industry.

221
These men cannot be expected to travel long distances. Local authorities are doing their best to provide accommodation for the inflow of miners to the districts where coal seams are situated and who come from the out-worked districts, but in view of this Bill local authorities will find that very difficult. In my judgment, the easier the Minister can make it for housing authorities to build houses the easier it will become for the Coal Board to maintain manpower and recruit manpower. If men can find a job near at hand we cannot get them to travel long distances.
Many miners have left the industry—who can blame them?—because of the long distances they have to travel to work. It might surprise the Committee when I say that in Lancashire there has not been a shaft sunk for more than 35 years. Now, three big development schemes are starting. One is in the St. Helens area, at Sutton Manor, one at Moseley Common—which is not quite a sinking, but what we call a stripping—and one at Bradford Colliery, Manchester, all development work which ought to have taken place years ago.
All these developments will require men, not only for the development, but when it is completed, as men will be required then to equip the coal faces. Therefore, I say that the easier the Minister can make it for local authorities and housing associations to supply houses for miners, the easier it will be for the Coal Board to recruit manpower.
I will give an illustration. In the White Moss pit at Bickerstaffe, near Skelmers-dale, where the pits have closed, many men travelled long distances in that area. They had to get up at five o'clock in the morning in order to reach the coal face by half-past seven. First, they have to board a bus to travel to the railway station from their homes, then go by train to a point near the colliery and then travel on another bus before they arrive at the pits. By the time they have reached the coal face they have been travelling—this is no exaggeration—for two-and-a-half hours or more. What businessman would allow his employees to travel so long before reaching the point of production?
But there is something further which is of vital importance from the point of view of production. When the men get to the pit they have to travel a mile-and-a-half.
222
two miles or even three miles underground. How can we expect to maintain manpower in the pits when the men have to suffer these great inconveniences? Men have told me, when I have asked them to continue to work in the pits, "It is all right for you to talk, but how can you expect us to travel these long distances?" Although they are supposed to work an eight-hour day, they are away from home from five o'clock in the morning until five o'clock at night, in very many cases.
I ask the Minister to visualise what is happening in the mining areas. I know that he possesses a great deal of sympathy. It was his birthday yesterday, so surely he is feeling a little generous. It may be that he received a few birthday presents which have elevated and inspired him. Let us hope that his inspiration will be carried into these discussions and accept the Amendment. After all, he wishes to help the nation, and everyone who helps the mining industry, or the steel industry or the agriculture industry is helping the nation. I appeal to the Minister to see that serious consideration is given to this Amendment.
We feel keenly about this matter, because it is something that we have experienced and not something which we have read in text-books. Thirty years ago there were 80,000 men in the mining industry in Lancashire. Today, it is difficult to get 40,000, because of the closing of pits and the difficult travelling conditions. These travelling difficulties have come more forcibly to my notice during the last few months. When fog descends upon us in the winter months, many miners cannot get to the pits because there are no travelling facilities to enable them to proceed to their work.
Hon. Members opposite have expressed criticisms, but they do not understand the conditions. We cannot open up a pit in the same way as a factory gate and let the men in. They must be allowed to descend into the pit a few at a time. Man-winding ceases at seven o'clock, and if a man is not in the lamp room at ten minutes to seven, his lamp is stopped and he has to go back home. That is not his fault. It is the fault of the weather, over which neither he nor the Coal Board has any control. Obviously, we must provide accommodation for these men within easy travelling distance of the pit yard. We

223
are not asking, as was done in bygone days, that houses be built in the pit yard. The miners are entitled to what little salubrious atmosphere we have in the mining areas and their houses should be sited accordingly. But we must make sure that they are within easy travelling distance of the pit.
There is nothing outrageous in this Amendment, nothing that will cost the Department much money. But in the interests of recruitment, of the men already in the industry and of coal production, it is the duty of the Minister to accept this Amendment if possible.
Mr. Aneurin Bevan: I do not rise now to curtail the debate, but merely to try to establish a sort of precedent. As the Minister knows, we have made certain arrangements about time, and it would, therefore, be convenient if the Minister found it possible to reply towards the middle of the section of the Bill with which we are now dealing rather than at the end, otherwise the debate will run into the forthcoming section. The sooner he replies the better we shall be pleased.
Dame Irene Ward: If an arrangement has been made, may the rest of the Committee know what it is?
Mr. Bevan: An arrangement has been made by courtesy of the Opposition. The Opposition need not, in fact, make any arrangement at all. It lies with the Opposition to use the time at their disposal.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): Like all hon. Members who have spoken so far in this debate, I represent a constituency under which coal is mined. The Committee will, therefore readily conceive that this problem is not likely to have been approached either without experience or without sympathy.
There are two distinct cases involved which, I think, it will be convenient for the Committee to consider separately. The first is the case of mining labour coming into a local housing authority's area from outside. The other is that of the demand for housing accommodation inside the local authority's area coming from the mining industry itself. I should like to take, first, the former of those two
224
cases, namely, the movement into the area from outside of labour required to work in the mines in that area. Indeed, it was to that aspect of the case that the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) and the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) almost entirely directed their attention, and which, I believe, is the nub of the problem.
If the Committee will examine Clause 3 (3,d) of the Bill, they will find that the higher rate of subsidy, that is to say, an Exchequer subsidy of £24 per annum, is available, for a dwelling
"provided by a local authority for the accommodation of persons coming from outside the area of that authority in order to meet the urgent needs of the industry"—
and then follow the conditions—
"where the dwelling has been so provided in accordance with arrangements approved by the Minister as being desirable by reason of special circumstances …"
4.30 p.m.
Then, in the following subsection, there is the corresponding proviso, where a house is similarly provided by a development corporation. That paragraph of that subsection was designed mainly to meet this problem which has been under discussion today. My right hon. Friend, in the Second Reading debate, indicated that explicitly when he said:
"It is the coal mining industry that we have particularly in mind in including this provision in the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November 1955; Vol. 546, c. 802.]
So that where an influx of labour required for the well-being of the coal mining industry into an area was in prospect then the houses provided to accommodate that influx of labour, subject, of course, to the conditions specified in that paragraph, would attract the higher subsidy.
Mr. Snow: It is, of course, those conditions about which we are so suspicious. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but surely the provisions in Clause 3 are permissive? We are trying to impose an obligation on the Minister.
Mr. Powell: Yes; no doubt the exact wording of Clause 3 can be considered when we come to Clause 3. The point at the moment is that the object of that paragraph is to deal with an influx of labour duly certified as required for the mining industry from outside the area of the local housing authority. Where that

225
requirement exists, then it will be met, and the higher rate of subsidy will be payable under that paragraph of Clause 3.
Mr. G. R. Mitchison: The hon. Gentleman has referred to a part of that subsection, and one does not want to discuss it in detail at this stage, but he will notice that there have to be special conditions. Are we to take it that an influx of miners will be regarded as a special circumstance, and that an influx of steel workers will not be excluded?
Mr. Powell: In considering this Amendment we are, of course, discussing an influx of miners, but the hon. and learned Member will observe that that paragraph is not drawn so as to refer specifically to miners, so it cannot exclude by its terms other forms of labour which may be required for the urgent needs of industry to move from one area to another.
Mr. Bevan: Let us take, for example, a rural area, the rural authority being the housing authority. Do we understand that the hon. Gentleman, in referring to Clause 3 (3,d) means that if a number of people are required to be moved from one part of the rural area a considerable distance to another part of the rural area where new industrial development takes place, this provision would also apply?
Mr. Powell: The right hon. Gentleman has now provided me with my transition from the first to the second of the two cases which we are considering.
Mr. T. Brown: I am listening with great interest to the Parliamentary Secretary. Suppose a local authority starts a great housing scheme, including a number of miners' houses. What will be the position of the local authority having regard to the subsidy provisions of the Bill?
Mr. Powell: I think we must beware of being drawn at this stage into consideration in detail of the wording of Clause 3 What I am establishing now is that there is provision later in the Bill for this problem so far as it concerns an influx of labour from outside for the needs of industry to be met.
I now consider the case of housing need inside a local housing authority's area which has to be met inside that local housing authority's area. Let us consider the case of a miner in that area falling
226
under that case. He is, presumably, on the local authority's housing waiting list, he has, presumably, been graded according to his priority, in accordance with the local scheme, on that list.
Therefore, anything which we do to place in a special position a house provided for a tenant who is a miner will inevitably cut across the allocation of priorities by the local authority. There will be two applicants for a house in that local authority's area, with an equal housing need, and the preference will be available to the one and not to the other because the former is a miner. I cannot think that that is a result which the Committee would wish to produce.
In many cases, as the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) reminded the Committee, miners will be living in houses which are unfit, and the replacement of those unfit houses will, of course, attract the higher rate of subsidy, which is the object of the Bill. The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring suggested that in some way the incomer was, by the Bill as it stands, being placed at an advantage as compared with the local applicant for housing.
Mr. Mitchison: We really cannot let pass that previous remark. There is no question of a higher rate of subsidy, but the question whether the existing subsidy of £22 1s. is to be kept on or not.
Mr. Powell: Higher than for general needs; higher than the subsidy which will be available under the Bill for general needs.
I turn to the point of the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring. If there were not this provision in the Bill to provide a higher subsidy for the house provided for an incoming applicant, for an applicant from outside, then, in the nature of things, there would be a great obstacle placed to a local authority's building houses for labour which has to be attracted to an area, and, therefore, if the same subsidy were provided internally as externally the whole purpose of attracting labour, upon which so much emphasis has rightly been placed by speeches in this debate, would be negatived.
Mr. Leslie Hale: The Parliamentary Secretary speaks, as he always does, with very great lucidity, but

227
who is to decide what are the urgent needs of industry? Is there any definition of the urgent needs of industry? What is to be the position in such a case as there was in Oldham a year or two ago, a case in which a housing estate is outside the borough? Is that "coming into the area" or is it not "coming into the area?" Who decides these things? What is the position? Is there any extra subsidy for miners' houses if the Coal Board closes the pit and the miners are obliged to seek other work? Who decides these things? Are they all to be left to the local authority only?
Mr. Powell: I think the hon. Member's questions turn upon the interpretation and administration of Clause 3. At the moment, I am only concerned to show the Committee that that Clause provides, and is intended to provide, facilities for the attraction and accommodation of labour in areas in which that labour is required to live, and that if the Committee makes this Amendment it will negative those results by producing a situation in which the local housing authority will not only have no inducement but will have a positive deterrent from providing houses for newcomers. It is on those grounds that I advise the Committee not to accept this Amendment.
Mr. Bevan: It is very unfortunate indeed that the attendance in the Committee at the moment is so small, because we are now having a brilliant illustration of a complete breakdown of administration by the Government. I will try to show what I mean by that, and then perhaps some hon. Members opposite will not continue to giggle. We have in this Chamber discussed over and over again the very serious situation which has come about as a consequence of the fact that, following on many years of neglect, the mining industry is now not providing sufficient coal for the internal consumption of the country and for export.
Everybody will admit—in fact, it has been said over and over again by successive Chancellors of the Exchequer—that the price of importing coal is a very serious drain on the country as a whole, and that it would be an excellent thing if we had more coal. I remember my old friend, Mr. Ernest Bevin, saying that if he had been able to dispose of the
228
same amount of export coal after the war as the party opposite were able to do before the war, the influence of our diplomacy would be enhanced very greatly indeed in the world. But as a consequence of the laissez faire methods of the party opposite, and of the progressive poisoning of the mining industry for generations, we have not been able to get that coal from the pits, despite the fact that, with an ageing population, the output per miner has been raised.
The problem of the mining industry is not—and hon. Members ought to think about this with some sense of responsibility—merely the problem of increasing the efficiency of the miners. This has been done better in Britain than in any other part of Europe since the war. The problem in the industry is getting more bodies into the pits—[An HON. MEMBER: "Italians."] Even Italians have to have houses. If we brought in Italians, Poles or aboriginals we should still be faced with the problem of finding houses for special industrial needs. So that intervention is irrelevant. In fact, if Italians were brought in, the housing programme of the Government would collapse even more than it has because there would be more bodies to provide for, unless we intended to shove the Italians into hostels. The hon. Member's interruption was ridiculous.
We are speaking about the necessity of making further provision for industrial expansion, particularly in the mining industry, and we are trying to find out the relationship between the Government's present housing policy and those industrial needs. I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary that his first essay from the Government Front Bench has been to defend the necessity of Government intervention to correct the behaviour of free enterprise. We have listened to lectures from him over and over again about how everything would be all right if only we allowed private greed to operate without any intervention from the State. We have now had a defence of Clause 3 which has been put forward to try to modify the misbehaviour of private greed. I hope we shall have a number of other conversions from him, as we have had from his colleague who has now been transferred to the Ministry of Labour—his sparring partner, his "side-kick."

229
That is exactly what the hon. Gentleman is proposing. I remember, if I may be allowed to make a reminiscence, that when I was at the Ministry of Health we had a sharply increasing housing need in some mining areas where the capacity of the building industry was being used to the utmost. I want the hon. Gentleman to note this. There was not an additional mason, carpenter or plasterer to be found. Nevertheless, there was an expanding need for housing in some mining areas in Cannock and some parts of Durham—and how was it met?
4.45 p.m.
I will tell the right hon. Gentleman how it was met. I held a conference of the representatives of the local authorities concerned; and, despite their reluctance, persuaded them to take a large number of aluminium bungalows—permanent houses. They were at first resistant because they thought that they would look too much like temporary houses, and, in the second place, there was a traditional objection to having non-traditional types. Nevertheless, I prevailed upon them to do so, because only by providing non-conventional houses of that sort could we sharply increase the local housing accommodation, and because, as a result of the behaviour of hon. Members opposite, the building industry had expanded where it was not required and did not exist where it was required.
It did not exist in the North and the West, in Scotland and in the old industrial areas, because, under the beneficent operation of private enterprise, light industry had expanded in the South and the South-East and, therefore, there was plenty of speculation by builders ready to enjoy soldiers' gratuities. In the West and the North, the building industry was working to capacity, and the only way in which we could provide additional accommodation quickly was by unconvention housing. So we put up a very large number of aluminium bungalows—and excellent ones, too, which were much enjoyed by those who lived in them. That is what we had to do then.
What is the Minister proposing? He is now proposing that he himself should be the judge—and I want hon. Members opposite to listen to this very carefully, if they will do me the honour, because I prophesy very many difficulties. We shall have this again when we come to Clause 5. It is always a sound principle that a
230
Minister ought to obtain from the House of Commons legislation which will limit, so far as possible, any exercise of arbitrary judgment by himself. There is nothing that brings the Administration more into conflict with public opinion than for a Minister appearing to be exercising discrimination as between different citizens. We shall find this again, as I have said, in Clause 5. The Minister, because of the ridiculous legislation which we are now having, has to meet special circumstances. He cannot get out of it and, therefore, he imposes upon himself the burden of determining what are those special circumstances.
I can see all kinds of quarrels between one local authority and another.
Mr. T. Brown: And between industry and industry.
Mr. Bevan: I can see all kinds of quarrels arising if the ipse dixit of the Minister has to determine this matter, and we have not an objective Parliamentary Statute, which we can discuss here. If it is across the road that a decision has to be made by pragmatic or empirical determinants we are bound to have trouble. In fact, one of the justifications for rigidity of legislation is that it is the most effective method of preventing the possibility of corruption in the Administration.
If the Minister can defend himself from behind his Statute, and say, "I will not do this, because I am not permitted by Parliament to do so" he can withstand all kinds of pressure, but if the Minister has deliberately deprived himself of that procedure, and if he asks Parliament that he himself shall decide it—and remember that we are dealing here with large sums of money—we [have the possibility of some industrialists having favours not granted to others.
We are considering an industrial expansion which might favour a particular company, not merely the Coal Board, not merely an institution not having a private interest. We are considering a number of companies in circumstances in which the provision of a number of houses would be a very considerable advantage against their rivals, it may be in the same industry. Here the Minister takes upon himself to decide the circumstances in which that decision is to be made.

231
Do hon. Members opposite think that that is good administration? If that kind of legislation becomes a practice, have hon. Members thought whether before long they will be able to protect British Administrations from serious charges of nepotism? I put that point—I do not want to over-emphasise it—for the serious consideration of hon. Members opposite.
I repeat that it has always been the tradition of Great Britain that Ministers must not be put in the position of having to exercise more discrimination than can possibly be avoided, because that discrimination in conditions of private enterprise might give an advantage to one person against another. Therefore, I consider that that device is clumsy and follows directly upon having reduced the subsidies, because with the existence of the subsidies it has been possible by cooperation between the Minister and the local authority to provide as sufficient additional housing accommodation as has been physically possible having regard to local building resources. I challenge anybody to deny that.
I was personally never enthusiastic about the Coal Board coming in to build houses. Neither are the miners, because we do not like tied houses at all. But where the Coal Board did come in it was very often in order to supplement local building resources by the use of large building contractors like McAlpine. Very often when we were able to secure information from the Coal Board as to where it was going to expand, it was possible to get the local housing authorities to co-operate. Therefore, the Parliamentary Secretary is hopelessly wrong when he states that we have to have one lot of houses with a higher housing subsidy and another lot with no housing subsidy at all in order to encourage local authorities to build houses and to secure the former houses. There is not the slightest piece of administrative evidence of that. All the evidence is the other way.
I come now to another point which, I hope, is of equal importance. It is not only essential that we should provide additional housing where there is local abnormal industrial expansion, but it is also necessary to prevent the seepage from the pits of miners who are already there. Hon. Members opposite seem to think that very unimportant indeed. There
232
is hardly a Member representing a mining constituency who does not know of young men who have left the pits to obtain housing accommodation elsewhere. I wish hon. Members opposite would realise that in modern society it is necessary to plan something. Consideration must be given to the fact that long-term collective planning is necessary to provide the requirements of modern industry, because modern industry is not mobile as other industry was before.
We spend hundreds of millions of pounds building steelworks, and similar sums sinking and developing coal pits, and it is not possible to do that without some thought of Governmental direction for the consequent activities. It is this hard fact that hon. Members opposite will not learn. They still think that we are in the nineteenth century. They will not realise that in modern society all successful industrial enterprise is a marriage between economic adventure and State planning.
In the case of the mining industries, we are trying to find out from the Minister how his policy prevents men from leaving the pits. It is becoming a very much greater difficulty because of the fact that in the mining areas new industries are being established. In the old days the mining areas were industrially monolithic. One had hardly anyone living there except miners, a few railway-men and shop assistants, but now, quite properly, new industries are established, contiguous to the pits, producing light goods of various kinds. Consequently, there is very strong competition for the available labour and if it is possible for youngsters to get a house somewhere else there is no reason at all why they should go on living in the inhospitable conditions of some of the mining areas.
Therefore, I want to know from the Minister how his proposals prevent seepage from the pits—because they deliberately discourage local authorities from building houses. That is the intention of hon. Members opposite. They will not admit it but we know that local authorities have said so. Housing plans are running down all over the country. This strange Minister used language on Second Reading which I do not understand. He said:
"It is the normal duty and responsibility of a local authority to provide houses for the

233
people who live in its area."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1955; Vol. 545, c. 803.]
Where is the Statute that imposes this duty on local authorities? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us?
Does the Conservative Minister of Housing and Local Government now say to all the local housing authorities with Conservative majorities that it is their normal duty to provide houses for their population? Does the Minister say that? Is that to go out in a Conservative leaflet? I should like to know. Is it now clear that a Conservative Minister of Housing and Local Government informs Conservative members of local authorities that, in his judgment, it is their normal duty to provide houses, despite the fact that no Government money is to be found? The Minister is talking nonsense. He is talking absolute rubbish.
The greatest difficulty about housing has been that it is a co-operation, a partnership, between the central authority and the local authority brought about by virtue of the fact that the central authority is prepared to finance and to assist the local authority to do the job.
Mr. G. Lindgren: Three to one.
Mr. Bevan: The Minister is silent on the subject.
I ask any hon. Member how it comes about that the provision of houses, which may be a burden to local rates, is more of a duty to the local authority than it is to the central authority. Since when has the provision of housing, which may be a financial burden, been more of a duty for the local authority than for the Government? For many years local authorities built no houses at all. There were whole areas of the country, especially the very rural areas, where not a single house was built for centuries until we built them after the war. We had to provide special facilities for constructing houses in the rural areas, but this was regarded, not as the normal duty of the local authority; it was regarded as a social necessity which could be met successfully by the local authority with Government help.
5.0 p.m.
We want to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether, if it is the duty of the local authority to do so, he will tell
234
us what powers he possesses to make the local authority do its duty if it does not do so? We know that there are these powers for public health, but I do not think there are any for housing. If a local authority says to the Ministry that it will not build the houses, I do not think that the Minister can compel it. What he could do under the powers of 1946 is to step in, establish a housing association and build the houses himself. At that time I asked the House for powers to do so, and those powers probably still exist, but I do not think that the Minister has the power to say to the local authority, "You ought to be building more houses and, if you do not do so, I shall have to do something about it. "If the local authority says to him," Mr. Minister, why should we build houses in this area which will be a burden upon the local rates because their cost is so great?"—as many have said already—what can he do?
This matter has been badly thought out. In listening to the catcalls of the yellow Press, and in yielding to pressure to bring about a reduction in housing subsidies from the centre, the Minister is dismantling a form of Government control and Government economic direction very much in the interests of the future economic life of the country. Therefore, we want to know from him how he proposes to try to marry his proposals to what may be the most important needs of British industry.
I beg hon. Gentlemen opposite not to imagine that the Government can make exhortations about greater production such as the Prime Minister made at Bradford the other day—what humbug it is, nauseating humbug, to talk about greater production and the necessity for Great Britain being viable—and then solemnly in the House of Commons, by a Bill of this description, to destroy the very powers necessary to assist that important process. The Government benches must think again in order to discover how they can relate housing policy to the industrial needs of the country.
Mr. Ellis Smith: I appeal to the Minister to reconsider the reply made on his behalf by the Parliamentary Secretary. It is generally admitted that one of our most urgent economic needs is a great increase in the output of coal, and that the men working

235
at the coal face are making the greatest contribution to our well-being of any section of the community.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) and I recently spent four hours down a pit. We were taken to the coal face. Anyone inclined to be critical of the miners ought to undergo a similar experience. Never in history did any section of our community more conscientiously give of their best than the men at the coal face. The miners' trade union is co-operating with the Coal Board, which is manned by men supported by officials who are striving to solve our immediate economic problem: how can coal output be increased?
If we accept that line of reasoning—and all well-informed people are bound to accept it—we can take the next step. It is now admitted that many of our coalfields are being worked out, so the immediate problem is to induce the men and their families there to agree to transfer to other areas where the industry is expanding. For instance, in our area millions of pounds are being sunk in new shafts and in modernising old pits. So our greatest problem is to induce men from other parts of the country to come to our area, where they are needed urgently. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd), from his own experience, will confirm practically every word I am saying. As a result of consulting the local mining officials on this problem we are told that the men are prepared to consider transferring, but are anxious about housing.
That is why I am appealing to the Minister to reconsider this matter before we are forced to go to a Division. I understood that there was no division between us on this issue of national policy. If that is so, we ought to do all we can to ease the transfer of men who are asked to leave worked-out pits for expanding areas.
I have said that we were taken to the coal face when we were down the pit. The manager, Mr. Bennett, introduced us to a number of men who had produced the greatest amount of coal. In reply to a question put to him, one of those men replied, "Yes, but I want a house worthy of my output and worthy of my family." I ask the Minister to prove to this Committee and to the mining industry that
236
he desires to implement what we understood was agreed national policy in order to assist the miners in this difficulty.
Mr. Stephen Swingler: I want to reinforce the appeal of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) to the Minister to reconsider this matter. The Parliamentary Secretary must know, from the district he represents, that what he said this afternoon will meet with the most hostile reception in the areas which are expected to build houses for mine workers coming from other parts of the country. In fact, the speech of the hon. Gentleman is an incitement to those local authorities to refuse to continue to cooperate with the coal industry in this policy, and I will tell him why.
Already, the members of those local authorities, such as the one I represent, consider that they have been double-crossed by the Government. Some years ago, under this Government, my local authority was persuaded to give up valuable sites in an area where we are chronically short of sites for housing incoming mine workers. As a contribution, we gave up 300 houses out of our allocation for workers coming in from other parts of the country, and we built houses on a 55 acre site.
The Minister knows very well that Newcastle-under-Lyme has complained about the difficulty of getting land for housing every year in the last five or six years. Owing to mining subsidence, slag heaps and marl works, we are always competing with agriculture to obtain the land which is available, because it is the only land on which houses can be built. Every plot of land to meet housing needs has to be fought over with representatives of agriculture. My local authority was persuaded to give a valuable site and to build a quantity of houses for incoming mine workers on the understanding that the people on the council's waiting list would continue to receive the same treatment in the form of Government subsidy, as in the past. The local representatives had to stand the unpopularity of allocating 300 houses to people coming from outside in preference to those on the council's priority list, local people who had a general housing need.
What is the situation now? It is one for which the local authority has no

237
responsibility at all, that some of the people on the list cannot get houses on the same basis as that on which houses were being built previously because the Minister has decided to cut the subsidy. As a result of the Minister's deliberate policy, those people will receive houses at higher rents. Therefore, I say that the local authority has been double-crossed by the central Government in being persuaded to postpone the rehousing of local citizens, on the understanding that they would eventually be rehoused on the terms that existed at that time, in order that houses should be specially allocated to citizens coming from outside for the purposes of expanding industry.
That is one of the consequences of the Minister's policy, and it is a consequence which produces the utmost bitterness on the part of some members of local authorities. Perhaps the Minister is beginning to realise that because of the reception which some of his friends had from the Urban District Councils' Association. It is because many representatives of local authorities, naturally and rightly, feel that a very fast one has been put across them in this respect. The result is that they are not too favourably disposed to continue to co-operate in special schemes for housing people from outside their areas which mean that the people they have been elected to represent later meet less favourable conditions.
This afternoon the Parliamentary Secretary argued that the subsidy should not be continued for the housing of local mine workers because when the local authority representatives considered their waiting lists they would give preferential treatment to local mine workers if they were to obtain a subsidy for housing them as against those people on the list who were merely in the category of having a general housing need. Yet the Minister says that he is prepared to continue the subsidy in respect of those coming from outside whose labour is necessary for expanding industry. He is prepared to incite local authorities to discriminate in favour of those people but not in favour of local people who are required to work in the industry.
How does the right hon. Gentleman think that local authority representatives elected by the local mine workers who require houses will carry out a policy of deliberately discriminating in every way in favour of outside mine workers? Has he
238
any knowledge at all of the situation? He must know that those representatives cannot do anything of the kind, for it would be completely undemocratic.
5.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary represents an area in the West Midlands where a great deal of labour is urgently required for coal mining and it can only be obtained if houses are built, and some of the houses must be occupied by people coming from other mining districts. There must be housing schemes for those people. The hon. Gentleman knows that the whole thing will break down if this policy is foisted on local authorities. I will not persuade any local authorities deliberately to discriminate in this way at the incitement of the Minister while deliberately neglecting the interests of the local mine workers needing houses whom they were elected to represent.
It is a fantastic policy to expect local authorities to carry out. It is impossible to conceive that it can be done unless the result is to be that for every mine worker coming from outside to man the pits a local mine worker is to be persuaded to leave the pits, for the local mine workers will be disgusted at such a policy of discrimination.
There are already sufficient difficulties in the reception areas about which the Minister should know. There are difficulties about the removal of families to strange parts of the country which they do not know, problems of providing amenities, and problems of differences between one coalfield and another, different working conditions, different conditions of pay sometimes, and different ways of working. There are already enough difficulties to be overcome in order to obtain a co-operative spirit on housing estates and in the pits in areas where large numbers of people are brought in from outside.
I know this because I have housing estates in my constituency which are occupied in the proportion of 50 per cent. of people coming from South Wales, Durham and Scotland and 50 per cent. local mine workers who have been in need of rehousing. All kinds of social and psychological problems arise in such cases. Yet the Minister is expecting to superimpose on them the problem of deliberate discrimination in favour of incoming mine workers because there will

239
be subsidies for their houses but no subsidies for the houses of local mine workers.
The Parliamentary Secretary should know perfectly well that one of the problems in manning pits in the West Midlands is one which often exists within a local authority area. There are many areas in which the problem arises of having to shift men over a distance of 10 to 20 miles so that they can work at a different pit. Many hon. Members opposite know something about that. Yet the Minister is proposing that there shall be no encouragement to local authorities to build houses for miners who have to move within the same local authority area. It is not much encouragement to local authorities if they are asked deliberately to neglect the problem of manning pits by means of a shift population within their own district when the Government are going to the trouble and difficulty of encouraging schemes to shift men hundreds of miles across the country.
The principle cannot be applied and is unworkable. Local authorities in reception areas will not be able to work it for good democratic reasons. It will be totally unpalatable to their people, just as unpalatable as the Minister's whole policy was to the Urban District Councils' Association, and for exactly the same reason.
I trust that even on this limited point the Minister will think again, unless it is his policy to stop this housing altogether. If he really wishes to pursue a policy of housing in connection with industrial expansion, he must have a policy in which the principle of equal justice for all is embodied.
Mrs. Harriet Slater: I should like to add my plea to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) and to put the point of view of a woman—the miner's wife. The Minister, more than any other Minister outside the Treasury, has incensed the housewives who are living in bad conditions and who have been on waiting lists for many years and who now, because of the Bill, see their chances of having a house receding.
The miners are now to be told that if they leave their area and the work in, say, Doncaster rather than North Staffordshire, they might get a house, but that if they
240
stay in their own area their chance will get less and less, because the local authority will be compelled to say that it cannot continue to build houses for people who stay in the district, because there is no subsidy. We have been told that the reason for giving the subsidy to incoming miners is that it will act as an incentive. If that is a logical argument, it should also be true that we need to provide decent houses as an incentive for those people who have worked in mining areas and lived in difficult conditions for a large number of years.
The Government are putting local authorities in an absolutely impossible position by refusing to consider the Amendment.
Mr. Hale: I do not want to delay the debate. I know about the time-table, but will my hon. Friend apply her mind to the problem of Lancashire corporations, largely elected by cotton workers, which will now apparently be told that they cannot build houses for cotton workers but can build houses only at the remotest possibility of a practical rent with a certificate from the Coal Board that the houses are needed for industry? How will they do that?
Will she also apply her mind to the problem, posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), of the man working at the coal face with the highest output, who is not living in what is actually a slum cottage, but who will be asked to pay a higher rent?
Mrs. Slater: That argument is perfectly valid and applies to all who are cotton workers, pottery workers, miners, or whoever they are. They are all doing a very necessary job in the production of essential commodities and are now being told that they cannot get houses unless they pay a higher rent than previously.
There is a peculiar difficulty in North Staffordshire. Latest statistics show that the incidence of pneumoconiosis is higher in North Staffordshire than in any other mining field. There we have literally hundreds of miners working at the face who will be told, even though their health may be impaired—not only through working in the mine, but because of their housing conditions—that their chances of getting houses will become less and less.

241
I therefore add my plea to that put by other hon. Members that the Minister will again look at this question and consider whether he could not make a concession in the interests of miners, no matter where they are, or from what area or country they come, and see whether the subsidy could not be given, whether or not they are incoming miners. If the policy of giving subsidies only for incoming miners is pursued, that will create a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction among men living in such areas. Imagine working at the face with a fellow from Doncaster who gets the subsidy while the North Staffordshire man does not, although he has worked in the pit in North Staffordshire for many years.
Mr. Hale: He has to go to Doncaster.
Mrs. Slater: There is no sense of British justice or of human understanding in that. There is a lack of understanding of the overall problem of the areas concerned.
More and more we need young men in the mines. The average age of miners is increasing and fewer young men are going to work in the pits. The Government are saying to the young men that they will not bother about their houses. Will that give young men any encouragement to work in the mines? Are the Government asking them to cut adrift from their families, to leave their associations, the churches or clubs to which they belong, to give up their interests, educational or otherwise—and miners have educational interests—the choirs to which many miners belong, and move to another area?
That is the psychological problem to which my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) referred. I ask the Minister to be sufficiently generous to say that he will have another look at the problem and give some encouragement to the miners living in the areas to which I have referred.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I should first like to answer one or two points raised by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). He asked where there was a duty laid upon local authorities to provide houses for the people. I should have thought that as a former Minister of Health who himself got a number of Measures on the Statute
242
Book he would have known that it is in Section 71 of the Housing Act, 1936, where duties are imposed upon local authorities to provide houses where necessary for the working-classes. It is also in the Housing Act, 1949, which was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman himself, by which the limitation of "working-classes" was removed leaving a general duty upon local authorities to provide houses for the population in their areas, regardless of any particular class to which the people might belong.
Mr. Lindgren: On behalf of my right hon. Friend who has been called away and will be back as soon as he can, may I ask whether, if there is this statutory obligation, as the Minister suggests, the right hon. Gentleman can give any instance where any local authority which failed to provide houses was called upon so to do by any Government? If it is a statutory obligation, then authorities which before the war failed to provide them should have been called upon so to do.
Mr. Sandys: It is to the credit of local authorities that they have lived up to their obligations and have provided houses to the utmost of their ability.
Mr. Bevan: I apologise for not being here; I have been at another meeting. Does the Minister seriously suggest that in the inter-war years local authorities, in rural areas for example, really provided accommodation necessary for the working-class? I am sure no hon. Member opposite would agree with him.
Mr. Sandys: We are getting a very long way from an Amendment about houses for miners in discussing how local authorities discharged their general duties towards the populations in their areas between the wars. I could not follow the right hon. Gentleman to that extent. The right hon. Gentleman asked me where the duty existed and I pointed out that it lay in Section 71 of the Housing Act, 1936, as amended by the right hon. Gentleman's own Housing Act, 1949, in which the limitation on the working-class was removed.
5.30 p.m.
I really do not think that I can pursue the general point any further. I cannot see that it has any great relevance to the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman made another point which I should like

243
to deal with in passing, though I do not think it is directly connected with this Amendment. He said that when he was Minister of Health he was faced with the problem of increasing the provision of houses in certain mining areas, where the building industry was already fully stretched. He resorted to the expedient of encouraging them to provide permanent aluminium bungalows. I understand that 15,000 of these were provided in all, and they were a useful addition to what the building industry could provide. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that any major contribution could be made by this sort of method at the present time. If he is, perhaps at another time he will develop that theory, and we will examine it.
Mr. Bevan: I could add also that another 21,000 special fabricated houses were built in rural areas for agricultural workers. The serious point is that the only effective instrument in the hands of the Minister to get local authorities to co-operate with him is to be able to show them that he is helping them financially to meet the need.
Mr. Sandys: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I did everything I could to encourage the development and adoption by local authorities of permanent prefabricated houses. When he took over the responsibility from me in 1945 he already found at Alexandra Palace an exhibition of permanent prefabricated houses showing that we had made considerable progress in that direction. They were not steel houses, but all kinds of permanent prefabricated houses, some two storeyed. He got local authorities to adopt quite a considerable number of them, but did not acknowledge the copyright.
I do not blame him, but there it is. This is just to show we are in agreement that a useful contribution can be made by permanent prefabricated houses. I do not think it is relevant to this issue, because these houses attract subsidy in the same way as do traditional houses, provided they come up to the required standard. No one is keener than the right hon. Gentleman that sub-standard houses should not be built by local authorities.
The right hon. Gentleman criticised the discretion provided to the Minister in the Bill. I do not think that arises on this
244
Amendment. It arises mainly when we come to the later Clauses, and I shall be happy to reply to the particular points raised. No doubt they will be raised again when we reach that part of the Bill. I do not want to duplicate the debate. So far as this Amendment is concerned there are two real issues. One is whether a higher subsidy should be given to encourage local authorities to build more houses for incoming miners. We are talking about miners, but, of course, the Bill does not specifically refer to miners.
Mr. T. Brown: Use the words "industrial workers."
Mr. Sandys: I might anticipate what will have to be said later when we come to Clause 3. It will clarify the position in this debate if I give the explanation why we put into Clause 3 the reference to "special circumstances." There are two main qualifications. One is that it has to meet the urgent needs of industry, and the other is the reference to "special circumstances." The point really was that we did not want this additional subsidy to be available for any industry of any kind which might say that it had an urgent need. We had particularly in mind industries of national importance like the mining industry, and we did not want it to be possible for every industry which might have urgent need for itself, but might not be of national importance, to be able to qualify for the special provision under this Clause.
Mr. Hale: Does this mean that the corporation of the greatest cotton spinning town in the world will not be able to get extra subsidies for cotton workers because the Tory Government have produced unemployment in the cotton industry, but might be able, in special circumstances, to get extra subsidies for almost any other industry?
Mr. Sandys: I never said anything of the sort.
Mr. Hale: The Minister does not want to say it, but that is what he means.
Mr. Sandys: I am not going to be drawn into discussing the cotton industry. Nothing I have said, and nothing in the Bill, would justify the hon. Member's deduction.
The second issue raised by the Amendment is whether a higher subsidy should be given for houses built for miners who

245
already live in the area, thus giving them some priority over other people in the area. I will deal with the first point separately. The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) said earlier in the debate that the Government must make it possible for a local authority in a receiving area—these are not his exact words but I think a fair summary—to build houses for the incoming population without placing an additional burden on the existing residents. That was one of the most important points the hon. Member made in his speech. The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said it was quite unnecessary to give this higher subsidy for houses for incoming miners as distinct from the provision for miners in general, whether incoming or whether already resident in the area. That is the whole purpose of this Amendment.
Mr. Bevan: I should not like it to go out from this Committee that I ever said it was unnecessary to provide the additional subsidy. I said it was unnecessary to have a differential subsidy for incoming miners as against local miners in order to persuade local authorities to concentrate on incoming miners.
Mr. Sandys: I accept that correction. The whole purpose of this provision is to deal precisely with the point made by the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth; that is to say, to enable a local authority to undertake an expansion of its housing programme for the purpose of accommodating incoming miners and work people for other important industries which we consider it might otherwise be deterred from doing by reason of the fact that this would place an additional burden on itself and on those already resident in the area. It is difficult to expect a local authority to accept a burden on behalf of its residents for the purpose of accommodating people coming in from outside. It is in order to create a greater readiness on the part of local authorities to undertake these expansion schemes that this additional subsidy is provided.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) said that this Bill will discourage local authorities from providing houses for miners moving into the area from outside. I cannot see how an increased subsidy for that purpose, as compared with that for houses provided for other purposes, can conceivably have
246
the effect of discouraging local authorities from building more houses for that purpose.
Mr. Swingler: May I repeat to the Minister what I said? I said that it will discourage them for the precise reason that the Minister is asking them to discriminate against local miners. I think that the representatives in mining areas will be discouraged at being asked to discriminate against the local men and that they will refuse to operate this provision.
Mr. Sandys: I cannot see that it will discourage them. It may have no effect on them, but I believe that it will encourage them. The fact that they are offered a higher subsidy cannot positively discourage them from doing what otherwise they would have done if the subsidy had been lower.
Mr. Swingler: The Minister keeps talking about a higher subsidy. That is not true. What he is doing is cutting the subsidy for the local miners, and that will discourage them.
Mr. Sandys: Before the hon. Gentleman gets so worked up I wish he would look at the Bill——
Mr. Swingler: That is what the Bill does.
Mr. Sandys: This Bill provides a higher subsidy for this particular purpose——
Mr. Swingler: Higher than what?
Mr. Sandys: Higher than the present subsidy. It is £24 compared with £22 1s. and that I regard as higher——
Mr. Swingler: And a lower subsidy for the local miners.
Mr. Sandys: The hon. Gentleman interrupted me and said that I was wrong in saying that we were providing a higher subsidy for this purpose.
Mr. Lindgren: The right hon. Gentleman is really playing with words. What, in fact, he is doing is making the subsidy of £22 1s. into a £24 subsidy by taking away the obligation of the local authority to make a rate subsidy, so that, in fact, he is reducing the subsidy. That is the intention of it. He is taking away the whole, so far as the other subsidy is concerned.
Mr. Sandys: The suggestion is that this will discourage local authorities. The argument was, first, that it is not a higher subsidy, and I pointed out that it is. It is £24 instead of £22 1s. Now the hon. Gentleman says that it is really a lower subsidy because the statutory obligation to make a rate contribution is removed. But it will not discourage local authorities. They can still make a rate contribution. They can make a higher rate contribution if they wish to do so, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent them from doing that. It is quite ridiculous to suggest that this provision can possibly act as a discouragement to local authorities to build more houses for incoming miners. When hon. Members think further about it, they will see the absurdity of making a contention of that kind.
Mr. Lindgren: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister again, but this is a vital point. Is he unaware—and if he is, his Department is not—that many authorities considering overspill schemes have already cancelled their negotiations with other local authorities, because of changes in the subsidy. That applies to the L.C.C. schemes and to Birmingham.
Mr. Sandys: Statistics and figures are only beginning to come in now, but from what I see of the applications which we are receiving from local authorities for the approval of tenders for new houses, there is nothing to justify the sweeping contentions made in this Committee, and in the House, that these changes in subsidy rates will result in local authorities stopping house building.
If what I read in the newspapers about the proceedings of an important conference of the party opposite over the weekend was correct, it appears that the party opposite also do not think that it is by any means impossible for local authorities to build houses even now with the reduced subsidies. If they had thought that it was not possible, obviously, they would not have recommended local authorities to go ahead with their house building.
Mr. Bevan: In order to make the point quite clear—because we are very anxious indeed that a great public service of this sort should not be mutilated more than it need be—may I say that what we have said, in effect, is that we do not think that those who badly need houses ought to be the first victims of the right
248
hon. Gentleman's policy; and we are therefore advising local authorities to go on building houses, in the hope that someone better will soon succeed the right hon. Gentleman and change the policy.
Mrs. Slater: Before the Minister replies——
Mr. Sandys: I should like to reply to the right hon. Gentleman.
I think it is really the case that the party opposite saw that local authorities were, in fact, going to continue building houses, as they have always done, and that they would be well able to do so with the reduced subsidy. In order to get itself "on side" again, the party opposite thought it better to advise local authorities to do what in any case they were going to do.
5.45 p.m.
Mr. Lindgren: Does the right hon. Gentleman take that view——
The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): Order. I appeal to the Committee to conduct its business by debate and not merely by interruptions.
Mr. Lindgren: With permission, Sir Rhys, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he takes a similar view about the resolution passed by the Urban District Council Association at its meeting on Friday last, at which some of his right hon. and hon. Friend's were present? The Association condemned the Government, and asked for the withdrawal of the Bill and that the right hon. Gentleman should receive a deputation seeking the withdrawal of the Bill.
The Deputy-Chairman: This seems to me to be going beyond the scope of the Amendment.
Mr. Sandys: I do not wish to anticipate what I shall say when I receive the deputation. It seems to me that these matters are better discussed here. If the Bill is to be rejected, it is better that it should be rejected by the House of Commons rather than by an association of local authorities.
One hon. Gentleman—I think it was the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton)—said that there would be houses for Italians, but none for the local miners. I think that there is a misunderstanding about this matter. This higher subsidy for the provision of houses

249
for incoming miners and others to meet the urgent needs of the industry, is intended to have the effect of increasing the number of houses built in the area. The purpose is not to induce local authorities to divert a certain number of houses to Italians or to other people. Incidentally, I do not think that the Italians will be flattered by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale coupling them with aborigines and others in his speech.
Mr. Bevan: I did not couple them with aborigines.
Mr. Blyton: Surely it is within the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman that we have been asked to accept Italians? The Italians will not live in tents. They will come into the development areas where they are needed; they will get houses, and the local miners will not.
Mr. Sandys: The only point I was trying to make clear—and I am glad that the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale has withdrawn his suggestion——
Mr. Bevan: No, I did not make it.
Mr. Sandys: Anyway, that he has removed any possibility of a misunderstanding in regard to that—if he looks at his speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow he will see that it is certainly open to that interpretation.
The point I was making was that the purpose of giving this higher subsidy is to encourage local authorities to build additional houses for the purpose of accommodating incoming miners and others to the area. I strongly resist the suggestion that the purpose of this subsidy is to induce local authorities to maintain their present level of house building in those areas and to divert houses from their own people to the people coming in from outside the area. That certainly is not our intention and we would certainly not introduce a provision for such a useless purpose.
Mr. Snow: In spite of your objection to constant interruptions, Sir Rhys, they are merited. There is still a lack of understanding of what the Minister means when he talks about a higher subsidy. Does he mean a higher subsidy under the provisions of Clause 3? If so, all I can say
250
is that we feel it is far too uncertain and leaves far too much to the discretion of the Minister.
Mr. Sandys: I shall deal with the question of discretion when we come to Clause 3. I have said about four times what I mean by a higher subsidy. It is £24 as opposed to £22 1s. at present. [An HON. MEMBER: "Under the authority of what Clause?"] Under the authority of Parliament, in the Bill. It has been suggested that this higher subsidy, or the £22 existing subsidy, should be payable not only for houses provided for incoming miners but also for houses provided for miners already living in the area. That would be the effect of the Amendment. I have said on an earlier occasion, and I repeat now, that the Government feel that houses for all people living in the area must be treated as a single problem by the local authority, which has its statutory duties to provide houses for its people.
We must preserve the principle, which is adopted by all local authorities and is well understood by the people who are in need of houses, that, except where there is a town expansion or a new town, or where the circumstances are quite abnormal, houses are provided in accordance with the relative housing needs of the various families. I really cannot agree with the suggestion in the Amendment which, if it were adopted, would give a miner resident in some area the right to jump the housing queue over the head of his neighbour, whose housing need might be very much greater than his. That would be quite inconsistent with the principles which have governed local authorities' handling of housing problems. It would be unjust, and would cause an immense amount of irritation and sense of grievance. For that reason I feel unable to recommend the Committee to accept the Amendment.
Mr. Bevan: Having regard to the wholly unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, my hon. Friends are bound to divide in favour of the Amendment.
Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 205, Noes 251.

Division No. 87.]

AYES

[5.52 p.m.

Ainsley, J. W.

Hayman, F. H.

Palmer, A. M. F.

Albu, A. H.

Healey, Denis

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

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

Parker, J.

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Herbison, Miss M.

Parkin, B. T.

Allen, Soholefield (Crewe)

Hobson, C. R.

Paton, J.

Anderson, Frank

Holman, P.

Pearson, A.

Bacon, Miss Alice

Holmes, Horace

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Bartley, P.

Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

Popplewell, E.

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

Howell, Denis (All Saints)

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Benson, G.

Hubbard, T. F.

Proctor, W. T.

Beswick, F.

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Pryde, D. J.

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

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Rankin, John

Blackburn, F.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Reeves, J.

Blenkinsop, A.

Hunter, A. E.

Rhodes, H.

Blyton, W. R.

Hynd, J. B. (Attereliffe)

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Boardman, H.

Irving, S. (Dartford)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

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

Janner, B.

Ross, William

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

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

Royle, C.

Brockway, A. F.

Jeger, George (Goole)

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs, S.)

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Brown, Thomas (Inoe)

Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Burke, W. A.

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Skeffington, A. M.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

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

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Callaghan, L. J.

Kenyon, C.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Carmichael, J.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Snow, J. W.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Ledger, R. J.

Sorensen, R. W.

Champion, A. J.

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Sparks, J. A.

Chapman, W. D.

Lever, Leslie (Ardwiok)

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Chetwynd, G. R.

Lewis, Arthur

Stones, W. (Consett)

Clunie, J.

Lindgren, G. S.

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Coldrick, W.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

Logan, D. G.

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

Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

Mabon, Dr. J. D.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

MaoColl, J. E.

Swingler, S. T.

Cove, W. G.

McGhee, H. G.

Sylvester, G. O.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

McInnes, J.

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Cronin, J. D.

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Daines, P.

MoLeavy, Frank

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Thornton, E.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Mahon, S.

Timmons, J.

Dodds, N. N.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Tomney, F.

Dye, S.

Mallalleu, E. L. (Brigg)

Usborne, H. C.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Mallalleu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)

Viant, S. P.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Warbey, W. N.

Edwards, Robert (Bllston)

Mason, Roy

Weitzman, D.

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Mayhew, C. P.

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Mellish, R. J.

West, D. G.

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Messer, Sir F

Wheeldon, W. E.

Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

Mltohison, G. R..

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Fernyhough, E.

Monslow, W.

Wilkins, W. A.

Fienburgh, W.

Moody, A. S.

Willey, Frederick

Forman, J. C.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Williams, David (Neath)

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

Mort, D. L.

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tilery)

Gibson, C. W.

Moss, R.

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

Gooch, E. G.

Moyle, A

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Greenwood, Anthony

Mulley, F. W.

Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

Grey, C. F.

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Griffiths, David (Rather Valley)

Oram, A. E.

Winterbottom, Richard

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Orbach, M.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

Oswald, T.

Yates, V. (Ladywood).

Hale, Leslie

Owen, W. J.

Zllliacus, K.

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Padley, W. E.

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hastings, S.

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Mr. G. H. R. Rogers and Mr. Deer.

NOES

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Atkins, H. E.

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Aitken, W. T.

Baldoek, Lt.-Cmdr J. M.

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Alport, C. J. M.

Baldwin, A. E.

Bidgood, J. C.

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Balniel, Lord

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathooat (Tiverton)

Barber, Anthony

Bishop, F. P.

Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

Barlow, Sir John

Body, R. F.

Armstrong, C. W.

Baxter, 8ir Beverley

Bossom, Sir A. C.

Ashton, H.

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

252

253

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

Hirst, Geoffrey

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

Boyle, Sir Edward

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Holt, A. F.

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

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

Hope, Lord John

Page, R. G.

Bryan, P.

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

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

Horobln, Sir Ian

Partridge, E.

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Burden, F. F. A.

Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

Pitman, I. J.

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(SaffronWalden)

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

Pott, H. P.

Carr, Robert

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

Powell, J. Enoch

Cary, Sir Robert

Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Channon, H.

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

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Chichester-Clark, R.

Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

Profumo, J. D.

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Hyde, Montgomery

Raikes, Sir Victor

Cole, Norman

Iremonger, T. L.

Ramsden, J. E.

Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Rawlinson, Peter

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Redmayne, M.

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

Remnant, Hon. P.

Craddook, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Ronton, D. L. M.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Johnson, Erio (Blackley)

Ridsdale, J. E.

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

Rlppon, A. G. F.

Cunningham, Knox

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

Currle, G. B. H.

Keegan, D.

Robertson, Sir David

Dance, J. C. G.

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Robson-Brown, W.

Davidson, Viscountess

Kerr, H. W.

Roper, Sir Harold

Davies, Rt. Hon. Cloment (Montgomery)

Kershaw, J. A.

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

D'Avigdor-Goldunid, Sir Henry

Kirk, P. M.

Russell, R. S.

Deedes, w. F.

Lagden, C. W.

Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Lambert, Hon, G.

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Doughty, C. J. A.

Lambton, viscount

Sharples, R. C.

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

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

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

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Duthie, W. S.

Leavey, J. A.

Soames, Capt. C.

Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

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

Spearman, A. C. M.

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

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

Errington, Sir Erio

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Erroll, F. J.

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

Stevens, Geoffrey

Fell, A.

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

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Finlay, Graeme

Longden, Gilbert

Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

Fisher, Nigel

Lucas, P.B.(Brentford & Chiswick)

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Fleteher-Cooke, C.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Storey, S.

Fort, R.

Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)

Freeth, D. K.

MoKibbin, A. J.

Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Garner-Evans, E. H.

McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

Teeling, W.

George, J. C. (Pollok)

Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Godber, J. B.

McLean, Nell (Inverness)

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

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

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Gower, H. R.

Maepherson, Niall (Dumfries)

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

Graham, Sir Fergus

Maddan, Martin

Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

Grant, W. (Woodside)

Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

Maltland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Hornoastle)

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Green, A.

Maltland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

Gresham Cooke, R.

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Touche, Sir Gordon

Grimond, J.

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Turner, H. F. L.

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Marples, A. E.

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Marshall, Douglas

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Mathew, R.

Vane, W. M. F.

Curden, Harold

Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

Vosper, D. F.

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Mawby, R. L.

Wade, D. W.

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

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

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Medlicott, Sir Frank

Walker-Smith, D. C.

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

Wall, Major Patrick

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

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

Moore, Sir Thomas

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Webbe, Sir H.

Hay, John

Nairn, D. L. 8.

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

Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

Neave, Airey

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Heald, Rt. Hon. sir Lionel

Nicholls, Harmar

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Heath, Edward

Nield, Basil (Chester)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Woollam, John Victor

Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Nugent, G. R. H.

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

Oakshott, H. D.

Hlnehingbrooke, Viscount

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mr. Studholme and Mr. Wills.

Mr. C. W. Gibson: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, at the end to insert:
"(not being such a dwelling as is mentioned in subsection (9) of this section)."
The Deputy-Chairman: This Amendment, the one that follows it in similar terms, the similar Amendment in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward)——
Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order. I cannot hear a word of what you are saying, Sir Rhys, as there is so much row going on.
The Deputy-Chairman: —two Amendments in page 2, line 20, to add new subsections and a similar Amendment in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth to add a new subsection, may be all taken together.
Mr. Gibson: The purpose of moving my Amendment is to secure a discussion about the special position of old-age pensioners and disabled persons. I hope that the Minister can be much more sympathetic in this case on behalf of these particularly hard-hit sections of the community than he was on the previous Amendment. Perhaps I might correct one error in the Minister's last speech when he referred to the weekend conference of some Labour people. That conference did not carry a resolution in favour of differential rents or rent rebates. It was composed of 900 men and women who were members of the——
The Deputy-Chairman: I hope that hon. Members will keep as nearly as possible to the Amendment.
Mr. Gibson: I should not have mentioned it but for the statement that the Minister made. The point is that the conference carried a resolution condemning the whole policy embodied in the Bill, and in much stronger language than that adopted by the Urban District Councils Association a few days ago. I thought it necessary to get that on the record, Sir Rhys, and I am much obliged to you.
The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is getting it on the record in the wrong place.
Mr. Gibson: We ask the Minister to give very serious and sympathetic consideration to the suggestion in the Amendment that the subsidy should be retained for all houses, flats and bungalows built specially for old and disabled people. Ever since the war ended there has been great discussion in all places where people are interested in housing about the necessity to provide special houses for people who are retired from work and are living on their old-age pensions.
Many local authorities have built specially for these people. My own
256
authority, the London County Council, has made some very fine experiments in building groups of bungalows for old people in the middle of large estates so that the old people are not entirely cut off from the community. Many other authorities have done the same. I have seen very fine examples in a village in Norfolk, a row of very fine cottages let to old people at low rents by taking advantage of the subsidies.
It will be a tragedy if, as the result of cutting the subsidy on general housing to £10 for a few months and ultimately abolishing it altogether, as the Minister has indicated is his intention, old people's special homes should no longer be built. I do not see how that could be avoided. Already such buildings are almost as expensive as two-storey houses. They require the same ground, by and large, the same roof materials, the same work on the roof and the same internal fittings. Indeed, there are special fittings in places like the bathroom. Anyone with ex-experience will agree that old people's homes are expensive to build.
Unless local authorities who want to build in this way can obtain a subsidy, the great danger is that this building will stop, not only because the houses are too expensive to build without a subsidy, but because the rents which would have to be charged to cover the building costs would be such as no old-age pensioner could afford. Already in some parts of London rents up to 25s. a week are being charged for one-bedroomed flats which were supposed to have been built especially for old people. I admit I can only find this illustration in areas controlled by Tory majorities. It is far too much to expect an old couple with only their pension to live on to pay the full rent for that accommodation and still live a decent life.
To reduce the housing subsidy would also stop what has been one of the most encouraging features of post-war housing. I was surprised to find that during the last three or four years there has been a steady increase in the proportion of dwellings built specially for old people. Page 9 of the last Report of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government shows that of the total number of local government dwellings consisting of one room 6·6 per cent. were provided for old people; in 1953 that figure had increased

257
to 8·1 per cent., and in 1954 it was 9 per cent. Bearing in mind the increasing number of old-age pensioners we shall have in the next five or ten years, I doubt whether 9 per cent. will then be adequate to house them. I therefore want to encourage local authorities to continue this, one of the best forms of house-building we have accomplished since the end of the war.
We on this side took great pains when in office to encourage local authorities to build one-room flats and bungalows—by means of a partition or curtain the one room could be made into two—which provide special facilities at particularly low rents for old-age pensioners. Every member of a housing committee whom I meet now says that, with the rising cost of building, with the greatly increased cost which the raising of the interest rate will cause, and with the further increase of one-quarter per cent. announced during the last few days, it will be quite impossible to build this special type of dwelling and to let it at a rent which any old person living only on his pension can afford.
It is said that they can go to the National Assistance Board, but it is remarkable how few, comparatively, have done that. By no means all old-age pensioners will go to the National Assistance Board for that sort of help. They are too proud. In my own constituency I know of old couples who still think it is asking for charity to seek help in such matters. We should not seek to put them to that indignity, but should encourage local authorities to build houses specially for these people at suitably low rents.
There are also a number of very fine —I was going to say charitable—organisations providing this kind of house. One example is the Whiteley Village, built with money left by the Whiteleys; but there are others all over the country. I know of one housing trust in Plymouth, for instance, which was able to continue with its work only because it received the subsidy. Without both the State and the rate subsidy it would never have started its scheme, because at present building prices that trust could not have afforded the venture.
Much the same argument applies to disabled persons. In many dwellings there must be wider doors to enable disabled
258
persons in wheeled chairs to get about, and all that adds to the building cost. Again, in such cases there must not be any steps approaching the front door, and that, too, may add to the building cost. In general, this Bill should not seek to do anything which will prejudice the building of this type of house for this type of person. In view of the sure fact that without the assistance of the subsidy—and, I hope, the full subsidy of £22—most local authorities will not be able to shoulder the financial consequences, I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment.
It is not sufficient to say the local authorities will go on building. Some of the Tory counties have already decided to do no more building, but I think that all of them are finding that, with the very great cost of building—which, in the next 1& months will be heavier because of the-Government's financial policy—it is impossible to build this kind of house and let it at a rent which the tenant cans reasonably be expected to pay. I plead very strongly that here there is a special case in which the Minister might allow local housing authorities to continue to build special bungalows, flats and other types of houses for disabled and old persons—provided that the authorities can show proper need—and be assisted by receipt of the full existing subsidy.
6.15 p.m.
Mr. Mitchison: On a point of order, Sir Rhys. One of the Amendments which we are now discussing, standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) and others, refers to a proposed subsection (10) which refers to
"…an aged persons' group settlement;"
In the same names there is an Amendment to Clause 11, page 8, line 39, which seems to contain a definition of an "aged persons' group settlement." May I ask if it would be in order to refer to that definition in order to elucidate the Amendment now under discussion?
The Deputy-Chairman: I think that it would be in order to refer to it, because it would make clear what is meant by the present Amendment. It certainly would not be in order to debate it, but it could be referred to to make clear the meaning of the Amendment.
Mr. Sidney Dye: My hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) has appealed to the Minister to give consideration to this particular aspect of the housing problem. That appeal has not been made from a party point of view. It is true that it is from this side that the Amendment is put forward, but I should have thought that it would have commended itself to all hon. Members.
What we are asking for is that the present rate of subsidy should, in the case of the first Amendment, be continued for any kind of accommodation that is specially provided for aged or disabled persons. In the second Amendment we are asking that the Minister should continue the present rate of subsidy for those schemes, such as are now being prepared in Norfolk, of aged persons' dwellings grouped around a warden's house, the warden living in the midst of the aged persons who occupy the dwellings and who are in need of minor supervision.
I listened to the right hon. Gentleman's Second Reading speech, and I have since read it. It seems to me that the grounds that he gave for introducing the Bill—namely, that there are some people living in council houses whose incomes do not warrant a subsidy of this kind being paid—do not apply to the Amendments which we are now discussing. Here we have people who, because of their age and infirmity, are in special need, and we are asking that the Minister shall give consideration to their case. We can appeal both to his heart and to his head—to his heart because it should stir anyone's heart to see provided grouped dwellings specially designed for old retired people who are no longer earning an income.
The question of the incomes of these people being out of proportion to the subsidy that the local authority will receive for providing those dwellings does not enter into the case at all; neither does the question of the more economic management of the local authorities housing estates. Here we have a straightforward question whether these local authorities should continue to build specially designed dwellings for old people and receive a subsidy at last year's current rate. If they can do that, there is every likelihood that they will go on doing so,
260
to the advantage of our growing population of aged persons.
It is not a question of wanting to segregate aged persons in a special building or group. It is a question of the greater convenience of supervision and assistance for them, and the provision of those amenities which will assist them. Therefore, I should have thought that it would be a sound proposition for the Government to continue the present rate of subsidy as being the cheaper method of looking after these aged persons.
I hope that it will not be out of order if I refer to a statement made from the Government Front Bench this afternoon after Questions, in which the Minister of Health, speaking about the Guillebaud Report on the Health Service, mentioned the recommendation that in future the Ministry should give a grant of 50 per cent. for accommodation specially provided in county homes and hostels for aged persons. I do not want the day to come when all our aged people are gathered together in hostels or homes. It would be much better for them and much more in accordance with their desires if they could live as long as possible on their own, in their own homes, and it would be much cheaper for the community.
It would be better to continue the existing rate of subsidy to enable local authorities to build the bungalows or other suitably designed buildings so that the aged might continue to live in them, rather than to go ahead with the provision of large homes. That kind of accommodation is all right for people who need constant supervision day and night.
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, we have in Norfolk some of the best hostels of that character which have been provided since the end of the war. As the chairman of the welfare committee which has played a great part in providing these hostels, I know how they are appreciated, but we want this other development to continue. We have a scheme whereby the local housing authority is encouraged to provide suitable accommodation in grouped bungalows, with a house for a resident warden, and the county council makes an annual contribution to cover the cost of the warden's accommodation and such services as that warden renders to the people in the group. If this Bill is passed in its present form,

261
it seems to me that that development will be stopped, and I am sure that would be wrong from the humanitarian and financial points of view.
Let me take the cost of building bungalows. My own district council, the Swaffham Rural District Council, is building bungalows suitable for old people, the one-bedroom bungalows costing £900 apiece and the two-bedroom bungalows costing £1,050 apiece. But when we have to build a large home to accommodate 30 or 40 old people and equip it, the capital cost per person is greater and the staff is so much greater. Therefore, the annual cost is much higher.
Many of these bungalows are now let at a rent of 8s., 9s. or 10s. a week, and the old-age pensioners can afford that. They may get some supplementary allowance from the Assistance Board, but if so it is comparatively small. We have a scheme for the benefit of aged people which I should not like to see brought to a halt at its present stage. As I have said, I am a member of the Swaffham Rural District Council, and, unfortunately, at its last meeting it decided to raise all their rents by approximately 25 per cent. The rents of the old people's one-bedroom bungalows which have been let at 8s. 6d. are to be raised to 10s. 6d. from the first week in April, and the rents of the two-bedroom bungalows which are now let at 10s. are to be raised to 12s. 6d. That decision has been made as a result of this Bill. The council has tried to outdo hon. Members opposite. It has decided to take that action because the Ministry are cutting down their subsidy and it has also decided to stop the rate fund contribution altogether, even to the old people's bungalows.
6.30 p.m.
The Council has made the decision, and the arguments were based entirely on the Bill. If other local authorities are to follow that example to raise the rents of these old people's bungalows, it will be solving no problem, because the old people will have to go somewhere else for the money with which to pay the rent. If it does not come from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in one direction it will in another.
I hope that no other housing authority will follow the example of the Swafham R.D.C. in this respect, because I think it has gone sadly wrong. In other
262
respects, however, the Council has been doing a wonderful job in providing houses and bungalows to the extent to which it has provided them in the last ten years. It has been a shining example to the whole country and it has some of the finest bungalows and best houses, with all the amenities, which have been provided in our agricultural villages in Norfolk.
I am anxious to get the sympathetic ear of the Minister on this matter so that he may have a good look at the problem. If he does, I feel sure he will say that it is worth while continuing the subsidy to encourage local authorities to make this special provision for those who are not merely growing old but are growing infirm and, therefore, need assistance in their homes. We have the domestic help service, the nursing services and the medical services. I am sure that we shall be doing the right thing if we put as many people as possible in their own homes—homes specially designed for them—and give them the necessary assistance. That will be cheaper for the country and will bring more human happiness to the old people, and certainly to their neighbours and their relatives, who will be able to visit them.
It will then be possible to continue what has been a feature of village life, if not of town life—of neighbour helping neighbour and of the elderly helping the elderly. We encourage this through the old people's clubs, which meet in many cases weekly or fortnightly. At these meetings people talk not only about those who are present but also about those who are absent, inquire about their health and whether they can be visited. Old people then help each other.
That is voluntary work which is all to the good. I should have thought that we could agree that there is something in this Amendment quite different from any other Amendment. It should arouse no acrimonious discussion. With the growing number of elderly people in the country the best way of meeting their housing needs is still further to encourage local authorities to make this provision of bungalows and to encourage county councils to assist them and to co-operate in such schemes as those which I have outlined. I am sure that if the Minister will give it his support we can continue this good work to the credit of the nation.
Mr. Bevan: I take the unusual course of intervening before the Government's reply on this occasion because I know that it is difficult for Ministers to retreat from decisions which they have taken after they have publicly expressed them. On this occasion I hope we shall get something from the Government rather different from that which we have had earlier.
I hope I shall not be accused of immodesty when I say that I have made a special study of this particular problem in the last seven or eight years. Let me make a confession. Although it was my own recommendation, nevertheless I am almost coming to the conclusion that we made a very great mistake in separating the Ministries of Health and of Housing, because the first consequence of doing so is that the housing policy of the Government is unrelated to the rest of their social policies. In other words, housing has been considered quantitatively in respect of the immediate burden placed upon the Treasury and is not being fitted into the general social context to which it belongs.
It is extremely unwise to regard houses merely as representing so much money. Housing is an essential social service, having all kinds of repercussions on all other social services. That is what we have been trying to say in connection with houses for miners. For example, I doubt very much whether, if housing had still been under the Ministry of Health and we had moved from discussing related problems in another room, or with one set of officers, and had then met another set of officers on the housing side, we should have completely forgotten what we had been discussing with the other 'Officers earlier. One of the great advantages of having the two Ministries together under one umbrella was that when we discussed the health aspects of the nation we discussed the housing aspects with almost the same officers and certainly the same Minister. One affected the other.
Now, unfortunately, that is not the case. For example, I doubt very much whether a Minister of Housing who was also a Minister of Health would have approved the lower standards of housing. All of us who have been brought up in working-class houses, very small houses, know very well that one of the greatest domestic
264
problems is that of finding accommodation for the old people in the houses of their children. I remember being brought up in a home where the one spare room on the floor was occupied for many years by a sick uncle. We are all acquainted, too, with the fact that in the past it was normal for grandmother and grandfather to live out their lives in the homes of their children. That is all the more endurable if the home itself is sufficiently spacious.
The former Minister of Housing could, of course, congratulate himself, and did so on many occasions, upon producing a larger number of smaller houses. As a Housing Minister he could take pride in it because the chickens did not come home to roost in his Ministry; they came home to roost in the Ministry of Health, because it becomes impossible to look after the old people properly in such small houses. They quickly find their way as chronics into hospitals and cost the country, under the heading of the Ministry of Health, far more money than has been saved by the Ministry of Housing.
It is a typical example of a failure to consider housing in a proper context. I have been over these so-called People's Houses, and they are a disgrace. I know what the right hon. Gentleman's answer will be. He will say that a previous Labour Minister approved of the People's House. It has always been a curious kind of defence by the Conservative Party; they always defend themselves by imitating any mistake which we have made while never imitating any of our achievements.
To have built those houses in such numbers was a mistake. It requires only a little imaginative insight to see what a profound mistake it was, because no one who has studied this problem can but agree that the most obdurate, the most difficult, the most intimate, the most intractable of all problems in modern society is the care and treatment of old people.
We have a far larger proportion of the population in the higher age groups—they are being kept alive today, thank goodness, by antibiotics and better nutrition—than ever before. Some very reactionary people regard that as a disaster; it is always a disaster to keep anyone else's mother alive, but a good thing to

265
keep your own mother alive. It is a fact that as a consequence of civilised attitudes we have succeeded in keeping people alive longer, but they are being kept alive at an age when they are much more expensive to look after. These Peoples' Houses were designed without any relationship at all to the sort of families which are living in them. That means that old people have to leave their children's houses and find accommodation elsewhere more quickly than if those houses were very spacious.
There has been a further difficulty. I hope that the Minister will listen to this, because he ought to consult the Minister of Health before he makes a final reply on this question. One of the difficulties about old folk is that their care is under the welfare authority and normally housing is provided by the housing authority. Old people have a habit of slipping from one Act to another. Sometimes they require medical care and then get well enough to look after themselves. So they become the responsibility of the housing authority. Then they become so ill that they have to go to hospital and become the responsibility of the hospital authorities and the Ministry of Health. We have a curious kind of triangular situation in which the old people find themselves, for short periods, under the care of three types of authority, the hospital authority, the local welfare authority—county or county borough—and the housing authority.
It is one of the most difficult of all administrative tasks to try to marry all these different functions together and try to harmonise these different statutory relationships. It has been accomplished in some instances with a remarkable success where, by co-operation between the welfare authority—where it is not the housing authority—and the housing authority, small group schemes have been established whereby certain communal services can be given to old people. While they are able to look after themselves generally they nevertheless require to have some attention—some house cleaning and things of that sort done for them. In other words, we have these old folk astride different authorities and under a different sort of statutory umbrella.
This is a problem of peculiar difficulty and delicacy and one in which the Minister cannot divest himself entirely of responsibility. Unless he is resilient and
266
imaginative and discharges his housing functions in a way which enables the other functions to be discharged properly and economically, not only will the old people need to be looked after, but it will cost the State far more. I therefore hope the right hon. Gentleman will carefully consider his reply before he makes it. He told us this afternoon that one of the reasons for giving a higher subsidy in the case of the influx of industrial workers on an unusual scale is that that encourages authorities to build houses for those workers.
In other words, the right hon. Gentleman has admitted the principle that to get local authorities to build houses required in the national interest a financial inducement is necessary. Surely no one in this Committee will deny that in this case it is necessary to have a financial inducement to enable local authorities to look after old people properly. Here is a special class, here is a special need, here is a category of people which ought to awaken our lively sympathy and here obviously there is a field for Government action.
6.45 p.m.
I hope that the Minister will not give us just a Minister of Housing reply. We want something rather wider than that. I hope he will look at this problem not from a party point of view, because we all know old people and we all know this problem. The nation will expect the Government to approach it not merely from the point of view of an immediate saving to the Exchequer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) pointed out, there may be an immediate saving under one heading whereas there would be a bigger need under another.
Modern geriatrics have shown beyond all shadow of doubt that the most important single thing to do with old people is to keep them active as long as possible. I know that that is not a point of view which will appeal to the Daily Mirror,but one does not expect scientific detachment from that organ. Nevertheless, a long study of this problem has shown that when people stop they tend to stale. Therefore, it is essential that they should be lively and active as long as it is possible for them to be so.
That is the reason I am against, and always have been against, putting old

267
people into old people's colonies. As far back as 1945 I said that it is absolutely essential for old people to live in a social context in which the full panorama of life may go before their eyes day by day, where they can see babies in perambulators as well as coffins in hearses passing before their windows.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman realises what that means. It means that they must be accommodated in places where they can be active as long as possible and must live in surroundings where their interest is stimulated and, at the same time, where their growing needs are provided for even when those needs may not make it necessary for them to enter hospital. The longer they can be kept out of hospital, the better for themselves and the better for the nation as a whole. I do most earnestly hope that we shall have an answer from the right hon. Gentleman on this occasion which will show that he has taken the wider aspects of this matter into account.
Mr. Powell: The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) has taken this Amendment as the text of a characteristic and wide-ranging essay on social policy with many points in which I think everyone in the Committee might well agree and, if I may respectfully say so, without which the Committee might have been the poorer.
He dealt with matters such as his reflections on the separation of the Ministries of Health and Housing and discussed the Dalton house. In the Amendment, however, we are dealing with a comparatively narrow proposal. It is the proposal that a higher subsidy than the general needs subsidy should be payable in respect of dwellings provided for aged persons.
The Government do not dissent from the importance of that provision and they welcome the increase, which was illustrated by the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson), in the percentage of houses of the general need provision which over the last few years has gone specifically to the aged. The question, however, with which the Committee is concerned is whether, in order that that work can be maintained, a special financial subsidy is necessary or desirable.
The main basis of such an argument must be—this point was made both by
268
the hon. Member for Clapham and by the hon. Member for Norfolk, Southwest (Mr. Dye)—that on the whole, the economic circumstances of those who are no longer in employment tend to be less favourable than the average of the tenants of local authorities; and that, therefore, even if a local authority pools the subsidies received upon its existing and future houses, it may, if it has in the past provided a specially large number of dwellings for aged persons and continues to do so in the future, find itself in difficulties financially in regard to the rents which it places upon those dwellings.
In considering that proposition, we have to bear in mind the other side of the balance sheet, which is the cost in respect of such dwellings which falls upon the Housing Revenue Account. The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West gave figures which are in general line with experience in the country as a whole. He mentioned £900 and other figures up to £1,050 for the cost of providing an old persons' unit of accommodation. Those figures, I am informed, are around the average for this type of dwelling for the country as a whole.
Mr. Dye: Outside the large towns.
Mr. Powell: Comparing average with average, they compare with about £1,650, which is the cost of the three-room house of the type now being built. So that the cost to the local authority of providing the old person's house is not more than, and may well be substantially less than two-thirds of, the cost of providing a house for an ordinary family. As the same subsidy has in the past been received upon the one-room bungalow and on the three-bedroom house and will be so received as long as the subsidy continues, the local authority receiving the same financial subsidy is spending less per family housed if it goes in for the provision of units of accommodation for the elderly.
Mr. Bevan: Does the figure given by the hon. Gentleman include the price of the land?
Mr. Powell: Yes. The site is included in both cases.
Mr. Dye: The figures I quoted were simply for the house or bungalow and did not include the site charges. The hon.

269
Gentleman mentioned a figure of £1,600 for a three-bedroom house throughout the country. In our area it would be £1,400, so that we are building the smaller ones also cheaper than the rest of the country.
Mr. Bevan: The Parliamentary Secretary will realise that especially in congested areas, old people's houses—bungalows, in particular—are much more costly because they occupy more land.
Mr. Powell: It is true that per foot super or per room, the old person's dwelling will work out more expensive, but we have long discovered that in talking about housing need what we are dealing with is not individuals as such or foot super of accommodation; we are dealing with families. These old persons are individuals who are also, in the housing sense, families.
Mr. Bevan: I do not want to interrupt too much, but the hon. Gentleman will realise that one of the reasons why there was difficulty in persuading local authorities to build houses for old people was that that did not provide the same number of persons with accommodation. There would be one old person or two old people, whereas another house, slightly more expensive, would house four, five or six people.
Dame Irene Ward: Hear, hear.
Mr. Powell: That is true, but those old persons are families on the waiting list, and all hon. Members know from their constituency experience that it is just those families who provide sometimes the most intractable and the most pathetic challenge to the local housing authority. So that the fact remains that for housing families rehoused, the local authority has received the same subsidy but has incurred less expense where the house has been provided for an old person or for an old couple. And so there is at present, there has been and there will continue to be, a financial weighting in favour of the provision of this type of accommodation.
Dame Irene Ward: Not enough.
Mr. Powell: My hon. Friend gives me exactly my next point.
I was going on to say that the Committee may nevertheless ask, granted that there is this financial advantage, whether.
270
in this Bill, we should strengthen it further. Should we make this need one of the priorities along with the two main priorities which are enshrined in the Bill—overspill and slum clearance—and put it on an equal footing? That is really the matter of policy which is before the Committee.
When one sets out to concentrate upon a particular purpose and establishes to that end one or, at most, two priorities, for every additional purpose one brings in and treats on the same footing, one weakens one's chance of achieving the primary aim and reduces the speed with which it will be arrived at. Every additional form of need which, under the Bill, is given a special subsidy weakens the emphasis upon the main purposes of the Bill.
Sir Leslie Plummer: Which are what?
Mr. Powell: To place the emphasis on overspill and, above all, upon slum clearance.
Mr. Mitchison: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that the main purpose of the Bill is to cut housing subsidies?
Mr. Powell: Hon. Members have this afternoon been arguing the inducement which a subsidy offers to a local authority to meet a particular need. The Bill encourages and enables local authorities to concentrate upon meeting those two particular needs. That is among the main purposes of the Bill—indeed, it is the main purpose of the Bill. Every additional purpose that we bring in, every new priority which we put upon the same footing as slum clearance and overspill, weakens those original priorities and blunts and destroys the purpose of the Bill. The Committee has to decide whether it is serious about slum clearance and overspill being our main housing purposes at the present time. If it believes that they are, as the Government consider they should be, it will reject the Amendment.
Mr. Bevan: Is that the and, churlish way in which the Parliamentary Secretary is rejecting the arguments which have been advanced? I am quite certain that if the Committee had been full, the Parliamentary Secretary's reply would have

271
been received with deep dissatisfaction on his side as well as on this side of the Committee.
Dame Irene Ward: I received it with deep dissatisfaction.
7.0 p.m.
Mr. Donald Wade: I support the Amendment, and I hope that the Minister will reconsider the views which have been expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary and will give due weight to the views which have been expressed by all the other hon. and right hon. Members who have taken part in the debate so far. Once one accepts the view that the Bill is necessary owing to economic circumstances, it is clear that one must also accept the contention that the Minister must exercise caution in acceding to Amendments. I acknowledge that. I am not disputing that. However, I suggest that this is an exceptional case which deserves special consideration.
I do not propose to repeat the arguments which have already been put forward, but I suggest that the principle of special circumstances has been accepted in the Bill. Furthermore, in our welfare society the principle has been accepted of dealing with the circumstances of old people rather differently from others. I think that on those grounds the Minister would be justified in accepting the Amendment or, at any rate, its principle and purpose, even if they have to be expressed in other words and these proposed words are not precisely the right ones to use.
At present, the problem of housing elderly people is very grave. Some very valuable experiments have been carried out, and I think that the local authorities are to be congratulated on what they have done, but we are a long way from having solved this problem. Local authorities should be given every possible encouragement. The Amendment will provide them with some encouragement, and, therefore, I again appeal to the Minister to reconsider sympathetically the proposal contained therein.
Dame Irene Ward: I say straight away that I reject the Parliamentary Secretary's reason why this Amendment has to be rejected. I find in it an opportunity of trying to assist the small fixed income groups with whom I have very great
272
sympathy, and with whom, I know, both my own party and hon. Gentlemen opposite are also greatly sympathetic. It is, of course, very difficult when one is only a back bencher to be able to obtain relevant figures about the housing of the aged, but I do know that if one discusses the problem with the local authorities one finds that they all feel that the financial provisions of the last Acts affecting local authority housing were not really conducive to building for the aged.
Certainly, in my part of the country, the North-East Coast—I cannot speak for other parts—there is a very considerable number of most imaginative schemes. Many local authorities there have built admirable bungalows for aged people, and run their schemes extremely well. However, in the main, the housing of the elderly has not been a priority in the housing needs of the country.
The Parliamentary Secretary's main argument was that if the Amendment were accepted it would weaken the purpose of the Bill. Personally, I feel that in political life it is always jam tomorrow but never jam today, and I am really very tired of that sort of approach which my hon. Friend adopted to problems which need solution. I myself am quite prepared to accept that the making of an additional responsibility by means of the Bill may weaken the Bill's original purpose; its purpose as debated on Second Reading, but I was very encouraged—and I want to make this point quite conclusively—by the fact that in his speech at Bradford the Prime Minister said that something would be done for the small fixed income groups who do not have large organisations to speak for them. I see in the Bill an opportunity of making a start with doing something for them, and I am very anxious that a start should be made.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government is a member of the Cabinet, and I challenge him to say whether, in discussing the proposals of the Bill with the Cabinet, he pointed out to those other Ministers that if we could give some small financial assistance to the local authorities particularly in respect of building houses for the elderly that would be a start in implementing the pledge that was given by the Prime Minister at Bradford. I apologise for having a rather croaky voice, but I am just recovering from laryngitis. My doctor said I could be here

273
today to argue the case of the elderly, and so I am here.
It is most important that a start should be made at some time or another, and immediately if possible, with helping the small fixed income groups, and that their problems, the problems of those most affected by the high cost of living, should receive attention. When one talks to members of the Government, no matter which Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Prime Minister or the Minister of Housing and Local Government or the Minister of Health or the Leader of the House or any other, one is always told, "We should be delighted to help. We realise that these people are the worst hit of all sections of the community, because a great many people have had valuable assistance from Conservative policy. However, it is almost impossible to find any way of helping them."
If one asks the Chancellor of the Exchequer about helping people who have been relieved of paying Income Tax one is always told, "There is no means of helping them." Well, here is a means. We can prove here and now our reliability. We can prove that the pledges that we have made—as I said before, and I am going to rub it in—the pledge that was made by the Prime Minister at Bradford, can be started to be implemented.
I was very interested to receive a letter from one of the organisations that have done some valuable work in providing homes on a voluntary basis. This one has done valuable work in a small village in Kent. A man interested in it sent me a letter which he had received from the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who pointed out, in the usual Ministerial tones, which bore me to distraction, that, of course, it was quite possible for local authorities, under the new housing law, to continue to build for the aged. Of course it is. One knows that perfectly well. The point is: will they?
Looking at the history of what has been done in the last few years, I cannot see that any Minister of Housing and Local Government has even tried to give guidance in a big way to local authorities to get on with the housing of the elderly. That has never been done so far as I am aware. I should be delighted if my right hon. Friend could produce a circular or
274
a letter or a report of a speech or of a conversation about that. I should be glad if he could produce the record of a deputation he had asked to come to him from the great municipal and county council associations to deal with this very important matter.
The people who can say the least get the least done for them, and that is what makes me so angry, especially in political life. If one can bring pressure to bear, then attention is paid to one, but if one is small and weak, and if it does not pay, then one lags behind in the race. As I said, the former Parliamentary Secretary gave this most extraordinary reply to that gentleman who wrote to him. My reply to him, which I sent also to the Minister himself, was to point out that I hoped that this was not going to be the attitude of the new Conservative Government after the last General Election.
I come from a politically tough part of the country. We do not vary very much in our political allegiances. We speak straightly and we speak decisively, but we do know what is fair, honourable and just, and when I read that letter of the former Parliamentary Secretary I thought to myself: well, could not we have just a little human kindness, just a little understanding of the problem?
I ask my right hon. Friend: has he discussed this matter from the point of view of the small fixed income groups? Is he making a start towards helping them, because I want action now? I know very well that, if this Bill goes on the Statute Book, in a few weeks' time or months' time or in the next Budget, when I ask the Chancellor what is to be done towards helping the small fixed income groups, the reply will come back, "Of course, nothing can be done on the housing front because that would require legislation, and the Parliamentary programme is full to the brim."
I am not prepared to accept that. This is the moment to act. I say straight away that I have written to the Prime Minister, and I have put to him the case of the small fixed income groups. He has promised me that he is examining it point by point, and I am expecting some result. [HON. MEMBERS: "What a hope!"] It is all very well for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to cheer and say "What a hope!" What a hope for the country if they got in. I have much

275
more faith in my own party. I enjoy administering a little stimulus to my own party because I feel that the present Prime Minister, who, after all, comes from my area, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who represented Stockton for many years, understand the problems of my area. Therefore, I know that I have two sympathetic Ministers, but my belief is that the present Minister of Housing and Local Government has not yet had an opportunity of discussing the problem of the small fixed income groups with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
This is very important. One of the reasons for not dealing with the matter, apparently, and which is given in some of the extraordinary letters that go out from the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman presides, is that there is some difficulty about definition. My right hon. Friend will know with what glee I listened to the points which were raised about the difficulty of definition over industry coming into areas where industry was required. I thought to myself that, at any rate, he could not get me on that one, because it is much easier to define the housing need of an elderly person than it is to define the housing needs of industrialists wanting to come into special areas.
I may also tell my right hon. Friend that if I am not to get something for the housing needs of my elderly people, which I think is of paramount importance, I am not so interested in allowing other areas to have all this additional finance for which my area has to pay in taxation, because in my area I cannot get the Coal Board to build, with subsidy, a single house specially for the miners. It said that we were not an area which was expanding in coal production. My right hon. Friend has not a clue about what goes on. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] When my right hon. Friend comes to my area everyone thinks that he is a most charming man. He goes round with a delightful smile, but he has never really got down to the heart of my constituency. I do not mind saying, in response to the cheers opposite, that neither do hon. Gentlemen know much about it.
276
7.15 p.m.
I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary, to whom I wish all the luck in the world, made his very platitudinous speech. He made it in a very delightful way. Of course, he now has to "toe the party line," and I wish him well, but I am sorry that his right hon. Friend put him up to give that answer before he had heard the kind of views which I am able to bring from my part of the country. There we are not anxious just to have a housing Bill which deals only with slum clearance, overspill and industry. After all, the Minister of Housing and Local Government has not been particularly successful—indeed, no Minister of Housing and Local Government has—in getting local authorities to build the kind of houses that they want.
Although I agree that it is most important to leave all these matters in the hands of the local authorities, I know that in my area we are interested in the small fixed income groups. Indeed, one of my local authorities—and we have about the average number of retired people—is very interested in how these people are to live in the future. I think we can bring them some hope.
I do not want my right hon. Friend to give me an answer today. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, yes."] Oh, no. I want my right hon. Friend to get up and say that the hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth has put up a case for the small fixed income groups, and that he will consult the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to whether this is not the opportunity to make a start. On my side, I will give him a pledge. I will see to it that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have all the ammunition about what my area wants for the small fixed income groups—and I can tell them that it wants a lot. On every occasion that I can, I make a speech on their behalf.
I have moved a few Ministers. I do not mean moved from office but moved to action, which is much more important. I say quite honestly to my right hon. Friend that he is making a great mistake and that he is letting the Conservative Party down. If he could give a straight answer tonight, and say, "I cannot persuade the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer," that would be a different matter, but up to the moment

277
I am absolutely convinced that this has not been discussed at Cabinet level and, therefore, until it has been discussed at Cabinet level I do not think that he ought to turn this Amendment down.
I hope, therefore, that he will say that the Report stage of the Bill will be put off until the Prime Minister gets back, so that there may be reconsideration of the whole problem and the first step taken towards implementing our pledge to do something for the small fixed income groups.
Mr. A. Blenkinsop (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East): Many of us on this side of the Committee have been in some doubt as to who was chiefly responsible for the governmental changes over the last few months. Now we have it quite clearly from the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). I am sure, therefore, that in future her remarks will be treated with even more consideration and anxiety than perhaps they have been treated in the past. [An HON. MEMBER: "Petticoat Government."] I rise at this moment to give time for the Minister to give something more of an answer to the hon. Lady than that for which she has asked immediately.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, confronted with this attack from his own benches, will agree that this is clearly a matter which he must look at again. I am glad to see that there has been consultation about the Amendment. I hope that the Minister will be in a position to say that at least he is prepared to reconsider the matter between now and the Report stage, by which time he may be able to offer some more useful answer than was put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary.
The hon. Lady said that no Ministries have done anything in this matter, but in fact it was the constant endeavour of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) and others who held responsibility in the old Ministry of Health to persuade local authorities to build more houses to meet this need. It is precisely for the reason which my right hon. Friend gave that more was not done. Local authorities felt that in building for old people they removed only one or two cases from their housing list as against the relief which they provided when they built larger houses. Those larger houses helped to remove large numbers of people
278
from certain lists even though, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said, the same number of what are officially termed "households" were involved.
I emphasise that point by recalling that today we have had the Report of the Guillebaud Committee dealing with the urgent problem of the health of the nation. On pages 264 and 265 of its Report that Committee urges that greater attention should be paid to the provision of houses for the care of old people. The fact is that unless more is done on the housing side for old people inevitably we shall have more and more old people going into hospitals when they should not be anywhere near a hospital. It is tragic that by looking at this matter far too narrowly the Minister of Housing and Local Government is endangering the position of the National Health Service and of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.
My hon. Friend for Norfolk, Southwest (Mr. Dye) very rightly urged upon the Minister the importance of providing small schemes of grouped dwellings. He referred to the work which his own authority had done in the post. Again in reference to the anxiety of past Ministers in this respect, it should be pointed out that the Housing Act, 1949, made special provision for the housing of old people where various services were required to be provided. Those were brought within the scope of the Act in order to encourage local authorities to do this very thing.
I received word that one local authority, Andover Borough Council, had actually drawn up and obtained approval of plans to build a combination of some flatlets and a hostel for able-bodied old people on a central site where there were already the non-residential old people's club and other provisions. It was a highly desirable scheme and, because of its relation with welfare, the county council agreed to make a contribution. I understand, however, that unfortunately the borough council decided recently that it would have to withdraw the scheme because of the rate of interest on borrowed money. This was before the present proposals were first put before the country.
When one adds to the disability of this increased rate of interest the new penal provisions of this Bill, can there be any

279
doubt that not only will this particular local authority have to withdraw an extremely valuable scheme in which social workers all over the country are interested, but so will other local authorities have to withdraw similar plans which they have been considering? I suggest that this is a high example of a narrow attitude towards a subject which must be approached on a much wider basis.
The last published report of the National Corporation for the Care of Old People, which has done much valuable work with a great deal of support from the Nuffield Trust, states that because of the need for family housing in post-war years the country has fallen behind in providing for old people. It goes on to say something which should not be missed. Although it is perfectly true, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale has said, that we need to build houses large enough to enable old and younger people to live together, we have also the problem that at the moment many old people are living alone in houses which are too large for them and which they would like to be able to leave.
The figures are really startling. Those quoted in the National Corporation's last Report are taken from the 1951 Census. They show that there is a staggering number of old people who continue to live in houses of six rooms, which are large compared with those in which many other families reside. There is no doubt at all that if there were sufficient provision of other accommodation to meet the needs of old people, many of these houses would be made available for the use of larger families. Therefore, from the point of view of economy to the Minister, which I should have thought would have interested him, it is clearly of value to be able to obtain this kind of transfer.
The matter that worries me is that, as a result of the policy which the Minister has adopted, we may very well find that old people may be forced out of accommodation which they can no longer afford into unsuitable homes. Therefore, I suggest that from all points of view this is a matter to which the Minister should give further consideration. It is not sufficient to have the rather cold answer of the Parliamentary Secretary to the very
280
human and restrained appeal made to him by my right hon. Friend. We should now ask the Minister to realise that this is a wide social problem which requires to be examined from the point of view of health as well as from the narrow view of housing. We ask him to tell us that he will at least give this issue further consideration.
7.30 p.m.
Mr. Sandys: I am sure that we all felt stimulated by the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). She said that she enjoyed administering a little stimulus to Ministers. All I can say is that, being at the receiving end, I also enjoyed it. It does not do us any harm. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for offering to support me in bringing pressure to bear on my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Cabinet as a whole. She also offered, which I did not welcome so warmly to give the Prime Minister some ammunition to use against me.
But be that as it may, I am sure that we all felt in listening to the speech of my hon. Friend and to the speeches made by hon. Members in all parts of the Committee, that every one who spoke was activated by a sincere sympathy for the position of elderly and disabled people. I ask the Committee to believe that I am activated by feelings of sympathy no less than those which inspired the speeches made during the debate.
We all know the feelings of loneliness, difficulty and failing strength which afflict the older people, and we all want to do all that is reasonably possible, subject to our obligations to others as well, to relieve the difficulties of the aged and the disabled. We all agreed with the hon. Member for Norfolk, Southwest (Mr. Dye) when he said that old people are much happier and more healthy living in their own homes as long as they are able to do so.
The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) also spoke in the same strain as other hon. Members about the importance of not overlooking the needs of the older people. He did, however, move on to a number of other subjects. Amongst other things, he said that he regretted the separation of Ministerial responsibility for health from the

281
responsibility for housing, but, whether it was a right or wrong decision, it was one taken and given effect to by the Labour Government and not by the present Administration. It was carried out early in 1951, but I do not think the right hon. Gentleman wants me to pursue that question.
Mr. Mitchison: Food and Agriculture have been combined. Why not Housing and Health?
Mr. Sandys: There is always an argument for combining all Government Departments, but then we have to divide them again to make them manageable. Incidentally, I remember the difficulty that the Labour Government had when they were formed in 1945, to decide how they were going to divide up Housing, Town and Country Planning and Health. They took so long to decide that I had to remain Minister of Works and a member of Mr. Attlee's Government for a whole ten days, while they decided how it was to be settled, and by whom I was to be relieved.
The right hon. Gentleman made a fresh attack on the People's Houses on the ground that they are too small. We had all that out on an earlier occasion. I do not see the relevance of this attack on this occasion, because we are now considering an Amendment the effect of which would be to encourage local authorities to build more small houses. It does not seem to me to be relevant.
Mr. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman is quite extraordinary. I do not think he listens to the debate, or, if he does, there is a curious lack of comprehension. I said that as a consequence of building houses so small that old people could not live with their children, we had to have more old people's houses.
Mr. Sandys: Again that is not really relevant. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, these houses, although smaller as a whole, contain the same area of feet-super. The floor space and the living rooms are the same size as under the earlier standards. The difference between the People's House or, as my hon. Friend called it, the "Dalton House" is that economies have been effected not in the floor space of the living rooms, but in the staircases, store rooms, and things
282
of that kind. I do not imagine that the right hon. Gentleman expected people to keep their grandmothers in the store room or on the staircase. The number of rooms and the floor space of the living rooms remain the same as they were under the earlier standards. I thought it was relevant to point out that the rooms are the same in number and the same size. The only thing reduced was the size of the staircases and outhouses, and they are not proper places in which to keep one's parents.
The hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) said that the Amendment was desirable to ensure that old people could get good houses suited to their needs at reasonable rents. I submit to him that the question of rents really does not arise on the issue before us today. The higher rates of subsidy which the Bill provides for slum clearance are intended to encourage local authorities to allocate a larger proportion of their houses for the accommodation of families from slums and also in connection with over-spill and town expansion schemes. These higher subsidies are not intended to provide houses for this particular purpose at lower rents. Let us be quite clear about that—that is not the intention of the higher subsidies. I have spoken about that on an earlier occasion.
Local authorities will no doubt use their pool of subsidies from all sources to subsidise rents of all council houses in the way which may seem to them best in the light of local circumstances and in the light of the needs of their tenants. What I am pointing out is that the grant of higher subsidies for particular purposes, such as slum clearance, is designed to encourage local authorities to devote a higher proportion of the houses they build to the accommodation of people from slums but not necessarily to provide houses for those people at lower rents than the houses they provide for other people whose needs may be greater. It is not the Government's intention that a family rehoused from a slum dwelling should automatically be charged a rent which is £12 a year lower than another family that does not come from a slum dwelling but whose housing need may be just as urgent and whose financial need may be as great.
The same applies to houses for old people. I submit that the question of the

283
rents to be paid by old people does not arise on this Amendment. Local authorities are at liberty to subsidise the rents of aged people to the extent that they think fit out of their general pool of subsidies. That is what they do and I have no doubt will continue to do. The only relevant issue arising on this Amendment is whether it is desirable to give an additional subsidy in order to encourage local authorities to devote a larger proportion of their building effort to the construction of dwellings for old people, in preference to the construction of dwellings for other sections of the community. I submit that there is no evidence that local authorities as a whole are neglecting the housing problems of the older people.
Dame Irene Ward: My right hon. Friend has not put that quite accurately. The point is that the Amendment would enable local authorities to build for old people in addition. That would be quite possible were this Amendment accepted. It is not an alternative, but an addition, and would my right hon. Friend please address his answer to that point?
Mr. Sandys: Having regard to the housing shortage which exists in most parts of the country, I think it will be found that local authorities are in fact building as many houses as they are able to do. A greater number of houses are going up than was the case a few years ago. Local authorities are building as many as they feel able to build. As the Committee knows, I have only recently abolished the allocation system, and therefore it is up to local authorities to decide how many houses they propose to build.
The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said that it had been difficult to persuade local authorities to devote a sufficient proportion of their house-building programmes to providing houses for aged persons. I think that was true in the past——
Mr. Bevan: At the beginning.
Mr. Sandys: I say that was true in the past, but I do not believe that is the position any longer. The right hon. Gentleman said, "At the beginning." I presume he means that while it was so at the beginning, it is not so now.
Mr. Bevan: It is very unequal in different parts of the country today. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman of that. If he made a survey, he would find that the provision of houses for old people, and for paraplegics in particular, is extremely unequal over the country.
Dame Irene Ward: Hear, hear. Produce the survey.
Mr. Sandys: So long as we believe in local government, and in local authorities running their own affairs and deciding their own problems, things are bound to vary. Short of deciding all these things in my Department in Whitehall, there is no way of avoiding a wide range and variety in these matters. Conditions are different in various parts of the country. Some years ago there was a lack of attention to the problem of the old people, but the position has changed greatly.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth said that she was not at all impressed with what local authorities had been doing for old people. But I think that she underrates the effort being put into the construction of this type of house. Of course, we do not know how many houses have been built specially for old people. We get information about the number of dwellings of different sizes. Up to 30th September, 1955, nearly 118,000 one-bedroom dwellings had been provided since the war, representing about 7½per cent. of the total number of local authority houses built during that period. In recent tenders, that is to say for the last quarter for which I have figures available, the quarter ended 30th September last, the proportion was over 11 per cent.
7.45 p.m.
We are concerned with the one-bedroom type of house built by local authorities, which is suitable for older people. I do not think it can be argued that 11 per cent. is an unreasonably small proportion. Were the Amendment adopted, it would undoubtedly tend to encourage local authorities to increase the proportion of houses built for old people at the expense of houses built for persons with families. Such further emphasis in the direction of one-bedroom houses would not be desirable, and, therefore, while I have just as much sympathy with the needs of the elderly people as have

285
other hon. Members who have spoken in this debate, I do not think that it would be right to accept this Amendment.
Mr. Bevan: I am bound to say that we are profoundly disappointed with that answer from the Minister. As I said earlier, I do not believe, even with his docile majority, that the Minister would be getting away with it if hon. Members opposite had listened to the debate, and in those circumstances we are bound to divide the Committee.
Mr. T. Brown: I propose to detain the Committee for only a few minutes in order to express my dissatisfaction and regret at the refusal of the Minister to accept this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman said that local authorities could pay what subsidies they wished for old people's houses from the common pool. I deeply regret that a statement of that character should fall from the lips of a responsible Minister. In my judgment, the responsibility for the care of the aged population of this country falls fairly and squarely, or should do, on the finances of the country, and that we should not ask local authorities to contribute a certain proportion of their finances to provide for old people.
I do not doubt the honesty and integrity of the Minister. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have sympathy with the old people as he has. But I come from a county which is noted for its sayings. In Lancashire we have one saying, among others, which runs:
"Sympathy without relief is like mustard without beef."
It is very sharp. I feel that the sympathetic approach of the Minister in this case is very sharp.
It would be a great pity if this Bill reached the Statute Book without the inclusion of this Amendment. I firmly believe that unless local authorities can get an additional subsidy, it will retard the progress in the race upon which they have entered. We have been at the job of providing homes and hostels for old people only for a matter of ten years. Looking back over those years, I think that we have done exceptionally well. But it would be a pity if any step taken by this Government retarded the progress of the race entered upon by local
286
authorities. As one who is profoundly interested in the lot of the aged, I ask the Minister to have another look at this matter and see whether he can come forward with something more generous.
I want to say a word about the disabled in the industry in which I worked for 35½ years. There are many disabled people in it, and I am sorry to say that the numbers are increasing in one direction or another. Here again, local authorities ought to be in a position to make provision for those who are disabled in industry. If there is an industrial accident they should be able to say, "We will help you in the direction that is desirable." In the course of my speech during the Second Reading debate I mentioned that we are now trying to provide homes for them from our welfare fund, but we cannot provide homes for everybody. We feel profoundly that homes should be provided for those who are disabled in industry.
Therefore, there are two types of person to be considered: the aged and the disabled, both of whom want homes. Furthermore, I would remind the Minister—if he needs reminding—that when the present Lord Privy Seal occupied the responsible position of Chancellor of the Exchequer, he said that the Government were not unmindful of the needs of the ageing population of this country. If the Government are not unmindful, they will accept the Amendment and try to help the local authorities to make provision for the aged.
I have read the many reports that have been made by various organisations and institutions who are interested in the welfare of aged and, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop), those reports call the attention of the Government, whether Conservative or Labour, to the fact that we have fallen far behind in the provision of homes for old people. Those reports, which have been compiled by men and women who are interested in this matter, ought not to be ignored. I beg the Minister to retract what he has just said and accept the Amendment.
Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 208, Noes 240.

Division No. 88.]

AYES

[7.52 p.m.

Ainsley, J. W.

Hannan, W.

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

Albu, A. H.

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Hastings, S.

Palmer, A. M. F.

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Hayman, F. H.

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Healey, Denis

Parker, J.

Anderson, Frank

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

Parkin, B. T.

Bacon, Miss Alice

Herbison, Miss M.

Paton, J.

Bartley, P.

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Pearson, A.

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

Hobson, C. R.

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Benson, G.

Holman, P.

Popplewell, E.

Beswick, F.

Holt, A. F.

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

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

Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

Proctor, W. T.

Blackburn, F.

Howell, Denis (All Saints)

Pryde, D. J.

Blenkinsop, A.

Hubbard, T. F.

Rankin, John

Blyton, W. R.

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Reeves, J.

Boardman, H.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

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

Hunter, A. E.

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.}

Bowen, E. R. (Cardlgan)

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Irving, S. (Dartford)

Ross, William

Brockway, A. F.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Royle, C.

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Janner, B.

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

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

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Burke, W. A.

Jeger, George (Goole)

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn. & St. Pncs, S.)

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Callaghan, L. J.

Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

Skeffington, A. M.

Carmiohael, J.

Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

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

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Champion, A. J.

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Chapman, W. D.

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Soreneen, R. W.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Kenyon, C.

Sparks, J. A.

Clunie, J.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Coldrick, W.

King, Dr. H. M.

Stones, W. (Consett)

Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

Ledger, R. J.

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

Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Swingler, S. T.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Sylvester, G. O.

Cronin, J. D.

Lewis, Arthur

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Daines, P.

Lindgren, G. S.

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Logan, D. G.

Thornton, E.

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

Mabon, Dr. J. D.

Timmons, J.

Deer, G.

MacColl, J. E.

Tomney, F.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

McGhee, H. G.

Usborne, H. C.

Delargy, H. J.

Mclnnes, J.

Viant, S. P.

Dodds, N. N.

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Wade, D. W.

Dye, S.

McLeavy, Frank

Weitzman, D.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Edelman, M.

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Mahon, S.

West, D. G.

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Mainwaring, W. H.

Wheeldon, W. E.

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

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

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Mason, Roy

Wilkins, W. A.

Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

Mayhew, C. P.

Willey, Frederick

Fernyhough, E.

Mellish, R. J.

Williams, David (Neath)

Fienburgh, W.

Mitchlson, G. R.

Williams, Rev. Liywelyn (Ab'tillery)

Forman, J. C.

Monslow, W.

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

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Moody, A. S.

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

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

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

Gibson, C. W.

Mort, D. L.

Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

Gooch, E. G.

Moss, R.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Greenwood, Anthony

Moyle, A.

Winterbottom, Richard

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Mulley, F. W.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Grey, C. F.

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Oram, A. E.

Zilliacus, K.

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

Orbach, M.

Grimond, J.

Oswald, T.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hale, Leslie

Owen, W. J.

Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Holmes.

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Padley, W. E.

NOES

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Armstrong, C. W.

Barlow, Sir John

Altken, W. T.

Ashton, H.

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Alport, C. J. M.

Atkins, H. E.

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathooat (Tiverton)

Baldwin, A. E.

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

Balniel, Lord

Bidgood, J. C.

288

289

Biggs-Davison, J. A.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Hirst, Geoffrey

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Bishop, F. P.

Holland-Martin, C. J.

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

Body, R. F.

Hope, Lord John

Page, R. G.

Bossom, Sir A. C.

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Horobin, Sir Ian

Partridge, E.

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Brooman-White, R. C.

Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

Pitman, I. J.

Bryan, P.

Howard, John (Test)

Pitt, Miss E. M.

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

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

Pott, H. P.

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

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

Powell, J. Enoch

Burden, F. F. A.

Hughes, Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

Price, David (Eastlelgh)

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

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

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

Profumo, J. D.

Carr, Robert

Hyde, Montgomery

Raikes, Sir Victor

Cary, Sir Robert

Iremonger, T. L.

Ramsden, J. E.

Channon, H.

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Rawlinson, Peter

Chichester-Clark, R.

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Redmayne, M.

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Cole, Norman

Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

Renton, D. L. M.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Ridsdale, J. E.

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Johnson, Erio (Blackley)

Rippon, A. G. F.

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

Craddock, Beresford (Splethorne)

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Robertson, Sir David

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Kaberry, D.

Robson-Brown, W.

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Keegan, D.

Roper, Sir Harold

Cunningham, Knox

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Currie, G. B. H,

Kerr, H. W.

Russell, R. S.

Dance, J. C. G.

Kershaw, J. A.

Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

Davidson, Viscountess

Kirk, P. M.

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

D'Avigdor-Coldsmid, Sir Henry

Lagden, G. w.

Sharples, R. C.

Deedes, W. F.

Lambert, Hon. G.

Shepherd, William

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Lambton, Viscount

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

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Doughty, C. J. A.

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Spearman, A. C. M.

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

Leavey, J. A.

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

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

Stevens, Geoffrey

Duthie, W. S.

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

Errington, Sir Erio

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

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Erroll, F. J.

Longden, Glbert

Storey, S.

Fell, A.

Studholme, H. G.

Finlay, Graeme

Luoas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)

Fisher, Nigel

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

Fietcher-Cooke, C.

Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Fort, R.

MoKlbbln, A. J.

Teeling, W.

Freeth, D. K.

Mackle, J. H. (Galloway)

Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Carner-Evans, E. H.

Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

George, J. C. (Pollok)

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

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

Godber, J. B.

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

Thorneyoroft, Rt. Hon. P.

Gomme-Dunoan, Col. Sir Alan

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfrles)

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Gough, C. F. H.

Maddan, Martin

Cower, H. R.

Maltland, Cdr. J.F.W. (Hornoastle)

Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

Touohe, Sir Gordon

Graham, Sir Fergus

Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Turner, H. F. L.

Grant, W. (Woodside)

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Tweedsmulr, Lady

Green, A.

Marples, A. E.

Vane, W. M. F.

Gresham Cooke, R.

Marshall, Douglas

Vosper, D. F.

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Mathew, R.

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Crimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Maudllng, Rt. Hon. R.

Walker-Smith, D. C.

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Mawby, R. L.

Wall, Major Patrick

Gurden, Harold

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

Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

Hall, John (Wyoombe)

Medllcott, Sir Frank

Webbe, Sir H.

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

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

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

Moore, Sir Thomas

Williams, H. Dudley (Exeter)

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

Mott-Radolyffe, C. E.

Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Hay, John

Nairn, D. L. S.

Woollam, John Victor

Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

Neave, Airey

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Nield, Basil (Chester)

Heath, Edward

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

Nugent, G. R. H.

Colonel J. H. Harrison and

Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Oakshott, H. D.

Mr. Barber.

Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

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

8.0 p.m.
Mr. E. G. Gooch: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, at the end to insert:
"(not being such a new dwelling as is mentioned in subsection (12) of this section)"
The Chairman: This Amendment may be taken together with the Amendments which follow in similar terms in the names of the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) and the hon. Member for Staly-bridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn), and the Amendment in page 2, line 20, in the name of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde to add a new subsection (14).
Mr. Gooch: We have heard a plea on behalf of miners. I make a plea on behalf of another section of the community, the farm workers. Nothing should be done to discourage the building of houses for the agricultural population. Clause 4 allows the Minister to add at his discretion £9 to the normal £10 subsidy in respect of a house for the agricultural worker. That will be a total subsidy of £19, to be compared with the existing agricultural subsidy of £31 1s., of which £22 1s. will be payable on any council house. The extra amount is left to the discretion of the Minister. The object of the Amendment is to continue the existing subsidies in respect of housing for the agricultural population, instead of making the reductions contemplated in the Bill.
Workers are leaving the farms at an alarming rate. No fewer than 100,000 farm workers have left farms in six years and, to the consternation of many of us, others are still leaving farms at the rate of thousands a year. If doubt is cast upon the figures I have quoted, let me add that they were compiled by the Ministry of Agriculture. It is safe to quote them as being of a most authoritative character.
Why do men leave the farms? I agree that many do so because of the great increase in mechanisation. Perhaps the machine is to a certain extent displacing the man. Another reason is low wages. There is still about £3 per week difference between the average wage of the farm worker and that of the industrial worker. I subscribe to the view that many men also leave the farms of this country because of bad housing conditions and lack of amenities.
292
This is not the time to cut down the building of rural houses, but unless local authorities receive encouragement in the form of adequate subsidies such houses will not be built, and the few that may be built with the aid of the subsidies that the Bill provides will be put up at such a cost to the local authorities as to make the rents prohibitive to farm workers. I am surprised that a Bill of this kind comes from the present Government. I support the idea that lack of houses causes the drift from the land, but there is a great deal to be said for the argument that lack of houses makes the women begin to think and to urge their men into the towns. Bad housing is at the root of much social discontent.
I have been in local government work for a good many years. I have served not only upon the county council but upon rural and urban district councils, so I know the problems. Local authorities have done a great deal to remedy the housing position and they are still anxious to get on with the job of providing additional accommodation. Now comes the Bill with its proposals which will halt the building of houses in the villages.
I have been interested to learn that 1,500 houses are to be built for United States airmen and their families. More than 200 of these houses will go up in my division. Although I do not object to such a scheme, I fear that farm workers in need of houses may feel that they should come first. The average cost of these houses is given as £3,500 and they will be rented by the American Air Force. I understand that we are building the houses in return for tobacco worth £5,300,000. Again, I do not object to attempts being made to ease the housing position of Americans at present living here. Whilst they are our guests we should see that they are properly housed, and I do not think that American service men should be left to the mercies of some private landlords of a kind that I know. Nor, as a smoker myself, do I object to our bringing tobacco into the country.
I want, however, to link this up with the matter now before the Committee by pointing out that our farm workers make a great contribution to our economic stability and can do even more. Farm production has increased enormously since pre-war days and farm workers are now amongst the greatest dollar savers

293
we have. Why not build houses for them and get the return in an increased production of the foodstuffs which we so badly need? Nevertheless, even if councils continue to build the houses, the rents charged will determine whether or not the farm workers will occupy them, and in all parts of the country I have discovered areas in which the farm workers occupying council houses are being treated in the same way as industrial workers.
A document issued by a rural district council in Leicestershire bears on the present position. It is a notice issued by that council to all its tenants. It reads:
"It has been decided…to discontinue the present method"—
that is, the method of charging rents—
"and to require tenants to pay a full economic rent, leaving the subsidies available as necessary to grant rebates of rent to tenants with small incomes. To implement this arrangement I am instructed to give you notice terminating your present tenancy on the 1st January, 1956, and to offer you a new tenancy as from the 2nd January, 1956, at…30s. 6d. plus rates, making a total rent of 37s. 10d., compared with the present rent of 25s. 1d."
A farm workers' wage up to Monday of this week was £6 7s. a week. Out of that this council asks him to pay 37s. 10d. in rent alone. It is true that as from Monday the farm worker got an increase of 8s. a week, but that increase is swallowed up in rent before he ever receives it. The letter goes on:
"The council will grant rebates from the new rents to those tenants least able to afford them…"
And with the letter there was a form which the tenants were asked to fill up.
I made sure by writing to him that the man from whom I received the form was a farm worker. He replied:
"I can assure you that I am a farm worker, and have worked for my present employer since taking the tenancy of this council house five years next June. I might also add that we pay exactly the same rent as everyone else, that is including all farm workers living in the area. That, Sir, we do not really mind, as we feel it helps in our endeavour to ask for a decent wage in comparison with other workers. Now we stand together on this latest issue with the council and mean to fight it all we can. We have already formed a committee composed of one man from every village. Perhaps we shall get somewhere, but I might add that we are fighting a Conservative majority council."
294
It is as well that my friends in that part of rural Britain should remind those who rule the roost that the farm workers have a real grievance.
8.15 p.m.
I can fairly describe the document accompanying the letter as the most humiliating document which a tenant could be asked to fill up. For instance, it asks him to state:
"Your total gross wages for the past three months."
I suppose they mean to alter the rent every three months. It is jolly hard luck if, because a farm worker has put in a lot of overtime in one period of three months, his rent should be increased in the next period of three months when he might do no overtime at all.
But the most obnoxious part of the document is this:
"(a Certificate from your employer must be attached showing your wages for that period before any deductions.)"
In other words, even when he has filled in the form the council does not believe him and he must send the certificate referred to.
Other information is asked for:
"Is your wife gainfully employed? State the names and dates of birth of your children living at home. State the names, relationship and ages of any other persons living at the house. Give full details of amount and source of income other than wages or payments by children and lodgers."
I suppose that the tenant not only has to reveal what he gets in wages and overtime, what, if anything, his wife brings in—and perhaps what the poor old father or father-in-law living there brings in; he also has to disclose, I imagine, any savings in the Post Office Savings Bank. I suppose, also, that a disabled ex-Service man must state the amount of his pension. I do not think that I go too far when I refer to that as a most humiliating document. I do not say that such procedure is general; I merely point out that this came into my possession. When I asked the friend who handed it to me in Leicester," Will you not fill in the form and secure the rebate? "he replied," No, I will give it to you. You can do more good with it than I can. It is for that reason that I have read it to the Committee.
I appeal to the Minister to consider sympathetically the points I have made. I ask him to regard the peculiar needs

295
of the farm workers in the way that they should be regarded, and to tell us why he should not allow the present subsidies to continue. If the Minister would only think again about this and allow councils to build houses for farm workers the return would be very great indeed, not merely in terms of the happiness and comfort of those so housed but in terms of the country's economic stability.
Mr. Percy Wells: I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) has overstated his case, because this is indeed a very serious matter for agriculture. I had hoped that this Amendment would receive the support of some Members opposite, but, unfortunately, their benches are almost empty.
From time to time hon. Members opposite have told us that men were leaving agriculture not only because of wages, but because—and mainly because—of housing difficulties. We know that to be true. They are leaving the industry because of the lack of amenities in the countryside, and that reason has also been stated by the representatives of the National Farmers' Union on the Agricultural Wages Board when applications from the Agricultural Workers' Union for an increase in wages have been considered.
If one wants still further impartial reinforcement of this argument, I noticed in a recent issue of the Farmer and Stockbreeder that a Mr. John Young, a farmer in King's Lynn, Norfolk, said:
"There is another aspect of the labour question in need of a new approach: the status of the farm worker—The standard of housing has a good deal to do with it. Many jobs on a farm have to be done among dust and dirt, yet a vast number of dwellings have no bath or hot waiter system. Many have no electric light or satisfactory sanitary arrangements. Any other section of the community regards these things as part and parcel of modern living. It is hardly surprising that country women urge their sons to look beyond farm work for better prospects and amenities."
That is absolutely true.
What will happen if this Amendment is rejected? As has already been said, thousands of agricultural workers are leaving the land yearly. It is frequently said that agricultural workers do not go on strike. But there has been a strike of agricultural workers for the last six years. They have been striking in the most effective way. They are striking by leaving
296
the industry altogether; 110,000 of them have done it, and if that continues it will be disastrous.
If this Bill reaches the Statute Book in its present form and if this appeal to the Minister through this Amendment is ignored, the farmer who himself wants to build a house to accommodate a stockman, horseman, shepherd or someone whom it is necessary to have on the job to look after the stock, instead of getting for 40 years the £15 that he gets at present, will have to be satisfied with a £10 subsidy. That means an addition to the rent of the agricultural worker of about 1s. 11d. a week.
As the mover of the Amendment pointed out, since April of last year there has been a reduction in the subsidy for local authority houses from £35 14s. to £31 1s., and it is possible that it will be reduced to £19. The reduction may be even more, because the Bill says:
"If the Minister thinks fit so to determine"
he may give the extra £9. Therefore, if the Minister does not so determine, it may be as little as £10. But assuming that the subsidy is £19, we have a reduction of just over £12 a year which is equivalent to 4s. 7½d. a week in rent. This is in addition to the increases that must take place as a result of the increases in the loan charges.
Who is to meet this extra cost? My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North said that eventually it will fall upon the agricultural worker if he occupies a new house built under the new scheme and he will have to pay much more rent. As has already been said, the 8s. increase which the agricultural worker receives in his wages from Monday has already been absorbed in the increases which will take place as a result of the increased loan charges and the effects of this Bill.
How does the Minister suppose it is possible for those responsible for securing decent conditions for agricultural workers to ask the workers to restrain themselves from applying for further increases in wages? In addition—and this is much more important—how does the Minister of Agriculture think he is going to stop the drift from the land if this Amendment is not accepted?
I know it is said that much of the difficulty of increases in rents will be

297
overcome if differential rating is put into operation. I am in agreement with the Chairman of the East Ashford Rural District Council Housing Committee, a friend of the former Parliamentary Secretary, who said:
"We can, we are told, apply differential rents, thereby making the well off pay so much that the 'profit' can be applied for the relief of the 'poorer' tenants. How many tenants in a truly agricultural village can pay the economic rent? We may have to use differential rents to get a balance in our housing revenue account, but they will be of no assistance at all if we embarked on building under the new conditions. There is little doubt that the Chancellor's decision has put an end to rural housing: perhaps for a time, for a very long time."
In my own constituency, which is adjacent to the Ashford constituency, one sees in the local newspaper from time to time headlines such as these:
"Reduced subsidies hit rural housing. Swale R.D.C. to build for slum clearance only. Effect of subsidy cuts may force farm-workers to look for cheaper accommodation."
I doubt whether the latter headline is correct. What farm-workers are really doing in that area is to look for another job.
In the same article to which I have referred the Chairman of the East Ashford Rural District Council Housing Committee said:
"Many rural councils had before the Budget been slowed down to the point of building only in the larger villages…In our case the rise in the interest rate on loans to 5 per cent. forced us into the decision less than two months ago, when we abandoned several schemes in our small purely farming villages…We did this because experience had shown us that the rents had already risen to a point when they were prohibitive to farm-worker tenants but conscious of our waiting list (still around the 200 mark) we still had until the Budget, a housing programme."
My hon. Friend who moved this Amendment and I have spent more years than either of us cares to remember in trying to raise the standard of the agricultural worker and we know how difficult is this question of housing in the countryside. Although much has been done in recent years, not nearly enough has been done to enable us to secure for our people the conditions that we would like them to have.
My hon. Friend and I have appealed to the farm workers, particularly during the war, on the question of production. Since the war we have appealed to them again
298
and have asked them to do their utmost to help to get the country out of its economic difficulties. No other body of workers has responded better than the agricultural workers. They have increased production to 56 per cent. above the pre-war figure, which is no mean achievement.
They are responsible for producing a tremendous amount to enable us to overcome our balance of trade difficulties each year. The value of imports from foreign countries which they have saved has been stated officially to be in the region of £400 million a year. That is no small achievement. It is because we know these things, and because we know that if the Amendment is not accepted the Bill will be disastrous from the point of view of agricultural production, that we ask the Minister and the Committee to accept the Amendment.
8.30 p.m.
Mr. F. Blackburn: It has been decided that my Amendment shall be taken in conjunction with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer). I apologise to the Committee for taking for a few moments thoughts away from the problem of agricultural dwellings to a problem more nearly concerned with some of the urban areas.
Both my Amendment and that of my hon. Friend are linked with Section 3 of the 1946 Act, which deals with the special and standard amount of Exchequer contribution. Section 3 (1) of the 1946 Act makes special provision for agricultural dwellings. As has been pointed out, this Bill makes some provision for increased subsidy for agricultural dwellings under Clause 4, but there is no provision whatever for the type of local authority dwelling with which my Amendment is concerned. Whether that is by malice aforethought or by oversight, perhaps the Minister will tell us when he replies.
There is no reference in the Bill to the type of dwelling covered by Section 3 (2) of the 1946 Act. Perhaps I can best explain the problem by reading the relevant section. Subsection (1) deals with houses for the agricultural population. Subsection (2) states:
"Where the Minister is satisfied, on an application made to him by the council of a county district with respect to any house which

299
the council have provided or intend to provide—

(b) that the average rent of houses in the district occupied by wage earning workers, or by persons whose economic condition is similar to that of wage earning workers, is, where the district is a borough or urban district, substantially less than the average rent of houses so occupied in non-county boroughs and urban districts in England generally, and, where the district is a rural district, substantially less than the average rent of houses so occupied in rural districts in England generally; and

(c)that when the amount of the expenditure incurred or to be incurred by the council of the county district under the enactments relating to housing is considered in relation to the financial resources of the district, the provision of the house with respect to which the application is made would impose an undue burden on the district, unless the standard amount of the annual exchequer contribution for the house is determined in accordance with this subsection;

then, if the Minister thinks fit so to determine, the standard amount of the annual exchequer contribution…shall…be the special standard amount;"
That has been entirely omitted from the Bill.
A month or two ago, before the Second Reading, the Dukinfield Council in my constituency, with the permission of the Minister, made application under Section 3 (2) of the 1946 Act with a view to reducing the rents of new council houses and easing the rate burden. I admit that the reply received was not very helpful, but it was with the permission of the Minister that application could be made.
Perhaps I should explain the reason for this application It is estimated that the average rent of working-class houses in the borough of Dukinfield is 6s. 10d. per week. It is quite obvious that that is much lower than the average for non-county boroughs and urban districts throughout the rest of the country. But for taking money from balances, the rate last year would have been 2s. in the £ more than the average rate for all the non-county boroughs in the country, and the housing rate is just about double the housing rate for all the non-county boroughs.
It may be said by the Minister that the sort of problem I have in mind is perhaps covered by Clause 5, but I think the Minister will agree that Clause 5 is extremely vague. I need only refer to the last part of the Clause, which says:
300
"In exercising his powers under this section the Minister shall have regard to any conditions which may be laid down by the Treasury."
I wonder when we are likely to know what those conditions may be. Subsection (1, b) of the Clause says:
"that unless the Minister exercises his powers under this section that housing accommodation could not be provided without imposing an unreasonably heavy rate burden…"
From the figures I have given, I think it is quite clear that the rate burden is heavy in this case as compared with the non-county boroughs and urban districts generally.
I suppose that this matter could be considered under Clause 5, but if the Minister says that the type of problem with which I am concerned can be considered under that Clause, surely he should have no objection to making the position more definite either by accepting my Amendment or by putting teeth into Clause 5.
Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I wish to return to the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. P. Wells), because I consider it to be of the very greatest importance.
As it stands, the Bill deals a savage blow at those rural district councils which, under very great difficulties, are trying to provide proper housing accommodation for the agricultural population. For various reasons it was not possible at the end of the war to proceed with housing schemes for agricultural workers in many rural areas, particularly in the more remote parts of the country. In addition, some rural district councils were reluctant to build houses under any circumstances; but, taking the majority of rural district councils, very real obstacles were in their way although they were anxious to provide houses for the agricultural population. We should remember that the needs of the countryside were as great as those of most of the towns because there had been no appreciable building by local authorities in the rural areas before the war.
Hon. Members may remember the inquiry conducted before the war by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). That inquiry shocked the country because it revealed appalling housing conditions in rural

301
Wales. People were contracting tuber-culosis because of the conditions under which they were living. The grim fact is that in Anglesey today many people still live in houses which were condemned twenty years ago and still contract this disease because of housing conditions. I mention this to illustrate what little progress has been made in the rural areas and what a large backlog remains to be made up.
One of the biggest obstacles in Anglesey was the lack of a county water scheme. In this comparatively flat island county there was no provision for piped water to the farms and villages, and the absence of proper sewerage facilities has retarded the development of housing schemes. For about ten years, the Anglesey County Council has been developing a county water scheme and it is making very satisfactory progress. A scheme of that kind cannot, however, be completed overnight, and because there was no piped water and no sewerage in 1946, is the agricultural population of Anglesey now to be penalised? It is no fault of theirs that there was no sewerage scheme.
The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): The hon. Member is widening his argument beyond the scope of the Amendment.
Mr. Hughes: With respect, Sir Rhys, what I am trying to say is that shortly after the war it was impossible to proceed with housing schemes in the county because of the lack of piped water and sewerage and that, therefore, the local authorities were not able to build and take advantage of the subsidies. That is a valid argument and is, I submit, within the scope of the Amendment before the Committee. In any event, I do not propose to enlarge further upon it. That was the first obstacle which stood in our way, the lack of a county water scheme.
The second obstacle in the county was the lack of builders. Anglesey is an island in the north-west corner of Wales. One of the major difficulties in 1946 was to find builders who would tender on the necessary scale. For this reason, the building of houses in the agricultural districts for the agricultural population started late and the tempo was much slower in those areas than elsewhere. Is the area now to be penalised because of
302
that? It is monstrous that for purely geographical reasons our people are to be deprived of the chance of obtaining proper housing conditions.
What will happen? My hon. Friends have mentioned the drift from the land. At this rate the agricultural workers will continue to leave the land, and who can blame them? They are leaving because of the lack of amenities, of which housing is the most important. In paragraph 58 of their White Paper on Rural Wales, the Government said that they
"intend to help the people of the Welsh countryside to achieve a higher standard of living and a greater sense of security…"
But this Bill, coupled with the Chancellor's message to local authorities, makes the future look very bleak indeed for our rural areas.
The Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate what great efforts are being made to try to rehabilitate the Welsh countryside. This Bill militates against those efforts. The Amendment tries to stop some of the rot which is setting in and I hope that the Government will have the sympathy and the common sense to accept it.
Sir L. Plummer: My hon. Friends who have spoken before me on the Amendment have stressed its importance, and I think that it is very important too. It is important enough to make a comment on the fact that there is not a single Conservative Member representing an agricultural constituency sitting on the benches opposite even though we are discussing the future of the housing of agricultural workers. But the absence of any representation of that kind on the Government benches does not belittle the importance of the Amendment.
Mr. John Hall: I think the hon. Member is mistaken. There is one Member here, at any rate.
8.45 p.m.
Sir L. Plummer: I accept the correction. I should like it on the record that, from among all the scores of Conservative Members who sit for rural constituencies, there is one present at this debate. I am obliged to the hon. Member for helping me to put that on the record.
I wish that the Money Resolution had not been drawn so narrowly that we cannot move an Amendment to increase the

303
subsidy for agricultural workers' houses. The one inhibiting factor against a steady influx of labour into agriculture is the appalling housing conditions which still exist in the rural areas. All of us who live in the rural areas know this.
It is said by the protagonists of the Bill in the Committee and outside that the time has now arrived when it is quite proper and possible for the working people of the country to pay what is described as an economic rent, and there is adduced in proof of this argument the fact that wherever we go we can see in working class streets television aerials. In the village in which I live there is proportionately an equal number of television aerials, in relation to the number of houses to the number of television aerials in relation to the number of houses in the London constituency for which I sit, but that is no expression of great wealth or great prosperity among the people living in those rural houses. The fact is that television has come to relieve the tedium of living in the countryside, and it cannot be argued that because there are television aerials in the villages of this country the people——
The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot think that this is relevant to the question of the subsidy for rural housing.
Sir L. Plummer: With respect, Sir Rhys, I would suggest that the result of reducing the subsidy for agricultural houses is to increase the rents of the tenants of those houses, and the argument of the Government is that they can well afford to pay those increased rents. This argument has been adduced before, and it may be true, for all I know, of industrial workers. All I am saying is that it is utterly untrue of agricultural workers. The evidence adduced—in the shape of television aerials—that industrial workers can afford to pay increased rents is not evidence that the agricultural workers can. However, I submit to your Ruling, and I shall not pursue that argument any further.
This decision to reduce the subsidy for agricultural houses comes at a very difficult time indeed. Those of us who live in East Anglia are surrounded by American airfields, and we know, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) said, that the Government
304
are now proposing to build houses for American airmen and their families. All of us in East Anglia know that the land is being surveyed, that the materials are ready for the building of houses far superior to anything that the rural local authorities are building for British workers. The idea has got around that those houses are to be let to American airmen and their families for £1 a year. I agree that that is a misconception of the situation, but at this day, when these things are going on and that notion has got around, to introduce legislation which means that the agricultural workers have to find more money for rent is a piece of mistiming that really is a quite significant one.
Through all the rural areas now the councils, almost all of them Tory, are deciding to cut the number of houses they will build. I refer the Parliamentary Secretary to yesterday's issue of the East Anglian Daily Times,which contains one of a series of articles surveying the plans for building in the rural areas of East Anglia, and which shows a quite significant cut in the building programme of almost every local authority. The figures show that there has been some diminution in the waiting lists but that the cut in the number of houses to be built is disproportionate to that diminution. How in these circumstances are we to maintain a vigorous and flourishing agriculture?
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North knows better than anyone else that it is comparatively easy to get farm workers to look after machinery and to work five and a half days a week, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to get agricultural workers to work seven days a week, tending pigs, milking cows, and doing jobs of that kind. Many of them, by the nature of their occupation, have cottages down a muddy lane. What they require are houses on a hard road near the village, or in the village, and near a school.
At the moment, when British agriculture is facing a crisis, and at the moment when this nation is facing a balance of payment crisis, the Government come along to make it more difficult to supply the houses for agricultural workers. So we get, as it were, a double betrayal—a betrayal of agriculture and a betrayal of the tenant. There is now a direct incentive to the rural authorities which

305
are not, to say the least of it, progressive, to stop or to curtail their building programmes. This will have effects which really are quite disturbing.
Finally, I want to say this. The agricultural community, when there was a return of a Tory Government, thought that one thing which would be done away with would be snooping and forms. It is quite clear, from what my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North said, that employers are to be asked to send in yet another form, certifying what the worker gets each week, so that he may have his rent assessed under some sort of differential rent scheme. That is a new kind of snooping. This is a new kind of form, and I have made it perfectly clear in the area in which I live and where I employ some 20 agricultural workers that I will give no information about their earnings or wages to anybody except the income tax collector. I hope that other employers will do the same.
I think that this is a more important Amendment than the one about miners' houses. I think that agricultural workers are the most important section of our community, and I shall do what I can to press upon the Government the realisation of what they are doing now through this Bill, and to tell the right hon. Gentleman that to refuse this Amendment is to make more difficult the lot both of the agricultural worker and the farmer.
Mr. Victor Collins: I think that every hon. Member will accept three propositions, The first is that an increase in agricultural production would be the most important contribution that could be made to improving our balance of payments; the second is that the wages of agricultural workers, compared with those of other workers of equal skill, are too low, and the third is that one of the most important factors in the drift from the land, which we all deplore, is the lack of social amenities, particularly houses in the rural areas.
I do not think that these three points can be controverted, nor do I think that the Parliamentary Secretary or his right hon. Friend can deny that this part of the Bill, if the Government do not accept the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch), will be an added burden in the countryside and will have the direct effect
306
of still further reducing agricultural production.
If that is true, and I believe it is, it will be sheer humbug for the Minister of Agriculture or, indeed, for any hon. Member opposite to talk about regretting the decline in the population of the countryside and promising to do something about it, if on an occasion like this, when they have the chance at least to help, or, shall I say, to avoid hindering the amenities of the countryside, they will not take it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dept-ford (Sir L. Plummer) has drawn attention to the fact that there is only one Conservative Member representing a rural or semi-rural area now sitting on the benches opposite. I once represented a rural area—the division of Taunton. About six Members of Parliament represent Somerset, all Conservatives, and not one of them is seated on the benches opposite today. I rather thought that that might be the case and, so that that area should not be entirely unrepresented in this debate on housing, I took the precaution of studying the local Press to ascertain the views of local authorities in those areas.
The former Member for Taunton has been translated to another place and presumably no voice on the other side of the Committee can be heard on behalf of Taunton today. I read in the local Taunton newspaper only a week ago that there was a local debate on this matter and a statement was made that as a result of the abolition of subsidies and of the imposition of higher interest rates the rent for a three-bedroomed council house would rise to 47s. 9d. per week, and we all know that some farm workers have reasonably large families. I am glad to see that at long last the Minister of Agriculture has come to his place on the Front Bench. I noticed a rather hurried consultation among the Whips a little while ago, and we are very glad to see the Minister. He comes from the West Country and I am sure that he can confirm that what I am saying is true.
The increase of rent to 47s. 9d. per week represents a rise of 20s. 7d. Hon. Members opposite will say that we can have a differential rent scheme and that those who can afford it will pay a great deal more and those who cannot will pay less, but this increase of 20s. 7d. represents more than the subsidy. To bring

307
the rent to a reasonable figure which the farm worker can afford will require a far bigger subsidy. The farm worker receives a minimum wage of £6 10s. a week after paying insurance. It will be argued that some farm workers drive tractors and work all the hours that God sends, but, nevertheless, a great many of them are on a minimum wage of about £6 10s. a week take-home pay.
The Minister is now creating a situation in which a farm worker of that kind will be asked to pay 47s. 9d. a week, or more than one-third of his income, in rent. It is quite impossible. It can only mean driving a further nail into the coffin of country life and driving good men away from the countryside because they cannot afford a decent house and because their wives and children will not stay in the country. I do not think that can be denied.
I should like to mention another neighbouring constituency in Somerset. I know that the hon. Member who represents that constituency will be very glad that I have raised the matter because he is a Government Whip and therefore cannot speak for himself. It is the constituency of Bridgwater, held with a comfortable Conservative majority. There is also a Conservative majority on Bridgwater Town Council. Quite recently, that town council passed a resolution, with only one dissentient, thoroughly condemning the proposals contained in this Bill. Although a majority of the members were Conservatives, they knew the very bad effect which the Bill would have on housing in the countryside. They knew that it would increase rents and curtail their housing activities, and, with that all but unanimous vote, they decided to join in a resolution passed by hundreds of local authorities, particularly in the rural areas, condemning the Bill. The two Somerset divisions, with big Tory majorities, which I have mentioned, condemned the Bill by bell, book and candle.
9.0 p.m.
I would mention just one more in Somerset, the Wells division, which is represented by an hon. and gallant Member who has a great interest in agriculture. Indeed, so great is his interest that he made a speech quite recently in his constituency when he proposed the toast of
308
"Agriculture." He is reported as having said:
"If the farm workers' wages were increased, then at the next Price Review the cost of food would inevitably go up. This would immediately result in a round of fresh demands…"
He did not know the answer to the problem, but he hoped his audience would go home and think deeply about it. Perhaps then a solution would be found. In other words, he did not know the answer to the problem. He did not know what possibly could be done, but he felt that, after hearing him speak, if the audience went home and thought deeply about it they would find a solution. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is the hon. and gallant Member now?"] He is not on the benches opposite. It might be that the solution the audience will find will be to turn him out at the next election and find some one who will know something about it. Perhaps the people of Taunton will give a lead in the matter in the by-election shortly.
The point is that he did not know what to do about the farm worker not getting enough wages, because if he did get a reasonable wage that would cause a rise in prices at the next Price Review. What is happening in his division is that the local authorities are becoming so concerned about the effects of the Bill that they are wondering what they are to do. I have here a report of the Glastonbury Urban District Council which is right in the heart of the Wells division. It has given consideration to this very matter and said that there must be a very substantial increase in rents. In particular, it discussed slum clearance, which is dealt with in the Bill. A worthy Alderman said that the council had a programme to demolish 50 houses at the rate of ten a year commencing with some in Grope Lane—50 houses to be demolished under slum clearance at the rate of ten a year for five years, and beginning in Grope Lane. What images that word conjures up—Grope Lane; one cannot imagine a better name.
The Deputy-Chairman: I think that the hon. Member is now departing from the subject of the agricultural house.
Mr. Collins: I am right on the agricultural house. This is Glastonbury, a rural area in the heart of Somerset where a high proportion of the residents are farm workers.
The Deputy-Chairman: Yes, but the Amendment does not deal with slum clearance.
Mr. Collins: In another half sentence, I come to the point. This was the programme. Another alderman said he did not see how they could proceed with the slum clearance programme because if they demolished these houses the adjacent property would fall down. In other words, if these houses were removed, the adjacent property would fall down. One can imagine how bad it is. It is the adjacent property I am talking about, because unless local authorities can have a reasonable subsidy to build houses for farm workers then it is manifestly impossible for them to proceed. That is the point.
If they cannot get on with the slum clearance programme, how can they get on with housing for agricultural workers. This is a very serious business. We have had Amendments moved today and at earlier stages because of its importance. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have thought that it seemed impossible for the Minister not to give way and make some concession. Some of the Amendments have been moved on the ground of sentiment, such as the homes for old people. This Amendment is based on the grounds of hard economic facts.
If we will not create conditions which will keep farm workers on the countryside we cannot maintain the production of food. That is an unanswerable statement. It is equally unanswerable that farm workers will not be able to pay the rents that will have to be demanded unless they have a substantial subsidy. Finally, it is unanswerable that the local authorities, whatever their good will in the matter, will become so discouraged by this kind of thing, so afraid that even if they built the houses they would not be able to let them at the rents demanded, that they will not in any case go on building.
I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary or his right hon. Friend will reply to this debate, but I hope that whoever replies will have the honesty to deal with those hard facts which I believe are unanswerable. If this Amendment is not accepted, let us have an answer to the points put forward, so that it will
310
be clear that the Government have given one more example and have produced one more proof that they are not a bit interested in the agricultural production of this country.
Mr. Dye: I support the Amendment because I think it vital to food production in this country. It has already been pointed out that one of the causes of the falling off in the number of men employed in agriculture is the lack of amenities, including decent housing. So often hon. Gentlemen opposite pay lip service to the idea that to retain men in agriculture, modern amenities, including decent housing, must be provided. I suppose that hardly one of the hon. Gentlemen opposite elected at the last General Election to represent rural constituencies did not promise that; did not say that they were in favour of building more houses to meet the needs of the agricultural industry.
It was pointed out a short while ago that although this subject was being debated, only one Conservative representing an agricultural constituency was in the Chamber—and that in the very week when the National Farmers' Union was holding its annual meeting in London. Hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to parade the fact to the farmers that what they say on their political platforms has nothing to do with what they do when they get to Westminster. They will not even attend a debate when matters relating to the welfare of their constituents are being discussed. I consider it an appalling fact that members of the party which is governing this country, where there are a hundred constituencies which are mainly agricultural, and which most wrongly and foolishly returned Tory representatives, do not even show themselves in this Chamber.
One unfortunate Member, the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Sir F. Medlicott), having recorded his vote in the last Division against a scheme for the housing of old people, comes into the Chamber now and tries to read something other than matters connected with this debate——
Sir Frank Medlicott: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Dye: Certainly. I wished to get the hon. Gentleman to his feet.
Sir F. Medlicott: I was reading the text of the Bill and the Amendment to which the hon. Gentleman is speaking.
Mr. Dye: I am very glad that the hon. Member, who has just come into the Chamber again, is beginning to read something which has to do with the debate. The debate on this Amendment started an hour ago and we have now made the astounding discovery that not only do hon. Gentlemen opposite hardly ever attend when matters relating to agriculture are being debated but that, after a debate has been proceeding for so long, one of them begins to read something of what it is about. That is the position as we have it from the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central. Having had it drawn to his attention he immediately casts it on one side.
That is as far as he is going to be interested until it comes to voting, and then he will vote against the very things which he said he would do when he spoke to his electors at the General Election. He, with every other Tory candidate standing in Norfolk at the last Election, promised that he was going to attempt to accelerate the rate of house building for agricultural needs, yet when he is put to it he cannot, and does something entirely different.
It borders upon the dishonourable to say, when one is asking for votes during an Election campaign, that one will support agriculture by every means at one's disposal, and then fail to do so when it comes to the vital question of how we are to retain the agricultural population. It is a vital question. Four years of Tory Government have seen 81,000 men leave the land. Those are the 1st June returns quoted in the Statistical Digest for the four years from 1951 to 1955. For the last year they were greater—they were 24,000—but over the four years the average is just over 20,000. It is going up at an alarming rate, to 24,000 a year.
Mr. John Hall: Could the right hon. Gentleman further enlighten the Committee by telling us the number of men who left the land in the years 1945 to 1951?
Mr. Dye: In the years 1945 to 1950 there was an increase in the number of those employed on the land. So, also, was there an increase in production every year. Because of the falling off in the number of people who are employed on
312
the land—very largely because of this question of housing—we have now reached a position where there is a fall in the output of those classes of food which require personal attention. We can increase the production of such things as cereals where it is a question of mechanisation, but there is an appalling falling off in the number of fat cattle that were produced in the past year as compared with previous years.
Pig production is falling off alarmingly, and we are seeing the turn of the tide against agriculture. We cannot maintain production in agriculture unless we have skilled and interested people working on the farms. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite give lip service to agriculture at every Election and at every meeting to which they go. Here is a challenge to them: Do they, tonight, intend to do the same as they did to the poor old people, and say, "Not now. It is pie in the sky when you die"? Are they going to say the same about houses? There has been a falling off in the number of houses built for agricultural workers. Are they not going to be concerned about it?
I speak not only as the Member for South-West Norfolk, but as a member of the Swaffham Rural District Council. This council has already taken its decision for the next year; it is not going to build any houses for farm workers. It has limited its programme of new houses to 40 bungalows, and over the last eight years it has built an average of 70 houses a year. Therefore, 40 bungalows actually represent a cut of 50 per cent. in its programme, from the point of view of accommodation and of cost, with regard to the number of people that can be housed.
Other councils in Norfolk and in the Eastern Counties have already taken the decision to build no new houses in rural areas. We have, therefore, arrived at the position when rural districts—largely with Conservative majorities—have taken a decision not to build new houses because of the increasing cost of the houses, the cost of the loans, and the lowering of the subsidies. This must inevitably be reflected in the production of food in the next few years. If the credit squeeze which is going on results in unemployment in other industries there may be difficulties in agriculture too.

313
9.15 p.m.
This is a vital matter. On the previous Amendment the argument was not that the subsidy should be used to lower rents but that it should be an incentive to councils to build for old people. The object of this Amendment is to give an incentive to rural councils in agricultural England to attempt to arrest the drift and the flight from the land and to encourage people to stay there in decent homes.
If there is a Division on the Amendment with only a very small Government majority against it, it will be open to Government supporters, so far as their consciences and their constituencies are concerned—they may not have the one but they certainly have the other or they would not be here—in a period when by-elections are taking place in agricultural constituencies, to demonstrate to the people beyond any doubt that a party is in power which pays only lip-service to the problems and the aspirations of the agricultural community.
When the Conservative party is challenged, as it was not long ago by the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), to do something about the provision of old people's bungalows by providing the incentive of a special subsidy, that party turned tail and its members flocked into the voting Lobbies, although the great mass of them had not heard a word of the debate. They will be called by the Whips to vote down any Measure that would benefit the farm workers. This benefit can be given in no better way than by the provision of decent modern houses.
Mr. Lindgren: My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) can remember with satisfaction that the attendance on the Tory benches rose by many hundreds per cent. while he was talking. It rose from three to its present number, at twenty minutes past nine. I wonder why Government supporters have come in now? [An HON. MEMBER: "To hear you."] In that case, I withdraw the compliment from my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West, and take it to myself.
My hon. Friend referred to a conference taking place not far from here this week and associated with agriculture. I noticed that one delegate there said that agriculture had never prospered under a Tory Government. I shall not argue that
314
point, but we can say that the agricultural worker has never prospered under a Tory Government. A Government supporter seems to be smiling. I always thought that he and his party were the friends of the countryside, the people who are supposed to stand by rural England and the agricultural industry, yet during their period of office the countryside is being depopulated week after week, month after month, year after year. This Bill will aggravate that process to a very large etxent.
In an interjection earlier I referred to a conference which took place last Friday in the Central Hall, Westminster, when a very important local authority association passed a resolution condemning the present Government and asking for the withdrawal of this Bill. The president of that association is the hon. Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston), and a large number of its vice-presidents sit opposite. None of them is present now. Had they been present and so displayed their interest in that association's affairs they would have been able to confirm what I am about to say.
The speech which, at the conclusion of that conference, perhaps made all the difference to a large number of delegates, was made by a woman representing the Conservative council of a small country town. She said that she came from a dying community, from which the young men and women were moving into the bigger towns because of the greater opportunity of community life and decent living conditions. She then said, as a Conservative—and on behalf of those rural areas and those small towns I repeat what she said—that, if given legislative effect this Bill will mean that those dying towns will die more quickly, and the rural areas will be even more rapidly depopulated.
My constituency is two-thirds rural, and in the majority of its villages no local authority houses at all had been built until 1946. From 1919 to 1939 not a single council house was built in those villages. From 1945 to 1951 building went on apace, and although building has slackened off a little since 1951, houses are still being built. Nevertheless, the fact remains that there are comparatively few such houses in each village. Some villages have perhaps gone up to as many as 100 houses, but most vary from 20 to 40 houses.

315
If those villages are to be maintained houses are still needed, but how can the local authorities spread the cost over the existing houses? The Minister, in justifying this Bill, and classing agricultural and urban areas together, has said that if a local authority pools all its subsidies and spreads them over the new houses it builds the increased cost will not amount to very much, but there are hundreds and hundreds of villages in this country which have only a comparatively few houses. Are they to spread the cost over those few? What difference will that make?
The Minister has heard my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) give an instance of a means test taking place in a rural district—a means test which the Minister is encouraging throughout rural areas. That means test concerns the rent to be paid by the agricultural worker, but the agricultural worker is not the only person to be subsidised in rural areas. Is there a means test by the Minister of Agriculture with respect to the other subsidies which are paid to the farmer? There is a subsidy and no means test for the farmer, but there is a means test on rent for the farmworker.
The position is even worse than that. Among the problems of the rural areas are the financial difficulties of the rural district councils. These financial difficulties are aggravated by the fact that the whole of the agricultural industry is derated. No farmer has to justify by a means test that he is entitled to a subsidy in the form of paying no rates. Why is there this selection of putting a special penalty on the agricultural worker?
Can we wonder that the agricultural workers, with the penalty of having a worse wages structure and worse working conditions than the industrial worker, and then subjected to the indignity of a means test on rent, are drifting from the rural areas to the towns? Many of them are kept in the rural areas, in spite of having to put up with these conditions, because they like the countryside, they like working in the open air and because there still seems to be in the agricultural industry a degree of loyalty between employer and employee which does not seem to exist in the urban areas.
Mr. William Yates: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to change that arrangement?
Mr. Lindgren: No, I want to improve the situation. What is to the everlasting credit of the Labour Government is that they took housing, water, sanitation and electricity to the rural areas which had until then been deprived of those amenities. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is all very well hon. Members opposite saying "Oh," but whole rural areas were deprived of water, sanitation and electric light until the Labour Government came into power in 1945. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which areas?"] The areas of hon. Members opposite. Those areas are no different from my constituency in Northamptonshire, or Hertfordshire where I worked as a member of a local authority for many years. Of course, hon. Members opposite try to belittle these improvements. It is because of these conditions to which I have referred in rural areas that we on this side of the Committee think that this subsidy ought to be increased.
I referred just now to the difficulties of rural district council finance. Few people with any local government knowledge at all would deny that the rural district council, with its low rateable value and sparse population, has a very difficult job in providing a standard of service for its residents on the same basis as the urban authority. It is impossible for it to do so. Even in housing, the progress which was arranged between 1945 and 1951 was only possible because the 1946 Act enabled county councils to assist the rural district councils in meeting a subsidy charge. Over and above that, the financial resources of the rural district councils are not such that they could take on a heavy rate charge, if they desired to do so as could a county borough, municipal borough or urban district.
9.30 p.m.
On all counts, therefore, there is a special case for the acceptance of the Amendment—the difficulties of the agricultural industry, the general standard of wages in the rural areas, the desirability of maintaining an agricultural population and of giving as high a standard of housing as possible in the rural areas and the complete inability of a rural district council to provide housing on a normal rate charge basis. There is a special case

317
for giving to the agricultural industry and to the rural district councils as its instrument in housing the opportunity of receiving this additional subsidy.
On his first day on the Front Bench the Parliamentary Secretary has not had very much opportunity to give anything away. We are getting towards the close of this day's proceedings, and I hope that on this occasion he will accept the Amendment or at least give some indication that he is prepared to help the rural district councils to maintain the provision of housing in the rural areas and to make a contribution towards maintaining the labour force in the agricultural industry. I hope he will see that the Government and local authorities combine to help the agricultural industry, which is so vital to the economic stability of the country.
Mr. Powell: In considering the Amendment, I should like to remind the Committee of the background of the agricultural housing subsidy. Ever since the present system of subsidy was introduced in 1946, an additional £9 has been payable on top of the general standard amount, as it is technically called. Since the Act of 1952 that £9 has been payable—and I notice that specific attention is directed to the fact in the Amendment which we are considering with this Amendment—at the discretion of the Minister.
The reason for which that £9 supplement, if I may so call it, was introduced and was continued was to take account of the special difficulties and cost of constructing houses which can be encountered in the deep rural areas.
For example, my right hon. Friend's predecessor, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, said on 6th May, 1952, in Committee on the 1952 Housing Bill:
"There is still the great difficulty and problem of building houses at reasonable prices in many agricultural areas. There are great problems because very often a hillside has to be built on, or the locality is difficult, the sewerage difficult and those difficulties make a particular kind of scheme an expensive scheme."—[OFFICIAL RFPORT, Standing Committee A,6th May, 1952; c. 59.]
He might also have drawn attention to the extra costs of transporting materials and labour to a remote site which can also be encountered. It was to deal with all these peculiarities which attach to some housing sites in agricultural areas
318
that the £9 supplement was devised and was continued until the present time.
That supplement is unaltered by the present Bill, for if hon. Members look at Clause 4 they will see that the £9 is still payable in addition to the new general needs subsidy. If the special conditions which differentiate the costs of houses under those rural circumstances from the general costs of house building have been reasonably met up to the present by the addition of £9 to the general subsidy, that remains true under the present Bill.
Mr. Lindgren: Surely the hon. Gentleman will admit that the subsidies were £35 10s., £31 10s. and are now £19. There is a lot of difference between £35 10s. and £19 when it comes to the effect on rents plus interest charges.
Mr. Powell: I was going to deal with the broader question covered by the debate, but I wanted, first, to clear up the facts about this additional subsidy. It is not quite correct to regard the agricultural subsidy of £31 1s. as a single whole. It consists and has always consisted of the general standard amount, plus the £9 addition. The same £9 addition remains under this Bill and on the same conditions.
Of course, the general standard amount is being reduced by this Bill. The assumption which underlies that reduction of the general standard amount—my right hon. Friend has constantly reiterated this—is that local authorities generally will treat the subsidies which they receive on their existing and future houses as a pool which can be applied to all the houses in their ownership.
Here again we come to a point at which rural areas may be in a special position. There may be, and undoubtedly are, rural areas where the number of houses and to some extent the character of the population render inapplicable this system of pooling of subsidies, which we believe elsewhere will be satisfactory. This is by no means true of all rural districts. There are many rural district councils which have a large reservoir of pre-war and post-war houses, and a correspondingly large margin for manoeuvre in their pool of subsidies.
I pick out three examples of rural districts, one building at the rate of 40 or 50 houses a year, a Norfolk authority

319
with which some hon. Members opposite will be more familiar than I am—Blo-field and Fleck. That authority is building at the rate of 50 houses a year and owns more than 1,500 houses, so that the pool of houses and the relevant pool of subsidies bear a large ratio to the increase of houses and costs over the next few years. Another rural district council is building at the rate of 140 or 150 a year and owns 2,600 houses. That is Chelmsford rural district. A third, Hitchin rural district, is building at the rate of 50 to 60 houses a year and owns more than 1,800 houses. Thus to treat all rural areas as a whole, and say that rural districts in general will not have a sufficient reservoir of existing houses would be misleading. We have to look at the individual case.
Mr. Gooch: I think that the selection of examples quoted by the hon. Gentleman is rather unfortunate, particularly in the case of the first he quoted. When he spoke of the number of houses which Blofield and Flegg had built he could not have had in mind that that district borders on the City of Norwich and that some of those houses are for city workers.
Mr. Powell: Yes, indeed, the term "rural district" is in many respects and in many parts of the country misleading. For that reason it would be wrong for us to regard rural district councils all from one point of view, or to think that the rural district council, just because it is such, will have more difficulty than an urban district council or borough council in operating the new subsidy scheme.
Nevertheless, there are undoubtedly rural districts in which that does not apply, because hitherto small numbers only of houses have been built and those have been built mainly, if not entirely, for agricultural workers in the stricter sense of the term.
Some of the conditions in those areas were indicated by the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes). In those cases, undoubtedly, if the rural authority was merely left with the new general needs subsidy, however it pooled the subsidies available to it and however it worked a rent rebate scheme, it would be in the position either of charging unduly high rents or of imposing an undue burden upon its ratepayers.
320
It is to meet those cases that the Committee will find in Clause 5:
"Where the Minister if of opinion…

(a) that there is urgent need for more housing accommodation which will only be met if that accommodation is provided by that authority; and

(b) that unless the Minister exercises his powers under this section—"

that is, of increasing the subsidy—
"that housing accommodation could not be provided without imposing an unreasonably heavy rate burden or necessitating the charging of unreasonably high rents for that and other housing accommodation …"
then the higher rates of subsidy set out in that Clause are payable.
Wherever, therefore, the circumstances of a rural district council which is providing housing for the agricultural population are such that under the new subsidies, and with the agricultural supplement of £9, the result would still be either unreasonably high rents or an unreasonably heavy rate burden, the Bill provides the means in Clause 5 whereby that case can be met.
Mr. Blackburn: What about subsection (2)?
Mr. Powell: I am coming to that. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) will not get away with it. He reminded the Committee that Clause 5 of the Bill not only deals, although it will probably primarily deal, with the agricultural areas concerned in this debate. It is not restricted to those areas; it deals also—as did Section 3 (2) of the 1946 Act, with county boroughs and county districts.
Mr. Blackburn: Why is it necessary in Clause 4 to repeat something about the agricultural provisions while the provisions of Section 3 (2) of the 1946 Act are not repeated in any part of the Bill?
Mr. Powell: Because the purpose of Clause 4, as I have been trying to explain, is to retain intact the £9 supplement for agricultural housing. The purpose of Clause 5 is to deal with cases, whether rural or urban, where owing to local circumstances the effect of the Bill otherwise would be to produce unduly high rents or an unduly heavy rate burden.
Clause 5 replaces Section 3 (2) of the 1946 Act, to which the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde drew attention. In order to be covered by Section 3 (2) of

321
the 1946 Act, it was necessary that two conditions should be fulfilled: first, that the average rent of houses in the area should be generally lower than in comparable areas throughout the country, and also that the prospective housing effort would impose an undue burden on the district. If hon. Members look at Clause 5, they will see that the Minister has a wider discretion. He does not need to be satisfied, as he needs to be under the 1946 Act, that the general level of rent is lower than in comparable areas throughout the country. So he has wider discretion now under Clause 5 than he had before.
9.45 p.m.
Section 3 of the old Act was entirely discretionary—something of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) was complaining a little earlier, although he was the parent of that Act—for there stand the words in that Section 3:
"…if the Minister thinks fit so to determine…"
Here again we get the words,
"the Minister may direct."
So, in both cases, there is a Ministerial discretion.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde discovered a mare's-nest, for he drew the Committee's attention to Clause 5 (2):
"In exercising his powers under this section the Minister shall have regard to any conditions which may be laid down by the Treasury."
This he thought to be very sinister, and he wanted to know what those conditions would be. If he had turned over the leaf in his copy of the 1946 Act he would have found exactly the same proviso, which is common form, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale says, attached to the provision which is now replaced. So we have in Clause 5 of the Bill a wider latitude allowed to the Minister than he possesses under the existing Acts to deal not only with the special case in rural areas but with any special case which may arise in any part of the country.
Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member is making very much of the point that the Minister has wider powers. We are not now discussing Clause 5. We shall have to discuss it later. However, that, of course, is not really a defence, because
322
wider power for the Minister in these cases can be a very grave defect.
Mr. Powell: Oh, no, the powers are wider only in this sense, that by Statute the Minister can cover a wider range of cases by this Clause than he could cover by the old Section.
Many hon. Members have referred to the often deplorable housing conditions under which agricultural workers live, but the Committee should realise what the relevance of that is to the Bill. Many of those deplorable houses in which agricultural workers live are unfit and fall under the slum clearance drive which is now on. They are dealt with by the Bill, as a slum clearance Bill, and they attract, like any other unfit houses, the subsidy for which provision is made in Clause 3 (3). Many more houses which are not unfit but are destitute of the necessary amenities will be dealt with, and ought to be dealt with, by the system of improvement grants, which is unaffected by the Bill.
Therefore, the Committee once again has to face this issue. The Bill as it stands deals with special hardship, special conditions, in rural and, indeed, in urban areas. It preserves the supplement which has been payable for the last almost ten years in respect of specially costly building operations in rural areas. Now the Committee must decide whether it wants to go further than that, to go beyond the deliberate, concentrated aim of the Bill, which is to remove unfit housing from the face of the country at the earliest time, whether it wants to spread subsidy widely instead of concentrating it. The Bill, while taking account of the real difficulties in the agricultural areas, is essentially a slum clearance Bill and an overspill Bill. I would ask the Committee to retain its character and its force as such by rejecting the Amendment.
Mr. Mitchison: The object of this Bill is to cut housing subsidies. The only "improvement" it proposes by way of slum clearance is to reduce by 15,000 houses a year the amount of slum clearance which, but for this Bill, would have been carried out by the local authorities, as they have intimated to the Minister. Indeed, the Government are sorely driven to it when all they can say in defence of their Bill is that its object is to promote slum clearance and to deal with overspill.

323
What are the facts? The facts are that the subsidy on houses occupied by agricultural workers—the total subsidy including the agricultural subsidy—is being cut by rather over £12 a year. That money is to be taken in order to save the country when a 30 per cent. tax on pots and pans has not been sufficient for the purpose—from whom? From the most underpaid category in the community at present, the agricultural worker, and it is to be taken out of his pocket and out of the hard-pressed finances of rural authorities by whom? By the friends of agriculture whom we see sitting on the benches opposite. That is what we are talking about tonight.
Let hon. Members opposite go through the countryside, anywhere in this country, not the suburbs of some big town where there happens to be a rural district, and look at the houses for themselves, if they have not already done so, and what will they find? They will find this—numbers of old houses not yet insanitary but obviously not fit by modern standards, not capable of condemnation but houses which ought to be improved. That is the first thing we find, and that is the legacy of generations of Tory land-
owners and Tory Governments before the war.
Next we find houses that have been built since 1945, where, in my own constituency as in others, water has been brought in since 1945, electricity has been brought in since 1945, and is still being brought in, because the nationalised electricity system is doing the job that private enterprise failed to do. That is what we find.
These improvements are now to be niggled at and taken away by this Tory Government, and the first step is cutting down of subsidies on the houses of those workers, and cutting down the finances of the rural authorities which have to look after them and which, if they are conscientious, want these improvements. This discreditable refusal of the Amendment is simply the first step in Tory economy and its niggling campaign, directed specifically against the rural workers, and I need hardly say that we shall divide in support of the Amendment.
Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 204, Noes 246.

Division No. 89.]

AYES

[9.52 p.m.

Ainsley, J. W.

Cronin, J. D.

Hobson, C. R.

Albu, A. H.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Holman, P.

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

Holmes, Horace

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Deer, G.

Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

Allen, Soholefield (Crewe)

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Howell, Denis (All Saints)

Anderson, Frank

Delargy, H. J.

Hubbard, T. F.

Bacon, Miss Alics

Dodds, N. N.

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Bartley, P.

Dye, S.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

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

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Benson, G.

Edelman, M.

Hunter, A. E.

Beswick, F.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

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

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Blackburn, F.

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Irving, S. (Dartford)

Blenkinsop, A.

Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Blyton, W. R.

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Janner, B.

Boardman, H.

Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

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

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Fernyhough, E.

Jeger, George (Goole)

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

Fienburgh, W.

Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs, S.)

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Forman, J. C.

Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

Brockway, A. F.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

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

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Gibson, C. W.

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Gooch, E. G.

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Burke, W. A.

Greenwood, Anthony

Jones, T, W. (Merioneth)

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Kenyon, C.

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Grey, C. F.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Callaghan, L. J.

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

King, Dr. H. M.

Carmichael, J.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Ledger, R. J.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Champion, A. J.

Hale, Leslie

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Chapman, W. D.

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Lewis, Arthur

Chetwynd, G. R.

Hannan, W.

Lindgren, G. S.

Clunie, J.

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

Logan, D. G.

Coldrick, W.

Hastings, S.

Mabon, Dr. J. D.

Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

Hayman, F. H.

MacColl, J. E.

Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

Healey, Denis

McGhee, H. G.

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Herbison, Miss M.

McInnes, J.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Hewitson, Capt. M.

McKay, John (Wallsend)

McLeavy, Frank

Parkin, B. T.

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Islet)

Paton, J.

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Mahon, S.

Popplewell, E.

Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Mainwaring, W. H.

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Thornton, E.

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

Proctor, W. T.

Timmons, J.

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Pryde, D. J.

Tomney, F.

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Rankin, John

Usborne, H. C.

Mason, Roy

Reeves, J.

Viant, S. P.

Mayhew, C. P.

Rhodes, H.

Weitzman, D.

Mellish, R. J.

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Mitchison, G. R.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Monslow, W.

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Panoras, N.)

West, D. G.

Moody, A. S.

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Wheeldon, W. E.

Morris, Percy (Swansea) W.)

Ross, William

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Mort, D. L.

Royle, C.

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Moss, R.

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Willey, Frederick

Mulley, F. W.

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Williams, David (Neath)

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Simmons, C. J. (Brlerley Hill)

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

O'Brien, T.

Skeffington, A. M.

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Oram, A. E.

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

Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

Orbach, M.

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

Oswald, T.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Owen, W. J.

Snow, J. W.

Winterbottom, Richard

Padley, W. E.

Sparks, J. A.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

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

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Stones, W. (Consett)

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Palmer, A. M. F.

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

Zilliacus, K.

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Swingler, S. T.

Parker, J.

Sylvester, G. O.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Mr. Pearson and Mr. Wilkins

NOES

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Dance, J. C. G.

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Aitken, W. T.

Davidson, Viscountess

Holt, A. F.

Alport, C. J. M.

D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Hope, Lord John

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Deedes, W. F.

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Horobin, Sir Ian

Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

Doughty, C. J. A.

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

Armstrong, C. W.

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

Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

Ashton, H.

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Howard, John (Test)

Atkins, H. E.

Duthie, W. S.

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

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

Baldwin, A. E.

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Hughes, Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

Balniel, Lord

Errington, Sir Eric

Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

Barber, Anthony

Erroll, F. J.

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

Barlow, Sir John

Fell, A.

Hyde, Montgomery

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Finlay, Graeme

Iremonger, T. L.

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Fisher, Nigel

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Fort, R.

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Bldgood, J. C.

Freeth, D. K.

Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

Biggs-Davison, J. A.

Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Bishop, F. P.

George, J. C. (Pollok)

Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

Body, R. F.

Godber, J. B.

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Bossom, Sir A. C.

Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

Kaberry, D.

Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

Gough, C. F. H.

Keegan, D.

Boyle, Sir Edward

Gower, H. R.

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Graham, Sir Fergus

Kerr, H. W.

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

Grant, W. (Woodside)

Brooman-White, R. C.

Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

Kershaw, J. A.

Bryan, P.

Green, A.

Kirk, P. M.

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

Gresham Cooke, R.

Lagden, G. W.

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Grimond, J.

Lambert, Hon. G.

Burden, F. F. A.

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Lambton, Viscount

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

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

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Carr, Robert

Gurden, Harold

Leavey, J. A.

Cary, Sir Robert

Hall, John (Wycombe)

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

Channon, H.

Harris, Frederio (Croydon, N.W.)

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Chichester-Clark, R.

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (Sutton Coldfield)

Clarke, Brlg. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

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

Cole, Norman

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Longden, Gilbert

Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

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

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Harvey, John (Walthamstok, E.)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Hay, John

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Heath, Edward

McKibbln, A, J.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

Cunningham, Knox

Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)

Currie, G. B. H.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

326

327

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

Pitman, I. J.

Storey, S.

Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfrles)

Pott, H. P.

Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

Maddan, Martin

Powell, J. Enoch

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

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

Price, David (Eastlelgh)

Teeling, W.

Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Price, Henry (Lewlsham, W.)

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Mannlngham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Profumo, J. D.

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Raikes, Sir Victor

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Marples, A. E.

Ramsden, J. E.

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

Marshall, Douglas

Rawlinson, Peter

Thorneycroft, Rt, Hon. P.

Mathew, R.

Redmayne, M.

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

Mawby, R. L.

Ronton, D. L. M.

Touche, Sir Gordon

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

Rldsdale, J. E.

Turner, H. F. L.

Medlicott, Sir Frank

Rippon, A. G. F.

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Moore, Sir Thomas

Robertson, Sir David

Vane, W. M. F.

Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

Robson-Brown, W.

Vosper, D. F.

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Wade, D. W.

Nairn, D. L. S.

Roper, Sir Harold

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Neave, Airey

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Walker-Smith, D. C.

Nield, Basil (Chester)

Russell, R. S.

Wall, Major Patrick

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

Nugent, G. R. H.

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

Oakshott, H. D.

Shepherd, William

Webbe, Sir H.

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

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

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

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Spearman, A. C. M.

Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

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

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Page, R. G.

Stevens, Geoffrey

Woollam, John Victor

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Partridge, E.

Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mr. Studholme and Mr. Legh.

Question put and agreed to.

It being after Ten o'clock,The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
Committee report Progress: to sit again Tomorrow.

Mr. R. A. Butler and Mr. Gaitskell to be Members of the Committee of Privileges—[Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.]

WELSH COAL (EXPORTS)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]
10.4 p.m.
Mr. Raymond Gower: First, I should like to express my best wishes to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power on his appointment to office and, through him, to his right hon. Friend the new Minister on his appointment. I ask my hon. Friend especially to note that during the period that he is in charge, with the Minister, of this Department we hope that he will be cognisant of the problem which I wish to raise tonight.
In raising the question of the decline in Welsh coal shipments I have in mind the effect on the Welsh channel ports—primarily the ports of Barry and Cardiff.
328
The three hon. Members who represent the Cardiff constituencies have indicated to me that they fully support the plea which I wish to make. Indeed, they have evidenced their keen support by their presence tonight. They are deeply concerned about the turn which this matter has taken in recent months.
We do not expect a final answer tonight from my hon. Friend. We wish merely to be sure that in these early days in their new offices he and my right hon. Friend will be seized of the importance of this issue, that their minds are turned in the right direction; and we should like an assurance that every practicable step will be taken to find a solution. I appreciate that there are aspects of the trade of these ports—freight charges, communications with the hinterland, general cargo, and so on—which do not fall within the province of my hon. Friend. But the main aspect of the Welsh dock trade certainly does, because the South Wales ports have been, and are, primarily coal ports, Barry and Cardiff remarkably so.
Allow me to quote from Cmd. Paper 9359, the Report on the South Wales Ports which was prepared a year ago to this month by the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire. In page 6, paragraph 5, it states:
"In the busiest years of their history, just before the 1914–18 war, the South Wales ports

329
handled 45 to 50 million tons of traffic per year, of which nearly 40 million tons was coal."
In 1913, coal exports from South Wales represented 40 per cent. of the total exports from the United Kingdom. As the same Report states, in page 1:
"This development sprang from the need of improved facilities for the industrial traffic of the valleys and for the movement by sea of Welsh coal.…"
Indeed, Welsh coal was then famous the world over and so were the ports of Cardiff, and Barry from which most of it was exported. I do not refer to the ports of Swansea and Newport to the same degree, because they are blessed with a variety of general cargoes and are not affected to the same degee.
From Barry alone in 1913 more than 11 million tons of coal were exported, and even in 1938 the export of coal amounted to 5½ million tons. Since the last war the position has changed completely. In 1953, Barry exported only 2,236,000 tons, and Cardiff only 1,447,000 tons. I can assure my hon. Friend that I appreciate, as he does, some of the reasons for this decline—reduced national production and increased domestic and industrial demand—and that some of the imports of coal have brought some much needed relief to the ports. But I wish my hon. Friend to note another aspect of this question.
In 1938, South Wales produced 16 per cent. of our coal production per annum and exported 39 per cent. But in 1953, when South Wales still produced 11 per cent. of the total annual production, her exports had fallen to only 23 per cent. of all our exports of coal. Referring again to the Report, in paragraph 30, in page 11, it is stated:
"…there was a movement out of Wales of 7·6 million tons for home consumption in other parts of Great Britain."
I should like to ask my hon. Friend who ordained this. Why is such a large proportion of Welsh production now moved overland into England instead of being exported by sea as before the war?
This position, I may say, existed even before the decision last year for a further reduction in our exports. I can assure my hon. Friend that there is uneasiness in the minds of many informed people in South Wales about this aspect, because some of the North-Eastern ports in England have maintained and sustained a
330
remarkably high percentage of their prewar exports.
From this subject I can pass naturally to the decision which was taken last year to restrict coal exports still further. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) then questioned my hon. Friend's predecessor—the hon. Member for Chichester (Sir L. Joynson-Hicks)—on this subject. He asked the Minister to see that the reduction in coal exports was
"fairly shared among the coal exporting ports of the country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1955; Vol. 546, c. 75.]
In reply, the Minister said that the annual reduction would be about 5 million tons, and that about one-third of that reduction would affect the Welsh coal ports. That would involve South Wales ports in a further reduction of about 1,700,000 tons. I would point out that the total exports of coal from South Wales ports last year had fallen to 6 million tons. It will, therefore be seen that they can ill-afford this further reduction. Indeed, why should they have to bear one-third of the total reduction? Is this a fair proportion? I submit that it is not, taking into account the number of ports in the United Kingdom.
I stress the fact that, prior to the last war, no Minister, authority, or body had power to fix arbitrarily how much coal should be exported from any coalfield—and foreign customers showed a marked preference for Welsh coal. The National Coal Board and my hon. Friend's Department might well benefit from the trading experience of half a century prior to the last war, which led to South Wales coal exports being extremely high.
I recognise that there may be a need for a short-term reduction in the global exports of coal, but is my hon. Friend satisfied that it is sound policy in the long run? Is not it a fact that, before the war, we earned great amounts of foreign currency because of the superior quality coals which we then exported? Might not it be equally good policy, and sound business, for us to continue to export some of these first-grade, high carbon value coals, and to import coals of lower value.
I know that my hon. Friends are not dogmatic about this, but I hope that the Minister will recognise that we feel that South Wales ports were a strategic asset in wartime—they demonstrated their

331
value in two world wars; they have been the natural ports for one of the most famous coalfields in the world, and should be regarded as an asset to be sustained. We recognise the limitation of power of my hon. Friend's Department, but we feel that more can be done by the Minister and my hon. Friend, in co-operation with the Chairman and members of the National Coal Board, to ensure, first, that a fair proportion of coal will in future be exported from South Wales ports and, secondly, that the question of this reduction in exports will be fully considered, especially with reference to the problem which I have raised tonight. So far as it lies within their power, my hon. Friend and the Minister should use their influence to promote the improvement in or maintenance of the necessary facilities and communications by pressing their colleagues in the Departments concerned.
I should have liked far longer to develop this subject, but I recognise that some of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members wish to say something. For that reason I abbreviate my remarks. I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that in so doing I am none the less very serious about this matter. It is a big issue, and I hope that my hon. Friend's Department will give it very serious attention.
10.15 p.m.
Mr. James Callaghan: I speak as the Member for Cardiff, South-East, and not in any other capacity. I speak also not only with your consent, Mr. Speaker, but with the consent of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), who has renounced any opportunity he might have sought of catching your eye. I congratulate the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) on raising this matter and also, while I am in this felicitous mood, I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary. At least, I can console myself that while the hon. and learned Gentleman is busily engaged on coal, he is not doing any damage in transport.
We are all very concerned about the situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West and I have had communications—other hon. Gentlemen may have had them—from the Cardiff and Barry Coal Trimmers' Union, a small organisation of about 600 men. These
332
men are engaged wholly in coal trimming and their livelihood is now at stake. This is not a profession into which there are many recruits nowadays, and that is one of the reasons why this is a very important matter. These men are now in their forties and fifties, and changing over to other occupations will be extremely difficult for them at their age, at which they are becoming less elastic and mobile.
There is some sort of responsibility with the Minister because South Wales is still a Development Area. He has to see that in the allocation of coal exports we are not dealt with unfairly by comparison with other areas. The Cardiff Trades Council has made representations to us and to the last Minister of Fuel and Power. I am not very optimistic about the plea made by the hon. Member for Barry. It means all of us scratching round for a fair proportion of a smaller and smaller export trade. We shall have to return to this problem many times, not in relation to the specific problems of Cardiff or Barry or of any other coal-exporting port, but in relation to the very big question whether the Government are wise and prudent in cutting off our export trade at this moment. I have very great reservations about the policy that they are following. I may be wrong. Exports of coal from Cardiff are likely to be reduced from about 3·6 million tons to ·6 million tons during the next 12 months. The export of coal from this country will be reduced to nugatory proportions.
I speak only for myself and my hon. Friend on this matter. We are very concerned whether the Government's policy is wise in cutting out overseas markets on which we may be very glad to fall back. We cannot expect to be self-sufficient in fuel again. We are bound to have to go on importing oil and to rely increasingly upon nuclear energy, so if there is a good market to be made in selling our coal abroad, even if it means importing more coal than we would otherwise import, there may be a good case for selling abroad at one price and buying coal of a different quality at a different price.
We shall have to return to this topic on another occasion. It is a very big problem, and I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider most seriously with his right hon. Friend, in his new responsibility, whether the Government are

333
convinced that they are following the right course. I would reinforce the other plea made by the hon. Member for Barry that the right hon. Gentleman should consider this matter, not only in relation to the loss of exports of coal from South Wales but in relation also to the loss of livelihood by a group of men who have served their lives in the coal trade. They will have very great difficulties in finding alternative accommodation if this extremely savage cut goes through in its entirety. I thank my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to speak.
10.20 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. David Renton): I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), and the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) for their very kind references to my right hon. Friend and to myself. Substantially, they have both raised two points this evening. The first is as to the wisdom of the Government's coal export policy, and the second is as to the effect of that policy upon the ports of South Wales in particular and, of course—necessarily and understandably—its effect upon the ports in their constituencies.
The first question is a very big one and one of high policy, and I do not propose to do more than deal with it somewhat briefly in the course of this debate. I do not complain of its being raised, because it is important in its effect on the constituencies of the hon. Gentlemen, but, in the nature of things, I do not think that a full reply from me would be helpful at this stage. Let me just say that the decision to cut coal exports which was announced last July was taken by the Government with the greatest reluctance and only after the fullest consideration.
That decision became necessary last year when it was found that the output of coal was falling and that home consumption was rising. We were already importing coal, and the combination of the two factors which I have mentioned led, of necessity, to an increase in imports. It so happened that, owing to a number of factors, of which freight rates was one, imports were costing us a good deal more than exports were bringing in. These large imports imposed a heavy burden of cost upon the National Coal Board, which cost, in turn, had to be passed on to the
334
home consumer. The Government necessarily had to consider very carefully the effect upon the balance of payments position in the circumstances which prevailed at the time when the decision was made and which exist now.
It might interest hon. Members to know the overall tonnages of coal exports which were affected by this decision, and I think that the picture is fairly shown by the figures which I am about to give and which, incidentally, exclude exports to the Channel Islands. In 1954 we exported 13½ million tons. In 1955 we exported 11·9 million tons. The figure for 1956 can only be an estimate, but it looks as though it will be about 7 million tons.
I would remind the House that although the Government have to decide the overall amount of coal exports it is for the National Coal Board to decide which coal is to be exported and through which ports it is to be shipped. In making that decision the Board has to consider all the complexities of supply and demand both at home and overseas for various grades of coal. It has to consider the commercial factors, the economics of moving coal from various collieries to various ports. In other words, it has to consider the type, the quality, the destination of the coal being exported; its availability, and the proximity of the collieries where it is produced to the docks from which it is to be shipped, and also the foreign destinations to which it is to go. Those are the factors which govern the National Coal Board in its choice of port of shipment.
Let us consider how those factors have worked out in relation to South Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Barry gave a considerable number of figures, but I am going to ask him and the House to bear with me while I give one or two further figures which seem to me to be even more appropriate to this matter than those which he gave, and they are these. In 1955, 3·1 million tons of coal were exported through South Wales. That happened to be 26 per cent. of the national total of coal exports. It is estimated that in 1956, 1,750,000 tons will go through South Wales. That, again, is about the same percentage—approximately a quarter—of the national total of coal exports. Therefore, on that test, South Wales is not being treated unfairly.
Mr. Callaghan: Does that figure include coastwise trade, or is it export?
Mr. Renton: It is export. I am giving figures of true exports, excluding exports to the Channel Islands.
Mr. Callaghan: Coastwise is in addition?
Mr. Renton: Coastwise is in addition, yes. That is one test which I suggest proves that South Wales is not being unfairly treated. I am speaking of the South Wales ports as a whole.
There is, however, another way of looking at the matter, and it is this. The national total of coal exports in 1956 will be reduced by about 40 per cent. compared with 1955, and the reduction for South Wales will also be about 40 per cent. in 1956 compared with 1955, so on that second test it can be fairly said that there is no discrimination against South Wales. But I must stress that it is the factors which I have mentioned, which are mainly commercial factors, which decide the matter, rather than a desire to favour or not to favour any particular port or group of ports.
However, I agree with the hon. Members who have raised this matter—and
336
let there be no doubt about it—that the cut is a severe and regrettable one. There is no doubt about that at all. It is, indeed, unfortunate for those whose livelihood and business has been the carrying of coal from South Wales ports that they should be faced with this fall in traffic.
I should perhaps mention that within South Wales different ports will be differently affected owing to the factors which I have mentioned, but those factors are again for the Coal Board to consider. It would, of course, be quite wrong for the Government or indeed for this House to dictate in any way how the decision should be taken by the Coal Board, though I have no doubt that what has been said here tonight will be borne in mind from time to time.
In conclusion, I would say in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Barry that the best way to bring this regrettable situation to an end is for more coal to be produced. The output figures during the last few months have shown some improvement, and long may it continue.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

ROADS
  Slough By-Pass
  Slough By-Pass
  Tyne Tunnel
  Tyne Tunnel
  Cranford Lane
  Cranford Lane
  Harthope Diversion
  Harthope Diversion
SHIPPING
  Southampton-Le Havre Service
  Southampton-Le Havre Service
CIVIL AVIATION
  London Airport (Press Facilities)
  London Airport (Press Facilities)
TRANSPORT
  Stationary Vehicles (Accidents)
  Stationary Vehicles (Accidents)
  PRIME MINISTER (BRADFORD VISIT)
  PRIME MINISTER (BRADFORD VISIT)
  GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENTS
  GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENTS
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Armed Services (Pay Code)
  Armed Services (Pay Code)
  Cyprus (Troop Reinforcements)
  Cyprus (Troop Reinforcements)
  West German Navy (Equipment)
  West German Navy (Equipment)
  Forces Clothing (British Materials)
  Forces Clothing (British Materials)
  Catering and Accommodation Costs
  Catering and Accommodation Costs
  SURPLUS WAR MATERIALS (EXPORT)
  SURPLUS WAR MATERIALS (EXPORT)
  IRAQ (BAGDAD PACT)
  IRAQ (BAGDAD PACT)
  ICELANDIC FISHERIES DISPUTE (PROPOSALS)
  ICELANDIC FISHERIES DISPUTE (PROPOSALS)
  ATHENS RADIO BROADCASTS (REPRESENTATIONS)
  ATHENS RADIO BROADCASTS (REPRESENTATIONS)
  CHINA (ATOMIC WEAPONS)
  CHINA (ATOMIC WEAPONS)
  U.N. REFUGEES FUND (U.K. CONTRIBUTION)
  U.N. REFUGEES FUND (U.K. CONTRIBUTION)
CYPRUS
  Situation
  Situation
  Forces Gift Parcels
  Forces Gift Parcels
  Earthquake Damage
  Earthquake Damage
  Terrorist Activities (Material Damage)
  Terrorist Activities (Material Damage)
KENYA
  Capital Crimes
  Capital Crimes
  Derek Searl (Sentence Remission)
  Derek Searl (Sentence Remission)
  Political Associations (Native Membership)
  Political Associations (Native Membership)
  SIERRA LEONE (DISTURBANCES)
  SIERRA LEONE (DISTURBANCES)
  CENTRAL AFRICA (NATIVE FRANCHISE)
  CENTRAL AFRICA (NATIVE FRANCHISE)
  MALAYA (SEMINYIH INCIDENT)
  MALAYA (SEMINYIH INCIDENT)
  BRITISH SOMALILAND AND SOMALIA (STATUS)
  BRITISH SOMALILAND AND SOMALIA (STATUS)
  SINGAPORE (TRANSPORT LOCK-OUT)
  SINGAPORE (TRANSPORT LOCK-OUT)
  NAIROBI (SUPREME COURT CASE)
  NAIROBI (SUPREME COURT CASE)
  GIBRALTAR (RADIO STATION)
  GIBRALTAR (RADIO STATION)
  GOLD COAST (COCOA PURCHASING COMPANY)
  GOLD COAST (COCOA PURCHASING COMPANY)
  GIBRALTAR (MINISTER'S VISIT)
  GIBRALTAR (MINISTER'S VISIT)
  GRENADA (HURRICANE REHABILITATION)
  GRENADA (HURRICANE REHABILITATION)
ROYAL NAVY
  Gillingham Pier
  Gillingham Pier
  Clasplains
  Clasplains
  Officer Structure and Training (Review)
  Officer Structure and Training (Review)
BRITISH ARMY
  Drill Halls (Civil Defence Training)
  Drill Halls (Civil Defence Training)
  Chaplains
  Chaplains
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Compulsory Purchase Orders, Newcastle-under-Lyme
  Compulsory Purchase Orders, Newcastle-under-Lyme
  Slum Clearance
  Slum Clearance
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Cinema Attendances
  Cinema Attendances
  Monopolies Commission (Linoleum Report)
  Monopolies Commission (Linoleum Report)
  Canned and Deep-freeze Vegetables
  Canned and Deep-freeze Vegetables
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Metal Working Craftsmen (Dilutees)
  Metal Working Craftsmen (Dilutees)
TELEVISION
  Reception, Lewes
  Reception, Lewes

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock. The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

EARL ATTLEE
The Right Honourable Clement Richard Attlee, O M., C.H., having been created Viscount Prestwood, of Waltham-stow in the County of Essex, and Earl Attlee—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

THE IMPERIAL COLLEGE
2.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To draw attention to the statement made by Sir Winston Churchill on 5th December concerning the scale of technological education in the Soviet Union, and to ask if Her Majesty's Government have yet come to a decision on the South Kensington site, which will enable the Imperial College to carry out its full expansion in accordance with the announcement made by Her Majesty's Government on 29th January, 1953.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I am answering on behalf of my noble friend the Lord President of the Council. In view of the urgent need to increase the country's output of scientists and technologists, the Government have decided, notwithstanding the difficulties which are involved, to adhere to the scale of development for the Imperial College which they originally announced. In order that this decision may be put into effect, new premises for the Imperial Institute will be provided elsewhere.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Earl for his reply. I should like to ask him whether, as the expansion of the College is now held up, waiting for Her Majesty's Government's decision about the site, the noble Earl can say if the Government are now in a position to authorise the Imperial College to proceed with its original building plan. This plan alone makes it possible to carry out the full expansion of the College to comply with the Government's instructions.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I should like notice about the exact timing. I do not think that, now that the Government's decision has been taken, there is anything to hold up the plan.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: I should like to thank the noble Earl; I am much obliged to him.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether any decision has yet been taken about the site of the new premises for the Imperial Institute?
THE EARL OF HOME: No.
LORD OGMORE: May I ask the noble Earl whether the premises of the Imperial Institute will be suitable for the important functions that the Institute have to perform?
THE EARL OF HOME: Yes; that is the intention—that it shall be an equivalent building, and suitable for the purposes of the Institute.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl whether the Government are really appreciative of the extreme urgency of getting on with this project, which has been, so to speak, floating about for something like ten years now. The whole of the future of this country depends on our getting ahead with our technological education. I hope the Government realise that this is one of the most urgent matters with which they have to deal in the present Parliament.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, that is why I gave the answer that I did: that we are fully aware of the urgency of this problem.

THE CHAMBER OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS
2.52 p.m.
LORD JEFFREYS: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask the Leader of the House whether he will take steps to obviate the overheating and airlessness of the Chamber of the House of Lords, and whether with that object air-conditioning could be introduced.]
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, air conditioning of this Chamber has been considered from time to time, but it would be extremely costly a very rough estimate is £100,000. Owing to the nature of the building, also, the work would take a long time to carry out and the Chamber might have to he out of action for as long as twelve months. Every effort is made within the limitations of the present system to prevent overheating and to maintain a comfortable atmosphere.
LORD JEFFREYS: My Lords, may I ask whether that is all the noble Earl has to say? Must we continue to suffer this overheating and airlessness, as at present? Is it not possible for the matter to be further considered and for something, even if it is not air conditioning, to be done to improve present conditions?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I have much sympathy with my noble friend, and I think that possibly something might be done to make conditions a little more bearable. If it would meet with his approval, I would refer this matter to the Offices Committee. I believe that they are not unhopeful, if they were allowed to examine this matter, that something might be done.
EARL WINTERTON: Could my noble friend give an assurance that no action will be taken until this Committee has reported? Some of us prefer a properly heated Chamber to an ice-box.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, I am not taking any line against the object that the questioner has in view, but may I ask the noble Earl whether it may not be that the conditions about which complaint is made are due, in some measure at least, to gastronomic rather than atmospheric causes?
THE EARL OF HOME: I can certainly give the assurance to the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, that no decision will be taken until the Committee have reported. I can give no such assurance to the noble Lord opposite.

TRADE WITH CHINA
2.53 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware (1) that the New York Times of December 21, 1955, stated in relation to trade with China, that,
"The British feel that the present restrictions could be eased without permitting the export of materials of a definitely strategic value to Pekin. They can, if they wish, take this step unilaterally while remaining within the general terms of the United Nations resolution";
(2) that amongst items embargoed by this country but exported by West Germany to China in 1955 were power machinery, optical precision instruments and copper and alloys, and that trade in British-embargoed items took place in 1955 between Sweden and Switzerland on the one hand and China on the other and seeing that some countries are driving a coach and four through the gap between the broad terms of the United Nations resolution and the specific provisions of the original embargo lists, whether Her Majesty's Government will take steps to place British industrialists on an equal footing with their foreign competitors in the China market.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are aware of the statement by the New York Times to which the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, refers in the first part of his Question. As my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated in another place on November 30, the scope of the China trade controls is under study, in consultation with the United States authorities.
As to the second part of the Question, I would refer the noble Viscount to the

525
answer which my noble friend Lord Mancroft gave to him in reply to a similar Question on December 6. As my noble friend then indicated, British businessmen desiring to trade with China are on exactly the same footing as their foreign competitors, such as those of France, Japan and Western Germany and other members of tile Consultative Group. The items referred to in the noble Viscount's Question as having been exported by West Germany form part of categories of item, some of which are subject to embargo and others not. I understand that the items so exported were not subject to embargo. As has already been stated, Sweden and Switzerland are not members of the Consultative Group in Paris. However, Her Majesty's Government do not consider that the nature or volume of these two countries' exports to China arc such as to prejudice the general effectiveness of the controls maintained by members of the Consultative Group.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I beg to thank the noble Marquess for his Answer.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is not a fact that the embargo list for China is approximately double the length of the embargo list for Russia, and, if that is so, that any item exported to the Soviet bloc can easily be re-exported to China? Therefore, is there not a case for bringing these two embargo lists more into line with one another?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I would not commit myself offhand to the existing excess of the China list over the Soviet list, but there is a considerably greater number of articles than on the Soviet list. The point which the noble Lord has just made is, of course, one which has been under consideration, and, indeed, has been mentioned in a previous discussion on this particular matter in your Lordships' House.

OFFICERS' PAY AND CONDITIONS
2.56 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM rose to call attention to the pay and conditions of service of officers of the Armed Forces of the Crown; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Motion I think it would be opportune if I were to remind your Lordships of the important and relevant statement made in another place on November 2 last year. This statement was made by the then Minister of Defence with regard to the pay and conditions of service in the Regular forces. What was the main content of that important statement made in another place? It declared that the Government's aim was to raise conditions of service in the Armed Forces to standards comparable with those in civilian life. This is an important statement, a statement such as has never been made before, and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will implement it. I think I am right in saying that Her Majesty's Government are now considering ways and means of bringing about, this most desirable project. For that reason, I would suggest that it is highly important that the Government and the public generally should be made fully aware of the feelings, difficulties and hardships of officers in the three Services.
May I suggest, in the first place, that all Governments, both Conservative and Labour, during recent years have failed to realise the impact on the Services of the changes in the life of the community during the last decade. In days gone by, most officers had some private means, but this is now exceptional. The position of the Service officer in those days was certainly equivalent to, if not higher than, his opposite number engaged in industry and commerce; nowadays the position is vastly different. I think it is true to say that officers to-day nave come to realise the great change that has occurred in their position and status in the community, and I am sure that it is having an adverse effect on their outlook on Service life. Surely, there cannot still be an attitude of mind ire the Treasury that officers are not expected to live on their pay—an attitude of mind which certainly prevailed until a comparatively short time ago. Sometimes one cannot help thinking that, even to-day, there is still lingering feeling in that direction.
It is true that there were selective increases in pay in 1954: and last year there was the educational grant. But in each case I would say that the increases have been too little and too late. The fact is that the time lag between the proposal to make increases in pay and allowances and its actual fulfilment is so great that the conditions calling for the increases have usually changed for the worse. The selective increases in pay which were made in 1954 were, I believe, recommended as far back as the year 1947, while the educational grant was recommended, I believe, two years ago. Surely this delay is quite unnecessary, and it affects the situation very badly. I have little doubt that the reason for these delays is that as soon as the facts of the officers' situation become apparent the whole procedure of bargaining with the Treasury commences, and pruning proceeds until the essential measures are completely out of date and whittled away beyond all recognition. That happens not only among the "middle piece" married officers but also in the more senior grades, owing to their greatly increased expenses. I believe it is true to say that officers of the rank of general or admiral have not received any rise in basic pay since 1946.
The single officer can now live at a reasonable standard on his pay and allowances, but there is no doubt that the small additions which are given to a married officer are insufficient to enable him to live at a comparable standard. This is a most important point, which appears to have been forgotten by the Treasury and Governments generally and which is the cause of a great deal of discontent in the Services to-day. I maintain that the essential remedy is to widen the gap in the total amount of basic pay and allowances between married and single officers by increasing marriage allowances. Many of your Lordships are aware that there is increasing evidence that a large number of the more promising "middle piece" officers are applying to retire prematurely. These are the type of officer that we are most anxious to retain in the Services—those who perhaps will one day rise to high rank and command. The position is very serious in all three Services, and I believe that if it is not rectified very shortly it will have a devastating effect on the officer structure in all three Services.
528
We must adopt the overriding principle that expenses which have to be incurred by married officers to enable them to live at a reasonable standard must be accepted, and must be the basis of their pay and allowances; otherwise we shall never have contented Services.
I do not want to go too deeply to-day into the question of pay and allowances—no doubt many noble Lords who are to follow me will deal with those points—but there are one or two points which I would particularly like to mention because they relate to my own Service. I wonder how many of your Lordships are aware that the command pay of a captain, Royal Navy—10s. a day—is at the same rate as before the First World War, with 5s. for a commander and 3s. for a lieutenant-commander. It is almost unbelievable that this payment has remained the same over these years, bearing in mind the fall in the value of money. These allowances are taxed. I maintain that there is no possible argument against an increase in these rates. The responsibilities of command are certainly not less. Ships are much more complicated than they were forty or fifty years ago, and responsibilities are consequently larger. Compare, for example, command of a modern 2,500 tons destroyer with one of 500 tons in the 1914–18 war, when I first went to sea. I mention this particular allowance to indicate how little sense of fairness has been shown towards officers for many years.
Again, entertainment allowance is generally the same as before the First World War—8s. per day for 1st class captains, sea-going command, and 2s. 6d. per day for a commander in command; but the lieutenant-commander in command gets nothing at all. What an appalling state of affairs when ships are sent to foreign ports to show the Flag and commanding officers have to entertain, as they should do! Their allowance certainly does not cover their expenses, and a lieutenant-commander gets no allowance at all. Perhaps one of the most bitterly resented things in naval service is the purchase tax on officers' uniforms, more especially as naval ratings' uniforms are not so taxed. Many items of clothing sold by the supply department of the Navy to officers and men, such as towels, oilskins, sea boots and so on, are identical; but the officer is forced to

529
pay considerably more for the same article because of purchase tax. That does not sound at all reasonable to me.
I should like to say a few words on education grants. The Services appreciated the recent introduction of an allowance of £75 per annum for boarding school fees for officers' children over eleven years of age, but the amount is far short of what is really required. I believe I am correct in saying that men in the Foreign Service get anything from £120 to £150 as education allowance, and further, it is given for children from the age of eight. They have been getting this allowance for some years. I suppose the fact is that the Civil Service always manages to look after itself better because it is nearer to the Treasury's ear. In both cases this education allowance is taxable when the parent is stationed at home, while, of course, the boarding school fees remain the same. That does not seem at all logical. Only recently the Essex Education Authority provided £90 a year tax free to parents who live or own a house in the county and whose child has passed the eleven-plus examination. Why this niggardly allowance of £75 for a Service education allowance when the Foreign Service and a county council can do so much better?
Service children must go to hoarding schools, for only in that way can an interrupted education be avoided. The argument that Service children under the age of eleven should not be at boarding schools does not hold water. The fact is that the fathers of these young children obviously tend to be in the more junior ranks of officers, and liable, certainly in the Army, to more frequent postings. I suggest that educational grants should be given at a much earlier age than eleven and should be on a basis comparable with the Foreign Service provision at the age of eight. Why should there be any difference at all?
It may well happen—and it frequently does—that members of the Foreign Service are able satisfactorily to educate their children at the capitals in which they are stationed, but this rarely happens in the case of the Service officer. It must be borne in mind that it is not only a question of finance but also of the actual availability of boarding vacancies in State-aided schools. Some local authorities
530
have more to offer than others, and I suggest that the only way to get over this difficulty would be for the Ministry of Education to control centrally the placing of Service children. I have had all kinds of letters about these matters, and if your Lordships will bear with me for a moment I propose to read extracts from one or two. This is a letter from the wife of an officer in the Army. She says of the educational grant:
"This last grant pathetic. How many school fees are low enough for £75 to cover even one term? What about uniforms, books and extras like laundry, lectures, outings, and so on? And when we are overseas, what of the holidays?
There is yet another cause for grave dissatisfaction in the Services commonly known as "disturbance." In these days more frequent postings occur which entail heavy costs for moving and, of course, the expense of temporary accommodation of the family. The disturbance allowance seldom, if ever, covers the additional cost for the unfortunate officer who has to make a move. Only the basic cost of a move is recovered by an officer he is expected to pay all other expenses, such as providing for a period in a hotel or lodging from the time of leaving his quarters until he embarks. This hotel period may have to be extended, because an officer frequently sails without his family as he has to find them accommodation in the place to which he is going. In the meantime his family has to stay in a hotel in England.
I have now dealt with some of the main grievances in the Armed Services, and they make a very sorry tale. The fact is that the nation must have an entirely new attitude towards Service officers, now that commissions arc open to all. I wonder how long a great industrial or merchant undertaking would prosper if its executives received the same treatment as Service officers, and how many first-class executives it would retain if the differentials between the junior and senior grades were as low as in the Services. The question of differentials is a very important one, and I hope that one or two of the noble Lords who are to follow me will deal with this matter.
I should be really sorry for the noble Lord who is to reply for Her Majesty's Government if he had to defend the present pay and conditions of officers in the Armed Services, but it is now apparent,

531
I think, from the recent speech of the Prime Minister, that improvements are going to be made. But let me make this quite clear: there is evidence that a number of the best types of officers are waiting to see what improvements are announced before deciding whether to continue in the Services or to leave them and take up civilian employment. One other point. Just think of the young married officer who, perhaps, is now serving in Cyprus, and having a very difficult time because he is continually looking over his shoulder at his bank overdraft and wondering about the position of his family at home. Believe me, these overdrafts are very prevalent, and, in the main, they are not due to any fault on the part of the officers concerned.
It must not be forgotten that officers' wives have a very important role to play and a great deal of the welfare service is carried out by them. We are certainly not yet a matriarchal society, but the hand that rocks the cradle has a great deal to do with an officer's career, for better or for worse, and wives are certainly bearing the brunt of inadequate pay and allowances. The whole structure of the officer corps in the three Services may be endangered by a niggardly approach to their conditions of service. I am sure we all very much welcome and appreciate the words of the Prime Minister in his recent speech at Bradford when he said:
"I have always believed that in this business half measures will achieve nothing. Let no-one think that increased pay for the Services is extravagant. It is no such thing."
I feel sure that the welfare of the officers of the Services is very much in the mind of the Prime Minister and is in safe keeping, and we shall look forward to the proposals which I understand are to be made in the near future. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.14 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I am sure there will be agreement on all sides that we owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, for bringing forward this subject for debate in your Lordships' House to-day. It is not a Party matter at all. All of us realise, as Lord Teynham has said, that a completely new outlook, a new attitude, is needed on the part of the country towards the Armed Services. I should
532
like to think that there was evidence of that new attitude, because we know that the present situation is bad. It is unsatisfactory for the Services, and it contains a very serious threat to their future efficiency and well-being, because the career of a Regular officer now is not sufficiently attractive to bring forward young men in sufficient numbers to apply for commissions. Among National Service personnel, competition for commissions is very keen indeed, and only the best are selected. But when it comes to applications for Regular commissions the story is very different. There is not the competition that there ought to be if the Services are to get young men of the quality that they need. One need look only ten or fifteen years ahead to see the possible effect that that might have on the efficiency of the three Services.
There is another point, too—a rather specialist point. I will only briefly mention it because it applies to officers in the specialist corps who have scientific or engineering qualifications. I am told that the loss of officers in middle ranks in these corps is causing serious disquiet. It is due to the incomparably better conditions and higher pay that they can get in industry. One hears stories of majors and captains in the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers getting offers of £2,000 or £4,000 a year in industrial firms, with the settled life that a civilian career means, as against the continual change and upheaval of Service life.
No doubt the noble Lord who is to reply for Her Majesty's Government will say that officers at the present day can live on their pay, and that private means are not required. Whatever the official view on that matter may be, in practice it is just not true that private means are not required, because allowances—I refer to such allowances as disturbance allowance for moves, allowances for education and so on—are insufficient to cover the expenses that they are designed to cover. The consequence is that there are a number of unofficial expenses which on the official level do not exist but which, in fact, are a very serious problem for the serving officer. Take such a matter as dress. Certain dress is laid down as regulation for the Services, but in many cases Regular officers are required to buy other forms of uniform, possibly obsolete forms of uniform that are not now recognised and are not supposed to be bought,

533
but the Regular officer has to buy them. Then there is the standard of plain clothes which he has to maintain; there is the standard of entertainment expected of him, both in hip mess and in his home; and there are the standards of recreation. We run into this question of standards all the time, and that is where the change of outlook is needed.
If the Government seriously mean to make service as officers in the Regular Forces possible fur everyone without any private means at all, they have to do one of two things. They have either to raise the total emoluments to a level which will cover not oily all obligatory and official expenses but unofficial ones also, or, if they are not prepared to do that—which means, of course, recognising large numbers of unofficial customs—then they must eliminate the unofficial expenses; and to do that means conducting what would be almost a revolution it the outlook of the Services as to the standards required of serving officers. The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, spoke of the 1914 standards. Certainly it is all too frequent, I believe, in the Army, even at the present day, that the standards expected of a Regular officer are those that a Regular officer considered himself entitled to in 1914. Here I should like to remind your Lordships of something said two years ago by the noble and gallant Field Marshal, Lord Alexander of Tunis, who was the last Minister of Defence but two. He said this [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 185, col. 679]:
"I do not think that the officers of Her Majesty's Forces will cease to be respected because their standard of living is no longer so greatly superior to that of their subordinates. I feel sure that they will continue to inspire the confidence, the respect and the affection of their men as they have always done, but it is my experience that this will be due to their professional competence, enthusiasm and powers of leadership and command rather than through a higher standard of living, with greater facilities for social amenities and pleasures."
If Her Majesty's Government still accept that view of the standard of living of officers in the Services, they have a great deal to do to impart those ideas to senior commanders down through the chair of command to the units.
Even if unofficial expenses are eliminated, there will still be the essentials which are not covered by the allowances which are supposed to cover them. There is the question of disturbance. The noble
534
Lord, Lord Carrington, may say that he hopes that moves will be less frequent in future; that the Army may be less stretched, less committed, and that this obligation on officers will be of less importance. But it will never be eliminated: there will always be frequent unexpected moves, not only from home to overseas but also between different stations in this country. I have heard of an officer of nineteen years' service whose wife has had to move house forty-two times; and moves of more than once a year in the course of an officer's service are the rule rather than the exception. Yet the Army give a disturbance allowance of £20, sometimes, I believe, though very rarely, increased to £40, and hedged about by-so many restrictions and regulations that many officers do not qualify at all. Frequent moves cannot be eliminated in a Regular Army whose commitments cover the whole world.
Then there is the question of education. I cannot understand on what basis a sum of £75 was fixed as a proper allowance to cover boarding education for a child of a serving officer. We should like to hear from the noble Lord who is to reply how that figure is justified. Certainly it has very little effect in alleviating the burden of boarding education, and there is no doubt that officers' children have to be boarded during much of an officer's service while he is moving about. I am told of a promising enterprise in Germany, of two boarding schools for the children of all ranks, which I believe are extremely good and successful, although they are at present too small: officers are lucky if they can get their children into either of these schools. In the old days, between the wars, any officer who had no private means knew perfectly well, and reconciled himself to the fact, that when he served abroad he would probably be separated from his wife and children for years at a time. Nowadays, with air travel making distant parts of the world appear so near. I do not think we can expect that of our officers, and they must have the means by which children can be educated in school when officers and their wives are abroad. And that costs money. The same applies equally to children of other ranks. Proper educational opportunities for growing children of serving officers and men must mean boarding education, preferably in this country.

535
Her Majesty's Government must choose one of two alternatives; they cannot allow the situation to go on as it is. They must assist officers of the Services to carry on and induce them to stay on and make their full careers in the Services. But I think there is one corollary to any increase of emoluments and improvement of conditions—that is, that the Army must be recognised to be a full-time occupation. In the old days an officer's pay was what he considered to be a half-day's pay, and he reckoned that all he would be expected to do was a half-day's work. Those days are past, but the questions of leave and recreation still bulk largely in the Services. I think that sixty-one days is the basic period of leave, but many young officers would think they were ill-used and unlucky if they did not get a good deal more than sixty-one days' leave in a year, not counting days taken for the various recreations which, in the view of the Army, are conducive to efficiency in the field. I think that the Army ought to be so organised that officers cannot be spared from their posts for those long periods at a time. I think that, if they give concessions and ameliorate conditions, the Government can insist on much more arduous periods of duty from officers. I am sure that many noble Lords will have much more valuable contributions to make. I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, in his Motion.
3.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: My Lords, I do not rise to repeat the detailed case so well made by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham. I agree with every one of his points and I feel that most of your Lordships will, too; I accept them, and I am grateful to him for bringing forward this question once again. I rise to raise rather a different issue, entirely relevant to his case, but giving it a somewhat broader background. It seems to me that this is not the usual dispute between the Service Departments and the Treasury. I know well from experience how at this time of the year in the past each Service Department would start its own campaign with the Treasury officials, and so it would go on week after Week with this kind of piecemeal approach. I suggest to your Lordships that the issue to-day is a much wider one. It is really this: how can we
536
obtain in a Welfare State, with no unemployment and a constantly rising social standard, enough officers and men, and I would add police, as well, for the Security and the Defence Services?
This is a new problem that has arisen since the war. None of the old incentives or other reasons that in the past drove men into taking commissions or joining the ranks any longer exists. We must face that fact that this is a new world and we must approach these questions of Service pay and conditions on that basis. Hitherto it has seemed to me that we have tried to deal with it with little doles that have been insufficient and have had no real effect, and the only result has been to waste a great deal of public money. Your Lordships will remember how year after year some of us have raised certain of these questions. I think particularly of the questions connected with the Air Force, not because they do not concern all three Services, but because it so happens that I have had a longer connection with that Service: the demand, for instance, that pilots should be assisted in insuring their lives; the demand also that better educational facilities should be given to officers and men. Year after year some of us have raised these questions and at the end of it some small palliative has been offered. I suggest to your Lordships that that is an inefficient and extravagant way of dealing with this big problem of how we are to get the officers and men for these essential Services.
I look at the position of the Air Force to-day—and no doubt speakers for the other three Services will have a similar story to tell—and I find that the entries into the training college of Cranwell, which, in my view, is th., key institution of the whole of the An Force, are most unsatisfactory and, on the whole, tend to fall rather than to rise. I find, again, that the plan that was introduced a year or so ago for the direct entry of young men upon the basis of eight or twelve years is not going well, so far as one can judge at present. I find also—and this is even more serious, and it affects all three Services equally—that the Service families, upon whom the traditions of the Services have rested so much in the past, are fading out. I have had in my own experience several cases of fathers and mothers who have always looked to

537
one of the three Services for careers for their sons but who now say it is not good enough and they cannot advise their sons to go into the Services. Your Lordships know better than anybody how much tradition counts in the Services and how vitally important it is to keep this unbroken tradition of the Service families. I will not develop that part of my argument any further, because it seems to me that it is unanswerable that without a future much better assured than it is at present we shall lose this great asset to the Services upon which we depend for our national existence.
By all means improve the pay upon the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, and also the educational facilities. It seems to me indefensible that while the Civil Departments in Whitehall are paying large grants to their officials for the education of their families when they are serving abroad, the Service Departments should be told to be content with this £75, which I understand (the noble Lord who is to reply will correct me if I am wrong is subject to income tax, whereas the civil grants are double and are free of tax. What justification can there be for this differentiation?
I have only one regret as to the Motion of the noble Lord, and that is that it does not cover the men as well as officers. But much of what I have said so far covers both officers and men. I want the noble Lord who is to reply to realise that, at any rate here in this House, we do look upon this question most seriously; and we ask him and the Minister of Defence to face the big question that I have seated at the beginning of my speech and to bring the conditions in the Services more into relation with the conditions in trade and industry. I do not suggest that they should be identical, but I do suggest that the gap between them should he shortened. I think this debate will show the Government—and when I say "the Government" I include all the Governments since the war—that this policy of doles during recent years is both inefficient and extravagant.
I am delighted that we have now got in the Minister of Defence a man who probably knows labour conditions as well as anyone in the country and a man who in every post he has held can claim a series of remarkable successes. Here is
538
a great opportunity for him to bring his knowledge of labour conditions to the conditions of the Services; and let him realise that manpower in the Services may be even more important than the machines. Let the Prime Minister keep to the statement that I was glad to see he made the other day: that it is the considered policy of the Government to build up the Regular Forces to such a point that we can dispense with National Service.
I have always thought that in peace time this country finds it particularly difficult to carry the great burden of National Service. I am not referring to the conditions when the young men are in the Services, so much as the break that it makes in their lives. I am sure that break is having a bad effect upon the country generally at the present time. But, be that as it may, here is the opportunity. The Prime Minister has specifically stated that his object is to create a Regular Army, Navy and Air Force sufficiently strong to dispense with National Service men—that is the basis of his policy for the next three or four years. Secondly, we have a Minister of Labour who really understands employment conditions. Let him give his mind to it, and when the Government produce their White Paper, as I understand they will in the next two or three weeks, let them take account of the debate in this House to-day; and, above all, let them throw aside for ever this policy of too little and too late and face the problem upon a broad scale.
3.41 p.m.
LORD BEVERIDGE: My Lords, in following the noble Viscount who has just sat down, I am delighted to follow him also in widening somewhat the scope of this debate. Anyone who has listened to the speeches we have already heard can have no doubt that Service officers represent a clear case of a body of men and women vital to the State who are suffering from inflation—the loss in the value of money—in their pay, their pension and their allowances, and also, of course, in their personal savings. All these things today are of less value than they should he through this fall in the value of money. I hope that those who speak for, or are interested in, these officers will not feel that I am showing any lack of sympathy with their immediate personal human

539
problems if I treat those problems as an illustration of the much wider problem of inflation, of how it is affecting the lives of all, and of how the Government, in acting in regard to the Services, may so act as not to weaken their general attack upon inflation.
We all know that exactly a week ago the Prime Minister, speaking at Bradford, featured as one of the main objects of the Government the battle against inflation. He said, "The battle against inflation is on," and he repeated that statement several times. He went on to admit that it would be painful. He did not tell us in the least what measures he proposed to use—though perhaps that was natural, because he was not speaking to Parliament but outside Parliament; and specific measures might easily wait until he was speaking in Parliament. But he did not stop by telling us that the battle against inflation was on. He went on to something which is really little different from saying: "We, as our contribution to the battle against inflation, will do a little inflation on our own account"—because inflation merely means giving more money for the same service—"We will do a little inflation by raising the pay of all the Service officers and men. We will do that immediately. We will do it by our own decision as an employer." Is not that raising of pay for the same service exactly what every employer and every trade union are doing when they raise wages and set inflation going? The Prime Minister was clear that it was not extravagant to pay the Services properly, but in so far as they are to get more money for doing the same thing as before it is bound to diminish the value of money and to add to the general motion in favour of higher prices and a lower value of money.
The Government have announced their intention of doing this, I think, next month; but, curiously enough, there was another department of the Government, the nationalised railways, which was much quicker off the mark. After having been told on Wednesday by the Prime Minister that the battle against inflation was on, the Transport Commission proceeded to give away £25 million a year to the railwaymen for exactly the same work as before. Here is a nationalised industry, already in the red to the extent of £30 million a year, proceeding to add
540
another £25 million to its deficit. Of course, that means higher costs, and ultimately higher fares and higher prices. I do not know whether the Prime Minister, when he said on Wednesday that the battle against inflation was on, knew of this magnificent example of inflation which was to be announced the day following. If he did not know, he certainly ought to have known, and I should be interested to know what thoughts he had on the subject and how he avoided referring to it in his speech.
Without refusing to remedy their troubles, cannot we treat this problem of the Service officers not as a reason for not "getting down to brass tacks" on this problem of inflation? What makes these recurrent increases of pay necessary? The Prime Minister, in his speech at Bradford, emphasised two great evils threatening society to-day—the danger of war and the danger of inflation. I wish that he had gone further and realised the community of origins between these two great evils. Each of them springs from a continuance, in an entirely changed world, of out-of-date ways of thought and action. The danger, too, springs from persistence of unlimited national sovereignty, including war and preparation for war by competitive armaments, although the weapons which nations now possess have made war something wholly different from that in the past. In the same way, the danger to the value of money—that is to say, the danger of the destruction of the value of money by inflation—springs from continuance in the industrial field of the claim to industrial sovereignty; the right, under conditions of full employment (those are the new conditions of to-day), of every industry, both on the employers' side and on the trade union side, to settle its own wages without regard to the effects upon the community as a whole.
That is the new problem. Under unemployment there was something to check demands for wages. Under full employment there is no such check, if we continue to deal with wages industry by industry. I do not for a moment, of course, think that we should go back to unemployment. Unemployment is a form of slavery from which we should all be glad to be free. None the less, it is true (as I wrote some twelve years ago in a book called Full Employment) that if we

541
have full employment there is nothing in our present machinery, no inherent mechanism, which can with certainty prevent competitive sectional bargaining for wages from setting up a vicious spiral of rising prices under full employment. Is that not exactly what has happened ever since and what is happening to-day—this "competitive sectional bargaining for wages setting up a vicious spiral of rising prices under full employment"?
How can we deal with the problem?—not by going back to unemployment. Surely we can deal with it only by moving somehow to a state of affairs in which each industry is not absolute master in its own field but in which something like a wage policy is adopted for the country as a whole. I am not going to deal with ail the difficulties in the way of a move in that direction, but I make a plea to-day that the Government should not, because of their sympathy with these Service officers and men, in order to remedy their immediate troubles, destroy, by that example, their appeal to everybody else to be reasonable in wage policies, to be reasonable in putting up prices and to be reasonable in this matter of industrial bargaining. That is what they will do if, acting not in consultation with the whole of industry but simply as one employer among others, they say: "Well, we find we have not been paying quite enough t we are now going to pay more for exactly the same thing as before"—in other words, that, in order to fight inflation and at the same time be just to the men in the Services, they will give another close of inflation to the community as a whole. Yet that is actually what the Government's policy appears to be to-day.
Against that, I would say just this: in dealing with this problem of the Forces, the Government can either set an example against inflation or they can set an example for it. If, like the Transport Commission and every other employer, they proceed to make some bargain for the Services without regard to any wider question, then they will weaken their fight against inflation as a whole. If, however, in regard to the Services, they were to decline to take unilateral action as an employer but did something which could be approved by an impartial inquiry investigating all the facts to produce, as it could probably produce, an unimpeachable case for what was proposed, then he Government, by not
542
having acted as an employer themselves but by having shown the way to get a general consideration of wage problems, could strengthen their case against inflation in general.
This is the plea that I would make to the Government, a plea on method, rather than on what they do in regard to the Services. Everybody who looks even at the barest facts of the Fighting Services will agree that they cannot be left as they are. I, too, agree with that. Without far more knowledge, and without a considered comparison of what anything proposed for the Fighting Services might lead to in demand elsewhere, I do not want to go ahead with a decision in respect of the Fighting Services. Under conditions of full employment. I deprecate, and we should all deprecate, unilateral action by the Government, as an employer, for settling wages as much as I deprecate action by anyone else, I should prefer an impartial inquiry covering all the ground suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood. Naturally, I should prefer an impartial inquiry only on three conditions. The first is that it could act quickly—and there is no reason whatever why an impartial inquiry should not act quickly. I myself have sat on a Royal Commission which produced in six months a Report on a much bigger problem than that of the Services' pay. I think this could clearly be done in three months. The second condition is that the results of the inquiry, when they come, should be back-dated. I he third is that the inquiry should look at the broader problems, and not simply at the Services alone. Let them produce an unimpeachable case for comparing what is proposed for the Services, men as well as officers, with what is being done or proposed for all the other people in the country as part of a contribution to a wages policy.
There are two reasons for suggesting proceeding by inquiry rather than by Government action, inspired probably by a Treasury official. All of us who know the past of the Services—in fact, it was illustrated in a recent debate in this House—know how, in many ways, the official Treasury view has not always been just to the Services themselves. We had this remarkable treatment of the pensions which were cut down whenever it was convenient to the Treasury to cut them

543
down, and which, when prices began to rise, were stabilised, to the disadvantage of the Services themselves. I believe that an impartial inquiry might be even better for the Services than any Government action or action by any Treasury official. But what is much more important is that if the Government, in what they do about the Services, set an example of attacking inflation, they will help to end sectionalism in competitive wage and price raising by acting only after consideration of the general issue. I hope that the Government can now set an example to all of accepting a national policy for wages and prices under full employment in place of competitive inflation. I beg the Government to consider whether they cannot set that good example, instead of the bad example which is indicated in the Prime Minister's speech.
4.0 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, the greater part of the speech to which we have just listened is, I think, a good example of how wide and elastic are the Rules of Order—or the absence of Rules of Order—in this House. But, so far as the speech was relevant at all, I must say that I thought it was far less understanding, certainly less relevant and much less helpful than the speech which we heard from the noble Earl who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench.
I am certainly not going to turn this into a debate about inflation. I hope to goodness that nobody is going to support the idea of a further Inquiry into a subject about which all the facts are absolutely well known to-day; that is really the refuge of the destitute. But the noble Lord asks: why pay people more for doing the same work? In the first place, let me say that to-day the Army, the Navy and the Air Force are doing a great deal more work, and more difficult work, than they used to do. Apart from that, so far as concerns this talk about inflation, the simple fact is that to-day you are not getting either officers or men into the essential Services because you are not paying enough to bring them in. And there is another simple elementary fact of economics, if I may venture humbly to submit it to the noble Lord. It is that if in a business you find you cannot induce people to come and work for you unless you pay them more, then you have
544
to do one of two things: either you shut the business down, or you pay a proper and decent living wage to the people in it. I do not know which alternative the noble Lord wants. I suppose that while the business was going bankrupt or the Forces were dissolving, the noble Lord would have another Inquiry!
I am going to intervene in this debate for only a few moments. I do so only because I feel that it is at once so timely and so important that I should not like not to give my support, and a reason or two for my support, as an old Service Minister. I do not need to say anything about the importance of this matter; that is in all your Lordships' minds. The debate is singularly timely because, as we understand, the Government are now considering, and will shortly present us with, what are to be their new conditions of service. As my noble friend Lord Templewood said, the Prime Minister has laid it down quite clearly that the objective which the Government seek is a long-service, voluntary Army. I imagine that the same applies to the Navy, which has always been largely long-service. I presume the Air Force is to be the same. As he has truly said, if we are to get that, then we have to improve conditions. Of course, improved conditions must apply to officers as well as to other ranks; that is merely equitable, just and logical. Surely, a highly trained Army, mobile, versatile, and varied, must be well led. This applies equally to the other two Services. In all three Services we need the best.
I agree with what has been said by several speakers, that the days have gone by when young men could be expected to join the Services and to live largely on their own money. It is quite impossible for them to do that to-day. I am sure it is true that the old tradition still remains, and that families who for generation after generation have gone into one of the Services still want to do it; but it is not possible. The desire is there; and that is an intangible asset of enormous value in the spirit of a Service or of a regiment. I am sure we shall get value for money over and over again if we make it worth while, and make it possible for these men to go where their hearts would have them go.
My Lords, I hope that in all this we are pressing at an open door. But I will

545
say this: the least we can do is, to treat the officers of the Fighting Services—I call them "Fighting Services" because to-day more often than not they are on active service—at least as well as we treat the Civil Service. I am not saying anything against the Civil Service. They have served me for thirty or forty years and I have the highest regard for them. They have all had deserved increases in pay. Do not forget, however, that when the pay of the civil servant goes up, his ultimate pension goes up too. I think the Royal Commission—I am not sure whether Lord Beveridge was a member—has just recommended considerable further increases in the emoluments of civil servants.
LORD BEVERIDGE: I am afraid I was not a member of that Commission. I have no doubt that it acted more wisely because I was not.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I am sorry. No doubt there would have been a more erudite Report if he had been a member of the Commission.
But, my Lords, in the Fighting Services, the Defence Services, the claim of the public service is at least as good. In the Defence Services there is a special claim which the Civil Service has not got. I am not referring to the risks which the men in the Fighting Services take—they take them in their stride. But officers in these Services have obligations; they run into changes and chances which I think deserve special consideration. They are always being moved about. The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, gave the extraordinary example of, I think an officer of nineteen years' service who had moved his house forty times in that period. To-day, they are moved much more abroad than they were in the old days. What is more, in the old days an officer could count on where he was going and for how long he was going to be there—one battalion was at home and another battalion was in India. An officer knew—he could practically look at it like a chart—where he was going to be and for how long. Now he never knows where he is going to be or for how long, and he may he shifted about here and there. For him and for his family that means additional expense.
Though I fully endorse what was said by others, I say nothing about the prob-
546
lem of education. That matters probably more to these officers than almost anything else. The young officer coming in for the first year or two as an unmarried officer can probably do pretty well; but then, that is not what he and, above all, what his family are looking for. What has to be looked to is the time when he is married and is going to bring up a family. Then, I think, conditions are really impossible.
Let me just add this final consideration in the comparison with the Civil Service. Again the fighting officer has far less security—I am not talking about physical risks. The civil servant, once he is established, is absolutely secure unless he behaves in a most outrageous manner. Sometimes, apparently, he can go a pretty good way without incurring the supreme penalty. But he is absolutely secure till 55 or 60 years of age, and, what is more, he is all the time piling up an increasing pension for the time when he reaches that age—so much for each year; and with each increase in salary, so much more. The fighting officer has no security in the least like that. He may very easily be retired or "axed" just at the age in middle life when it is hardest for him to get a job in civil life and when his pension compares very unfavourably with what the civil servant will get when he reaches the age of fifty-five or sixty. I would sum up by saving that I hope Her Majesty's Government will accept this. I am quite sure that justice, efficiency and security—and our security quite as much as the security of these officers—demands that they should have a square deal and a new deal, and I sincerely hope they will get it.
4.11 p.m.
LORD JEFFREYS: My Lords, like other noble Lords I wish to say, first, how indebted we are to my noble friend Lord Teynham, for calling attention to this matter of the pay and conditions of service of officers in the Armed Forces, not only because some of those conditions are certainly unsatisfactory but also because, as one result of officers' dissatisfaction, as was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Swinton, the number of candidates for commissions has begun to fall short, both in quantity and quality, of what is desirable. It is earnestly to be hoped that Her

547
Majesty's Government will improve these conditions to the utmost possible extent. hope that the improvement will be based on the fall in the value of our money, on the great increase in the cost of living, on the standard of living expected of officers (for a high standard of living is expected of them), on the conditions under which they have to work and live; and, last but not least, on the fact that if a good article is wanted it is necessary to pay the market price for it. That, most emphatically, has not been done in what has been paid to officers for a very considerable time past.
It is to be hoped, too, that the constant moves to which officers are subjected, and which were referred to by my noble friend Lord Teynham, will be borne in mind when improvements in pay and allowances are being considered. These moves especially affect married officers who, unlike civil servants and members of the civil professions, can never count on a settled home; and to them every move means extra expense. When these officers move they often have to leave their families behind, at any rate to begin with. The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, referred to the disturbance allowance, also mentioned by my noble friend Lord Teynham. It is utterly inadequate and, as was mentioned, is so hedged about with restrictions that often it cannot be obtained at all. It fails to cover the time, trouble and money spent in moving and in getting a house into proper shape, let alone wear and tear of possessions through packing and unpacking, due to the move; and it is not impossible that they will again be moved before they have properly settled in.
Let there be no doubt on the point to which my noble friend Lord Swinton referred: that most officers do like the life and traditions of the Services; they are happy in the Services, despite their very numerous moves. But let there be no doubt, either, that in these days very few officers have private means. Very few officers can live on their private means, as many used to do; and, if they have private means, they are so heavily taxed, and their expenses are so high, that they have nothing left to spend for the benefit of their corps or ship, as used to be done in the past.
548
Moreover, if they are married and have families their difficulties and those of their wives are immensely increased. I know of cases like those mentioned by a previous speaker in your Lordships' House, where very good officers, with excellent prospects, have left the Services because they could no longer face being separated from wives and families for years at a time. I know, too, that many married officers find it increasingly difficult to live within their means while providing for both the maintenance and education of their families and the maintenance of the standard of living expected of them. For there is a standard of living for an officer. He is a commander and a leader, and he must at all times appear to he such; he must maintain the standards and appearance of his rank. Unlike the civilian, he cannot, if he finds himself hard up, as he very often does, reduce his standard of living to suit his income and family expenses. Nor, unlike a civilian in such circumstances, can he demand and get extra pay. Then, too, the wife of an officer is expected to interest herself in the welfare of the married families of her husband's ship, unit or station. How can she do that and look after her own house and family, probably with no domestic help and very little, if any, spare cash? Perhaps, too, she may think of the possibility of having to live as a widow on a totally inadequate widow's pension.
For all these reasons I hope that the increase in pay and allowances given to the more senior officers—those who need it most and who have most responsibility, will be really substantial and will be competitive with what they might expect to get in civil life. I hope, too, that, as at present, the marriage allowance will not be given to very young officers—those under twenty-five—for in my humble opinion it is undesirable, both in their own interests and those of the Service, that they should marry so young. I hope that any increases in marriage allowance will be given to the older officers, those who have settled down and who need it far more. I understand that the wage of many working men nowadays averages £11 a week. That amounts to £572 a year, and I would point out to your Lordships that it is more than the pay of a captain with under six years' service in that rank. Such a captain gets £529 a year. I suggest that that is all

549
wrong and that such officers should get substantial increases in pay.
I come now to the question of allowances. These are not paid in the ordinary sense and, speaking generally, they are given to enable an officer to provide himself with what ought properly to he given to him by the Government—at any rate, if he is a single officer. First of the principal allowances is the ration allowance, which for an officer not drawing rations is £85 3s. a year. That is the estimated wholesale cost to the Government of certain essential rations; and it is the only allowance which is not subject to taxation. I suggest that it might be raised from the wholesale to, at any rate, the retail value of the rations with which an officer has to provide himself and for which he has to pay.
Then there is lodging allowance, which ranges from £1 a day or £365 a year, less income tax, in the case of a general, to 11s. a day or £200 15s. a year in the case of a major or officer of lower rank—again less income tax. And there is London allowance, if a married officer is doing duty in London and is not given quarters, the rates in the case of a lieutenant-colonel are £118 12s. 6d. a year, less income tax, and in the case of a major or officer of lower rank £100 7s. 6d., less income tax. Then there is marriage allowance. A married lieutenant-colonel gets£383 5s., a major or captain £337 12s. 6d., a subaltern £227 12s. 6d. In each case those amounts are less income tax. Then comes entertainment allowance which in the case of a unit C.O. is the princely sum of £91 5s. a year, less tax.
Surely allowances, with the possible exception of marriage allowance (I agree that that can be considered as income), should be tax free—as they used to be. It is only comparatively recently that the Treasury insisted, and insisted successfully, on making Allowances subject to tax. Surely they should be tax free. They are given to enable an officer to provide himself with what he must have and what the Government ought to give him if single; and to make a deduction of income tax from them often renders such allowances inadequate. Take, for instance (I think it is the same in every case, but I quota this as a typical instance), the case of a major or officer of lower rank who gets £200 15s. for lodging allowance to provide himself and
550
probably his family with quarters. On £200 5s., it is just perhaps a possibility; but if you get that sum of £200 15s., less income tax of 8s. 6d. in the £, it is a very different proposition and on the sum which remains it is not possible to get decent lodging for any officer anywhere.
But the allowance to which I would draw particular attention is the educational allowance for each child between 11 and 19 years of age. This educational allowance is £75 per annum for each child at a boarding school and £26 per annum for one at a day school, less income tax if the parent is in this country. What generosity! These generous amounts are less income tax if the officer is at home. Incidentally, a boarding school education is absolutely essential, not only for the children of officers abroad but also for those at home, because educational authorities are unwilling to be responsible for a floating population or to give places which must be temporary in already overcrowded schools. A diplomat, if abroad, gets from the Foreign Office £150 a year, tax free, for education of a child. I do not know whether we are to understand that the whole standard of the Foreign Office is higher than that for officers of the Armed Forces. I would say it certainly did not look like it, judging by the notorious case which has been before the public very recently.
But the comparison which I wish to make in particular is, with the cost to the public of a boy at an approved school—that is to say, a bad boy sent by order of a court to what used to be called a reformatory, but that word is not allowed now; it is a deleterious word, and the establishment is called an "approved school." In the case of such a boy in my county—I believe the figure is higher in some counties—the cost is £382 a year, or nearly as much as the cost of a boy at Eton or some other big public school. So it comes to this: to keep a bad boy at an approved school costs the public £382 per annum. But £75, less income tax, is thought quite sufficient for an officer's boy. Surely this amount should be substantially raised and should be free of income tax. Finally, I would say as regards pay and conditions that if officers are to be encouraged to remain in the Service and to give of their best, and if their sons are to be encouraged to follow them into the Service, they must be able lo count on equality of financial status with

551
their counterparts in civil life, and, in view of their many handicaps, have some financial advantages. One small advantage might be one which was also mentioned by Lord Teynham—the taking off of purchase tax from the cost of uniforms.
I venture to turn to one of the conditions of an officer's service about which I have in the past addressed your Lordships more than once—the matter of retired pay. I would remind your Lordships that the action (or inaction) of successive Governments in regard to this matter has had a very adverse effect indeed upon the supply of officers. Old officers—again this has been mentioned by other noble Lords—who retired under the Code of 1919 and who feel that the Government have broken faith with them tell young men that, remembering how they themselves have been treated, they cannot advise them to enter the Service and risk similar treatment. That has been the case not only as regards pay in the Service but particularly as regards allowances.
I would here explain that an officer's retired pay is governed by a Royal Warrant or Instrument signed in the name of the Sovereign by a Secretary of State or First Lord of the Admiralty, and the Code under which an officer retires is that laid down in the last-issued Royal Warrant or corresponding Instrument before his retirement. Until 1919 such Warrants were unalterable, either upwards or downwards, and there are still a few old men—very old men—who retired prior to 1914 and who are still drawing the exiguous rates in force before World War I. But in 1919 a new Code was introduced under the Royal Warrant, et cetera, of that year, and this Code provided that rates of retired pay were to vary upwards or downwards according to the rise or fall in the cost of living. The words of the Royal Warrant Code which applied to the Army were as follows:
"The rates of officers' pay, half pay, service retired pay and gratuities shall be subject to revision after five years from 1st July. 1919, either upwards or downwards, to an extent not exceeding 20 per cent. After 1st July, 1924, a further revision may take place every three years."
I have read that in full because that is, I think, a wise and foreseeing provision, and it was introduced by a Secretary of State who was at that time Secretary of
552
State both for War and for Air, namely, Mr. Winston Churchill, as he then was. He was far ahead of other people and far ahead of the Treasury, who have never ceased to whittle down what he did.
Now after the first war, from 1922 onwards, the cost of living fell steadily for some years. In 1933 the rates of retired pay had been reduced by 11 per cent. below the basic rates of 1919. Then the cost of living showed signs of rising, and the Treasury, which had never liked the provision for variation of rates, caused the rates to be stabilised at 9½ per cent. below the basic rates of 1919. This stabilisation was purely unilateral and it was much resented by the officers concerned. When it was asked that the Warrant should be complied with and the rates raised in accordance with the rise of the cost of living, the Treasury said it was impossible to make retrospective changes in the rates of a Warrant, though they had themselves made retrospective changes extending over sixteen years, as long as those were downwards.
Actually, in 1954, the Government did nearly restore the 9½ per cent. by which the rates had been reduced—I say "nearly because what was given was 10 per cent, on the net reduced rates. If I may do a small calculation for your Lordships, it is as follows: 100 less 91 per cent. equals 90½; 90½ plus 10 per cent. is 99½—that is to say, officers receive one half of one per cent. short of what they ought to receive if the full amount were restored. I do not say that the half of one per cent. is a matter of great importance, but I do say that it is typical that the Treasury did not restore the whole. Whether that was because the Treasury dislike the idea of restoration and wish 10 per cent. to be regarded as a gift, I do not know; but I do know that though the rates were reduced so long as the cost of living fell, there was no question of any increase when the cost of living came to rise—an increase which the Code authorises up to 20 per cent.—in spite of the fact that the cost of living has risen enormously, far more than 20 per cent.
I repeat that officers consider this to amount to a breach of faith. I know that that expression is resented by the Treasury, but the case has been submitted to a learned Q.C., who advises that there has undoubtedly been a breach of

553
contract and that if any civil company or corporation had acted in such a way, and an action had been brought against them by their employees, they would not have ventured to defend the case, which would be absolutely certain to go against them. Incidentally, I wonder how many employees of any description are now getting less, though it he only ½ per cent. less, than the rate; of 1919, as are these old officers. But I have an even stronger support for my view of this matter. The late Lord Simon, who was not only a great lawyer but also a former Lord Chancellor, told the that he considered that the Government had broken their contract. Speaking in a debate on the subject in your Lordships' House on December 15, 1953, he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 185. col. 104];
"The issue is whether, in the government of this country, we arc going to observe public faith."
That was Lord Simon. He went on to show how the Government policy would work in a private establishment and how impossible it would be. He concluded by quoting, in exposition of his case, a couplet which I will not venture to quote.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): Why not?
LORD JEFFREYS: The noble Lord says, "Why not?" If your Lordships will not take it as being my quotation, I will quote it:
"Thou shalt not steal—an empty feat
"When this so lucrative to cheat."
That was Lord Simon's opinion; I am not saying that. The Treasury's action in this matter has done an immense amount of harm. It has caused officers to feel that the pledged word of the Government cannot be relied on, arid it has been not a little responsible for the present shortage—and there is a shortage—of suitable candidates for commissions. Whatever action the Government take on the general question of officers' pay and conditions—and I hope very much that that action will be realistic and generous, as it will have to be if it is going to be effective—I trust that this crying scandal of the 1919 Retired Pay Code will be rectified. I beg to support strongly the Motion of my noble friend Lord Teynham.
4.35 p.m.
LORD KINDERSLEY: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to those of my noble friend Lord Jeffreys to the noble Lord, Lord Teynharn, for bringing this subject forward and for the admirable way in which he has presented it to your Lordships. I should also like to say how pleased I was to hear the admirable and well-balanced speech of my noble friend Lord Lucan. Nobody is better qualified to speak on this subject than he is. At this stage it is difficult to talk on the subject without repeating one or more of the things that have been said by noble Lords who have preceded me and if I do so, I hope your Lordships will bear with me. As I have definitely prepared what I intend to say, I am going to proceed to say it.
I think it is reasonable to assume that there is a general recognition of the inadequacy of present pay and conditions of officers in the Armed Services in comparison with current conditions in civil employment. In that case, it follows that the young man of to-day who has to decide on a career is unlikely to choose the Armed Services. This would seem to be borne out by the failure of the Services to obtain the numbers they require, or even to retain the officers, warrant officers and non-commissioned officers who have gained short-service experience. More-over, in my opinion there is a real risk of our losing the younger officers, who might well have brilliant careers ahead of them but who cannot afford to remain in a Service which puts them in the position of a poor relation to their friends in commerce and industry.
I am more than hopeful that Her Majesty's Government fully appreciate and recognise this situation, and I feel confirmed in that hope by the Prime Minister's statement at Bradford (which has already been mentioned this afternoon) that half measures will achieve nothing, and by the statement of the Minister of Defence in a debate in another place on November 2, 1955, when, in reference to the building up of the Regular element in the Services, he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 545, No. 45, col. 1034]:
"…we want the Regular element to be as large as possible. The Service Ministers and I would willingly do without conscription tomorrow if we could pt the necessary number of Regulars."

555
A few lines further on, he said:
"…but it has to be remembered that to attract men to the Armed Forces at a time of full employment we must be able to offer rewards and conditions which compare fairly with those in civil life, and which take account of the uncertainties and discomforts of Service life."
That, to my mind, is the essence of the whole problem:
"conditions which compare fairly with those in civil life."
I read into those statements a decision by Her Majesty's Government to tackle the problem realistically, and I sincerely hope that I am correct. With our numerous and far-flung obligations, from the Far East to N.A.T.O., it is probably true to say that never in our history was it more essential that our Fighting Services in so-called peace time should be better trained, more efficient and of higher quality than they are to-day. It is therefore of paramount importance that serving officers should be content and proud to follow the career they have chosen, and that officers of the future can join the Forces in the knowledge that they will be adopting a career which will give them a worthy position socially and financially, both during their Service and, what is equally important, when they reach the age of retirement. I most sincerely hope that Her Majesty's Government will pay sufficient attention to the Services' pension problems which are of equal importance to those of pay and other conditions.
Unfortunately, we are living in an era when the value of money has consistently depreciated over a period of years, while taxation has remained at such penal levels that it bedevils the figures of salaries and wages. The rate of inflation has outrun the codes of pay which in themselves were created to keep pace with the increase in the cost of living. I think we must recognise that while industry and commerce, with their facility for collective bargaining through the trade unions, are forced to keep pace with the changes in values, the Armed Services are denied that facility and consequently find themselves left behind in the struggle for existence.
I recognise that whatever claims are made to-day for Service officers must not be exaggerated. This country is suffering from a malaise—one might almost say a
556
cancer—of continuous demands for wage increases, demands which can but add to the inflationary spiral and render us less competitive in world markets, from which, after all, our life-blood flows. The importance of economic stability cannot be over-stressed. Nevertheless, when conditions in an industry or a Service become as far out of line with the rest of the national economy as those of the Armed Services have become, something drastic must be done. If we are to maintain, and indeed increase, the numbers of our Regular officers, the least that can be expected is that their conditions of service should be every bit as good as those enjoyed by their opposite numbers in civil life. We must not forget that, even in peace time, whether they like it or not, those in the Armed Forces are expected to take risks, in Korea, in Malaya, in Cyprus or in Kenya: it is just part of their job.
I have endeavoured to make a study of the salary figures of those employed in commerce compared to the emoluments received by officers of the same age and roughly equivalent positions in the Armed Services in the years 1938 and 1955. It is without doubt an extremely difficult comparison to make, largely due to the changes which took place in 1946, when tax-free benefits enjoyed by the Services were consolidated into their pay. On the assumption, however, that any tax-free allowances enjoyed by an officer to-day are to meet extraordinary expenses arising from the peculiarities of his employment, I believe the fairest comparison to be between the basic pay of an officer and the basic salary of his opposite number in the commercial world.
Broadly speaking, the basic salaries (and this is without any of the "frills," or one might almost say "perks," that accrue in commerce) of bank, insurance and commercial employees roughly equivalent to the ranks of an Army captain up to a lieutenant-colonel have increased at the very least by 100 per cent. between the years 1938 and 1955. During that period the basic pay of an Army officer has increased, in the case of a captain—on his appointment, that is—by 75 per cent.; in that of a major by 65 per cent. and in that of a lieutenant-colonel by about 40 per cent. Therefore, the only conclusion one can reach is that the comparative position of the Army

557
officer has deteriorated considerably. At the same time, the cost of living index (and here I quote the Cambridge Economic Service) has risen from the figure of 100, in 1938, to 250 in 1955, while the basic pension of a major retiring to-day has risen by only 23 per cent. and that of a lieutenant-colonel by 24 per cent. On those figures the case for a readjustment of both pay and pensions is overwhelming, especially, perhaps, the case for pensions.
As important, however, as the questions of pay and pensions are perhaps the grievances and sense of frustration under which officers are suffering to-day. There are so many pinpricks which could so easily be eliminated if the regulations were interpreted with a little more human understanding and generosity. The regulations were presumably intended, in origin, to ease the difficulties. To-day they are so administered that they frequently lead to unfair treatment and to a sense of grievance. In fact, the old saying that "The Army looks after its own" has been replaced by the saying that "The Army will only give you your rights if you fight for them continuously."
It is my belief that that sense of insecurity in the Armed Services which unquestionably exists to-day is bred largely by the feeling of financial stringency among the married officers, exaggerated by the feeling that the dice are loaded against them and that they cannot obtain their rights. The fact that the wives of officers of the Armed Forces have taken the unprecedented step of organising themselves to ventilate their grievances is proof that the situation cannot be ignored. I have dim recollections, from the days of my youth, of a famous lady, Mrs. Pankhurst, arid her activities in favour of women's suffrage, and it strikes me that tie lesson to be learned from them is that when the ladies are on the warpath you had better look out, because they are a determined sex. The officer's wife, as one noble Lord has already said, is a voluntary welfare worker, a most important spoke in the wheel of Service life, who makes a very real contribution towards the happiness and welfare of the Services. If these women are in a constant state of financial worry they cannot be expected cheerfully to make this contribution towards their husbands' careers. I am convinced that
558
it is of the utmost importance that these grievances be examined sympathetically and with full intent to redress wrongs, where they exist.
I do not wish to weary your Lordships with a whole list of complaints, but I feel that there are certain things which should be drawn to your attention—and here I ask for the indulgence of your Lordships if I repeat things that have already been mentioned. First, there are the restrictive rules which govern the important concession permitting one free visit by children to their parents during a tour of duty in overseas stations. Why not simply allow one visit during an overseas tour without restrictions? Then I would refer to the disadvantages suffered by the officer who buys his own home, or rents a private home and lives in it, because there are not sufficient Government quarters available. If there are not enough Government quarters available, why should the officer be penalised for finding his own accommodation? Then there are the petty restrictions applicable to disturbance allowance. Surely any unavoidable expenditure, provided that it is reasonable, which a married officer has to incur because of a duty which he has to perform should be repaid to him in full, and the allowance regulations framed to make this possible. In the pamphlet—a most enlightening one—Posts in the Civil Service for University Graduates, on page 61 we find that if a member of the Foreign or Civil Service is moved from one place to another, his travelling and removal expenses are paid for in full. So would they be in any reputable commercial undertaking. It is the frequency of the moves in the Services which is largely responsible for the financial anxiety from which most married officers are suffering to-day. Moves are costly in themselves, costly in clothes for different climates, costly in children's education and costly in holiday problems.
I am the third person, I think, to refer to what is a monstrous comparison, and that is the child's education allowance, which in the Foreign Service is at the rate of £150 per annum and in the Armed Services £75 per annum. Is it not adding insult to injury to evaluate the officer's child at half the educational price of the child of a servant of the Foreign Office? I believe this to be a real grievance which should be thoroughly examined and set right if it is possible to do so.

559
I have discussed these problems ad nauseam with friends who are still serving officers and who are men who would be considered well balanced in any walk of life, and I am alarmed by the unanimity of their opinion. They are convinced that there is a general feeling throughout the Services that the future is so dim that they must look elsewhere if they are to provide for their children and for their own old age. Numbers of really intelligent young officers, who are literally assured of a successful career, are in the mood that they had better get out now and turn to civilian occupations before they are too late and too old to adapt themselves to civilian life. Many are sitting on the fence awaiting the announcement of the new pay and conditions. The trouble is that you can lose the cream and be left with the skimmed milk.
We are already in the military age of nuclear power, and within ten years we shall be in the missile age. The standard of skill that will be required, both for officers and other ranks, cannot possibly he reached in two years of National Service, with the inevitable result that the burden must in the long run be carried by the professionals. What does that mean? It means that our Regular Forces in all three Services not only have to be kept up at to-day's strength, but in the long run will have to be increased. We cannot, therefore, afford to lose officers to-day who will be vital to us in the future. In the new Code shortly to be published. Her Majesty's Government have the opportunity to redress the wrongs and grievances and to give the Services the encouragement they deserve. I feel confident that they will tackle the problem broadmindedly, fairly and sympathetically, but I do make a special plea that an entirely new approach will be made to the system of awarding both Service retired pay and ordinary widows' pensions, without which any new deal would be incomplete.
4.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT PORTAL OF HUNGER-FORD: My Lords, I suppose that, as an officer on half pay but still technically on the Active List, I ought to begin by declaring a possible pecuniary interest, though probably a regrettably small one, in the subject of this debate, but I trust that this will not be held to disqualify
560
me from supporting, in respect of officers on full pay in all three Services, what has been said about the need for a really generous improvement in their pay and conditions. I am sure that the Fighting Services and all who have their interests at heart will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, who has put down this Motion and to those who have spoken in support of it.
Like the noble Lord. Lord Kindersley, I have prepared what I am going to say to your Lordships, but nevertheless I should like to endorse what Lord Kindersley has said. He kindly told me what he was going to say, and no one could be better qualified than he to speak on this subject. As Chairman of the Officers' Association he knows how widespread financial hardship is among serving officers, and as a great figure in commerce and industry he knows the conditions with which the Government, as an employer, have to compete. He certainly deserves the gratitude of the Services for having put so strongly, clearly and fairly the case for improving the officers' conditions of service. We have been reminded by many noble Lords to-day of the undoubted fact that many good officers, and particularly those with initiative, are leaving the Services in search of better conditions and prospects in civil life. That is obviously extremely serious and damaging, but I think we should at least be equally disturbed by the plight of the thousands of officers who are sticking to their jobs in the Forces in the hope that improved conditions, so long overdue, will eventually be given to them.
Like other noble Lords, I am convinced from the information which reaches me from many sources that a large number of these officers are doing their work day by day in the shadow of perpetual anxiety and worry over money. These officers, and all who sympathise with them, will have read with profound relief what the Prime Minister said at Bradford about "no half measures." But even though one thankfully accepts this assurance, as I do, I think it is still permissible to try to drive home the reasons for the present hardship and the amount of leeway that has to be made up if the serving officer is to be relieved of his present worries about money and, more important still, if future conditions and prospects are to attract enough young

561
men of the right type into the Fighting Services.
The three main causes of financial hardship are well known to everyone in the Services, anti they have all been mentioned this afternoon. First, the average officer of to-day, unlike his pre-war counterpart, has no private means. Nowadays, very few fathers who have given their sons a first-class education have anything left to give them afterwards, and far fewer sons are in the happy position that many of us as young officers were in between the wars, of having our parents' home or the home of our parents-in-law always available where we could "park" our families. I think the difference between then and now is very well known, and I am sure it is conceded everywhere that an officer should he paid enough to enable him, if he avoids all extravagance, to live reasonably well, to bring up his family properly and to take a full share in the life of the community, on and off his station, without having any private means at all.
But the hard fact is that family budgets—a number of which I have seen—based on Service pay alone and without the slightest sign of any extravagance, always seem to be well in the red. Some of these budgets really make one feel quite ashamed: food at about 3s. a head a day for an officer's family; drink for an officer and his wife 10s. a month; holidays for a family of five for the whole year £40; clothes £5 a year for the family. I have seen all those figures in the budgets, and a deficit in spite of these severe economies—and, of course, nothing whatever in hand for emergencies such as severe illness in the family.
The second main cause of hardship is the frequency of movement which is inseparable from Service life, however much the Service Departments try—and I know they do try—to minimise it. This is what really defeats any attempt to compare the income of an officer with that of someone of the same age and responsibility in civil life. On the face of it, it does not look so bad: all transportation costs are paid and, under certain conditions, as we have heard, there is £20 or even £40 allowance for disturbance. But, as everyone in the Service knows, though few outside have realised it, there is always this host of incidental expenses which add up to far more than this allowance: for instance, housing the family
562
for days, weeks or even months in the interval between their leaving the old station and settling in the new one; the cost of the new clothes necessary for a different climate; the loss on the sale of necessary equipment bought for the old accommodation. And, as has already been pointed out, many moves have to be made for which no disturbance allowance is payable under the present regulations. As to the possible frequency of moves, I cannot cap the forty-two moves in nineteen years which have been mentioned, but one of my best friends in the R.A.F. tells me that he has moved his home seventeen times in seventeen years.
The third main factor in the situation is the cost of education. This is closely connected with the hardship caused by movement and is greatly aggravated by it. Any officer worth his salt who has children will want to ensure, before everything else, that they get a proper education—that is to say an education which is not only adequate in quality but is also reasonably continuous. This really means either a hoarding school, with the tremendous cost of present-clay fees and the expenses of holidays, especially if the parents are abroad; or, alternatively, it means keeping up a second establishment where the wife can live continuously so that the children can attend the same day school throughout their childhood, in spite of the fact that their father may have to move two or three times during that period. Both of these alternatives are terribly expensive, and the second one (that is, the separate home for the mother with the father a week-end visitor) involves sacrifices and dangers which no officer ought to be forced to accept.
It may be argued that a boarding school education for his children is a luxury that an officer without private means ought not to aspire to, but I hope that few of your Lordships take that view. Personally, I think it is absolutely essential that a considerable proportion of the officers in the Fighting Services should themselves have enjoyed the great advantage and privilege of a public school education and should wish to give the same thing to their children. No one, I am sure, thinks it would be right or practicable that the public school should be, as it once was, almost the only source of officers, but I believe that it will be a very bad day for the Services when only an insignificant minority have the public

563
school background. Unless conditions are greatly improved, that is what we are certainly heading for, and we shall be well on the way also to losing what has always been a great asset to the country, namely, the family tradition of service in the Armed Forces. For if an officer and his wife have battled for years against constant financial hardship and worry in order to send their boys to his old school, can anyone blame the father if he resolves that the last profession he would put them into would be one of the Fighting Services?
I have skimmed, rather briefly, over the main reasons why the average officer finds his pay inadequate; and, behind it all, as the noble Lord. Lord Kindersley, has said, is inflation and the fact that pay has not anything like kept pace with the fall in the value of money. I do not want to plague your Lordships with a lot of figures, but I have here a comparison of the real value of the emoluments of the officer in 1938 with that of his exact counterpart in rank and family circumstances in 1955. I think this puts the position in a nutshell. In each instance the officer is married, with two children, is on the top rate of pay for his rank and is not living in quarters. In 1938, the net real value of a flight lieutenant's pay was £694 a year. In 1955, he got the equivalent of 581 1938 pounds; that is to say, £113 a year less. The 1938 squadron leader got £835. In 1955, he got the equivalent of 680 1938 pounds, a loss of £155. In the case of the wing commander, the adverse difference is £269 a year, and in the case of an air commodore it rises to no less than £466 a year. I must emphasise that these differences are expressed in 1938 pounds; in pounds of to-day's value the adverse differences would range from £225 a year for the flight lieutenant up to about £925 for the air commodore. I can assure your Lordships that in 1938 we were not overpaid.
I have no doubt that these figures can be argued about to the extent of a few pounds either way, but they have been prepared for me with great care and I do not think that the difference in an officer's purchasing power between 1938 and 1955 will be seriously disputed. On the top of these substantial reductions in real remuneration comes, as I have already said and as many others have
564
said, too, the difference in average private means, which no one can assess but which I am sure no one will deny. Can we be surprised if the right officers are difficult to get?
What is necessary to put things right? First, a substantial increase in basic pay and allowances, so as to give an officer at least the real purchasing power that his counterpart enjoyed before the war; secondly, authority for public funds to bear the entire expense actually and reasonably incurred as the result of an officer's posting; and, thirdly, a really generous improvement in education allowances. It is rather hard luck on all concerned that the recognition of the inadequacy of officers' pay comes at a time when there is a very heavy bombardment going on for the purpose of bringing down Government expenditure.
Everyone must admit the need for economy at the present time, but there is one general point of great importance about which I think I ought to say a word in relation to economy in the Armed Services. One form of economy is to slow down a little the rate of provision of the most modern equipment. This is, admittedly, had for efficiency and morale; but, provided research and development and the proper testing of prototypes go on at full pressure, you can, if necessary, economise somewhat on new equipment and yet restore the position in the space of relatively few years, when more money becomes available. I do not want to press this idea on the authorities—heaven forbid!—but I do say that this sort of economy on equipment is far less permanently damaging than undue economy over men.
The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, made this point, with which I entirely agree: that with men the case is utterly different from that of equipment. If you starve the Service of the right men, and particularly of the right officers, for a period of years, the resulting lack of quality will be felt increasingly as time goes on and will be at its worst when, in fifteen, twenty or twenty-five years' time, you are short of first-class men to fill the key positions in command and staff right through the Service; and, by the same token, when an improvement is at last made which attracts the right type of officer candidate,

565
we must remember that a whole generation must pass before these officers come to the top and exert their full influence.
My Lords, it is bad enough that we are losing good officers to-day; it is even worse that those who remain should be handicapped by constant anxiety and worry over money. It would be worst of all if the promised improvements proved in fact to be insufficient to attract the best type of young man into the Armed Forces. Whatever else a Service can do without, it cannot do without the right men, and if we do not pay for them we cannot expect to get them.
5.11 p.m.
LORD MIDDLETON: My Lords, it is evident from the debate this afternoon that we are all mach heartened by the Prime Minister's speech at Bradford, when he indicated that the Government intended to remedy matters and that there would be no half measures. Nevertheless, I cannot help thinking that this debate may be useful I to the Government if it shows where the shoe pinches, in more places than one.
It has been said, I think several times, that pay and allowances in the Services compare badly with those offered by other professions and industries. I would again stress that the constant, if unavoidable, moves involve expense that ought to be borne wholly by the Government. It is true that certain allowances are authorised, but they are en a totally inadequate scale. The fact is that officers without private means—and they are in the great majority—invariably incur debts over moves. The local allowances are pretty complicated, and the complete section of Allowance Regulations covers no fewer than thirteen pages of close print. The actual rates for various countries are not shown. All that is said is that these will be promulgated by the War Office from time to time. Most Regular Forces engaged overseas are having a difficult task. Surely officers should have clear and reasonable documents, explaining exactly the emoluments that they can expect for themselves or their families, whatever the circumstances.
Quite obviously, there must be different types of rates, but the definition is as awkward as it can be. There must be a difference between the married and the single officers, and between those provided with Government accommodation
566
and those finding their own. When one comes to the married categories the definition is expressed as "married, accompanied and accommodated or unaccommodated," as "married, unaccompanied and unaccommodated or accommodated." But when one comes to the married, unaccompanied, unaccommodated rate, the following is a typical passage from one of the Army Rules:
"The unaccommodated rate will be issued to an officer or other rank whose family is residing with him in accommodation not owned or hired by the public and who is not entitled to a married accompanied rate of local overseas allowance or to lodging allowance, provided that he would have been entitled to the latter if his family had not been living with him or that he otherwise satisfies the conditions of eligibility."
My Lords, pages and pages of that sort of stuff are rather bewildering to officers who at the Royal Military Academy have never been taught to decipher regulations drawn up by well-meaning individuals whose training seems to have been in prolixity, obscurity and fog. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Jeffreys, will be pleased to know that the case of the young married officer is quite simple, because he is entitled to no accommodation at all; he must fend for himself. It is true that in the days of some of us elderly ones, who joined the Service best part of half a century ago, matrimony for subalterns was unofficially but effectively banned. When I was serving in the regiment in which I was brought, up, two subalterns broke the rule and they were forthwith removed; they were told that their services were dispensed with. There was no difficulty about replacing them then, when candidates for commissions far exceeded the vacancies. To-day, in civilian life and in the Army, men marry young—no doubt to the horror of the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys. But in view of the casualties suffered in two great wars, to say nothing of the continual slaughter on the highways, this may not be a bad thing if our population is to be maintained.
But if the married state is permitted to young officers, why in the name of goodness should they not have at least equal treatment with young sergeants? It used to take a private soldier about ten years to reach that rank. To-day, there are sergeants of 21 years of age, who are at once eligible for the accommodation, and so on, that married noncommissioned officers are entitled to. Not so the young married officer; he

567
must wait until he is 25. Why should there be this difference between those who wear stars on their shoulders and those who wear chevrons on their arms? Surely the Government might consider removing this anomaly—though in a way in favour of the young officer, and not to the detriment of the young sergeant.
When officers' wives and families cannot be taken abroad, the separation allowance is totally inadequate and causes severe hardship. I know of the case of a wife of a captain in Korea who receives the princely sum of two shillings a day. If a family is left behind in Government quarters they may remain there until the quarters are needed; but when the family have to quit an allowance of £21 a month is available for rent. Officers' wives are not eligible for council houses. It need scarcely be stressed that suitable and available houses at that rent are mighty hard to find. Disturbance allowances, for moves on duty, have been mentioned to-day. It has been said by one or two speakers that they are hedged around. I venture to say that they are most elusive. I can tell your Lordships of a senior officer, blessed with a wife and four children, who, returning from duty in Africa, was refused disturbance allowance because he took well-earned leave before taking up his new appointment. That is nothing new for him, because in twenty years this allowance has always been put out of his reach by one quibble or another. Officers leaving the Staff College are treated in exactly the same way: they receive no disturbance allowance if there is any interval between leaving and taking up their appointment. I suggest that these petty meannesses cause great bitterness.
The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, mentioned the specialist corps. Perhaps I may be allowed to add a little more about R.E.M.E. In view of the mechanisation of the Army, the importance of this Corps can scarcely be exaggerated. Those of us who saw its members at work in the last war can regard them only with enormous admiration. It is a fact that membership of either the Institute of Mechanical Engineers or the Institute of Electrical Engineers is a sine qua non for a Regular commission in the Corps, and a great many officers have the degree of Bachelor of Science. There are three scales of Army pay: normal Army pay, normal
568
Army pay plus Corps pay, and specialist pay. Normal Army pay is scarcely suitable for a Corps in which the officers are fully qualified professional engineers. Corps pay is only a few shillings a day, and dries up when an officer reaches the exalted rank of lieutenant-colonel. If the officers of R.E.M.E. are not specialists, what in the world are they? Of course, the provision of specialist pay is the right answer. But under existing regulations this can be granted only at the expense of combatant status. If they sacrifice combatant status they are not eligible for the Staff College or for Staff employment; and a senior officer in R.E.M.E. in a garrison might well find himself, because he is not allowed to command, serving under a combatant officer junior to himself. The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, mentioned that the exodus of officers from that Corps is alarming. He indicated the value of officers by the highly paid and responsible appointments that they receive on entering civilian life. I would point out to him that the pay that some of them are getting is far higher than he indicated to your Lordships.
Not being members of a trade union, Army officers are debarred from ventilating their grievances. Officers' wives, no less than the ladies of Smithfield, have every right to make their troubles known; and they are exercising that right now. This is not the first time that they have made themselves heard. Years ago, wives of officers in the Indian Army did that very thing and shocked the Commander-in-Chief, Lord Kitchener. Being a bachelor, and knowing nothing whatsoever of married life, he issued a stern rebuke to officers for failing to keep their wives in a proper state of discipline. That had no effect, and we had no doubt that their agitation, which had an unanswerable case, led to an overhaul of pay for all ranks in the Indian Army. To the best of my recollection, allowances hardly existed. Officers moving on duty received their bare railway fare but nothing for their family. I had seven moves in eighteen months. Mounted officers got a horse allowance, which was adequate provided that the poor animal was kept on a very light diet. As an indigent subaltern living on his pay, I felt extremely grateful to the ladies when my pay jumped up by 50 rupees a month, which enabled me to live without getting into debt. I hope

569
that officers' wives to-day will be as successful in turning beams of light into dark places.
It has truly been said that Service families are in the front line of the cold war—if service in Malaya, Cyprus, Kenya and Korea can come under that heading. Other communities in this country are living in peace-time conditions. I humbly suggest to Her Majesty's Government that they might do a lot to relieve officers and their wives from constant anxiety. The unequal struggle to make ends meet is in the last degree discouraging. The noble Earl who was introduced into your Lordships' House to-day, and whom we were so glad to welcome, spoke two days ago about another section of the community troubled with the difficulty of maintaining themselves on what a grateful country allows them for their services. He described them as "dying on their feet." I devoutly hope that they will not die, either on or off their feet. But if, unfortunately, they must expire, I very much hope that before doing so they will use the powers they undoubtedly have to prevent Army officers, whose difficulties are no less, from following suit.
We know, of course, that we cannot have a big Army on the Continental scale; and since it must be an Army of much smaller size it must be highly efficient and contented. No such Army exists to-day, for lack of sufficient fully trained and experienced officers and N.C.Os. When Her Majesty's Government have dealt effectively with pay, allowances and accommodation, with no half-measures or niggling, the exodus will be arrested, and we might even see the abandonment of National Service, as the Prime Minister indicated. That might result in a reduction of expense to the country; but first things must come first. I apologise for occupying so much of your Lordships' time at this late hour. I have touched on only a few of the problems that merit the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. Doubtless other noble Lords will fill in the gaps.
5.24 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I fully realise that I shall be touching on many points already mentioned by noble Lords who have spoken before me. In view of the late hour I will do so, therefore, only if I feel the point furthers my
570
arguments. I, too, welcomed the statement of the Prime Minister that no half measures are to be thought of in dealing with the future pay and allowances of the Services. I only hope that the Government's idea of no half measures for these pay and allowances bears some relationship to what the Services hope, expect and should have. I welcome, too, the fact that the Government, from now on, are intending to build up Regular Forces with the eventual idea of abolishing National Service. This is a step very much in the right direction and one which would be welcomed not only by the Services but by the country as a whole. I should like to pay a tribute to the fine work which National Servicemen are doing in this country and all over the world; but it is obvious that contented Regular Forces will be much more efficient and give the country much better value for money than men who are pressed into service against their will, quite apart from the waste in regular manpower needed to train National Servicemen and the loss of manpower to industry; furthermore, the cost will be considerably less.
But if the Armed Forces are to attract the right men, the pay and general conditions of service of the Regular Forces of the future will have to be very different from those prevailing at the moment. Before the last war a large percentage of recruits into the Army and Navy—both officers and other ranks—were from Service families. This is no longer true, since sons see only too well the almost appalling conditions which their Service parents have to endure. Also, conditions and opportunities offered by industry, partly due to full employment, not only are very much better but also make a reasonable attempt to keep in step with the cost of living.
Our debate to-day is confined to conditions of service of officers. I am sorry that that is so; nevertheless, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, for having given us this opportunity to say, on behalf of the Services, what they cannot say on their own behalf. The Service Regular, whether officer. N.C.O. or man, is, or should be, a dedicated person, dedicated to the service of his country, on call twenty-four hours of the day and ready to go anywhere in the world at a moment's notice. As far as is humanly possible, he must not and

571
should not be distracted by worries outside of his duty. He should not be distracted by worry about what is to happen to his family as a result of any move. He must know that they will be looked after and that he will not be subject to any extra expense as a result of moves beyond his control and for which he cannot possibly budget in advance. He must be content in his mind that if he is killed on active service his widow and children will be properly looked after and his children educated. This is the least that a grateful country can do to repay a man who has dedicated his life to keep it safe and free.
Basic pay and allowances must be at such a level as to give an officer, throughout his career, a standard of living on a level with a man in an equivalent position in industry, but must also compensate him and his family for the fact that he cannot make a home while serving. The Government must remember that Service families, as the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, has said, are in the front line of the cold war and suffer separation and discomfort which no civilian has to suffer. In this connection I understand that separation allowance is not granted to officers stationed in Korea. Surely a family who are separated, wherever they may be, must incur greater expense than if they were living together. Therefore the refusal of this allowance does not seem logical.
Unlike his civilian counterpart, an officer cannot look ahead or plan his budget accordingly. Every move is not only an upheaval but also an expense which he cannot possibly foresee. He has to keep up a reasonable outward appearance, whatever his financial position. He has to do a reasonable amount of entertaining, whether he wants to or not, for which, unlike his civilian counterpart, he cannot claim income-tax remission. Admittedly a commanding officer gets an entertainment allowance, but this does not apply to the ordinary officer; and, in any case, it never covers half, or even a fraction, of a commanding officer's expenses. His wife, if she is to pull her weight properly, must attend to welfare work and attend committees. If she is to do this she must have home help or sitters-in. If an officer is stationed on an isolated airfield (and most airfields are more or less isolated) he must have some
572
kind of car, unless he is to live the life of a hermit. All this is expense which a civilian does not incur unless he wishes to do so.
Many people seem to think that married families are provided with a rent-free house, free fuel and free lighting. I am told that even the former Chancellor of the Exchequer was under this impression not long ago. This is not so, as your Lordships will know. An officer has to pay rent and to pay for fuel and light. Further, some of the older married quarters are very expensive to heat. Different houses, particularly hirings, have different heating systems, and it may be necessary for an officer to buy an electric or other stove for one house which will be of no use in the next. All this is unnecessary expense which he can ill afford. More married quarters is one solution, but in the meantime why should officers have to put their hands into their own pockets owing to lack of married quarters? This should be made up to them in their expenses. They should be compensated for the extra expense incurred by the lack of a married quarter. Another expense to which an officer is put more frequently than a civilian—and this has already been mentioned in the debate—is for clothing. Every time an officer goes overseas or returns home he more often than not has to buy clothing for himself and his family suitable to the climate. It probably moans a complete change of clothing for himself and his family.
On the question of disturbance allowance, I say that the liability of an officer to be posted at a moment's notice and at undetermined intervals is the greatest difference between the life of a civilian and an officer. If the officer suffered no expense as the result of any move, he would still be at a disadvantage as compared with the civilian, by virtue of his nomadic life. Not only is an officer put to expense every time he moves, but the more frequently he moves the less compensation he receives. He receives an allowance of only £20 (in certain circumstances, when it is from one private dwelling to another, £40) to cover any incidental expenses, but he does not receive even this paltry sum if he is going to move or is moved again within six months.
Admittedly, the basic costs of transportation are borne by the Government, but

573
the move may well entail days or weeks in an hotel or furnished accommodation, to say nothing of the further upheaval if the posting is altered or cancelled at the last moment. And I am sure your Lordships know only too well what this can total up to in a short space of time. Surely it is only fair that all expenses of a move should be borne by the Government. An officer may have two or three moves in the course of as many years. Why should the expenses of these moves, which are forced on him, come out of his already meagre pay, on top of all the upheaval and disruption which he and his family have to undergo? Furthermore, if leave of more than a certain length coincides with a posting home, the disturbance allowance is inadmissible. Why? The officer is still incurring extra expense due to the move.
Now, my Lords, I will turn to the subject of school—which has already been mentioned by various noble Lords, but I have no doubt that I can produce some points which have not yet been mentioned. The officer is the type of person who will normally expect to send his children to a boarding school, and in any event circumstances will probably force him to do so when he is posted abroad. If he knows that by joining a Service he will not be able to pay for this schooling—bearing in mind that as a result of inheritance and other taxes very few officers or potential officers to-day have private means—the Services must lose more and more potential officer material to industry. One has only to look at Cranwell and Sandhurst to see that this is happening already. Where before the war they were both oversubscribed, the boot is now very much on tie other foot.
I would now like to draw your Lordships' attention to a Written Answer which appeared in Hansard on December 14, 1955. A Question was asked of the Under-Secretary of state for Air regarding the number of entries at Cranwell in the years 1952, 1953 and 1954, and how many of them were sons of Royal Air Force officers and ex-officers. The answer was [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 547 (No. 75), col. 189]:
"In 1952, there were 144 entrants to the Royal Air Force College, Cranwell, of whom 26 were the sons of Royal Air Force officers or ex-officers. For 1953 the figures were 87 and 11, and for 1954, 89 and 13."
That clearly shows that officers are not sending their sons into the Services.
574
A few years ago I was Vice-Chairman of three Selection Boards for entries to the R.A.F. Apprentices' School at Halton. In the examination order of merit it was very rare for a Service family's son to be even half-way up the list—not because they did not have brains, but because, instead of being able to have a continuous education in one, or at the most two, schools, the average was round about fifteen; and in one case that I remember a boy had been to thirty-two different schools. How can Service children pass the eleven-plus exam. in these circumstances? Civilian firms of any repute accept responsibility for at least one annual visit by children to their parents if overseas; whereas similar facilities in the Services not only are restricted to certain stations, which is up to a point understandable, but also cannot be claimed during the first year or within nine months of the end of a tour—also to a certain extent understandable. So that, in practice, parents normally have only one passage paid for an overseas tour. Surely the Services can do better than that. What is to happen if the officer has to go abroad and his children are to get a decent: education? Is the wife to remain in England to look after them, thus disrupting still further married life? Not all families have convenient "in-laws" or grandparents to whom their children can go. Could the Services not establish holiday homes for them? Otherwise the wives will have to stay at home. That is a point which I hope that the Government will take up.
The next point I want to mention is pensions. These have already been mentioned. I only hope that pensions will be raised and that they will enable ex-officers and their wives to have a reasonable standard of living until they both die. In this connection I have no doubt that your Lordships will have read recently of the plight of many holders of the Victoria Cross. One point I should like to emphasise is that of pensions for families of air crews killed on flying duty in peace time. The pension for a Service widow with children to bring up is pitiful, particularly if the officer is fairly junior, which would be normal for a pilot. The standard of living of his family drops to an ungrateful level. And although the R.A.F. Benevolent Fund does its best, the widow and children of an officer killed on active service should not have to live on

575
charity but should be looked after by a grateful country. Flying pay does not even cover the extra premium—which is charged, quite naturally—for insuring the life of those employed in flying duties, though I understand that the Air Ministry are now helping in this respect. Nevertheless, the greater risks which a member of an air crew undergoes (and consequently his family's greater risk of being bereft of its breadwinner) should be reflected in the pay of air crew and in the pension of their dependants.
The marriage allowance for young officers was mentioned earlier in the debate. I personally deplore that the age was lowered to the age at which it is now. I consider that marriage allowance is now given at too young an age. I hope that the Government will consider altering this lower age limit to what it was pre-war. It cannot be good for the Services to have a much larger proportion of young married officers.
I understand that the aircrew manning position is such that a large percentage of appointments normally staffed by general duties officers are not so manned, as otherwise these squadrons would be dangerously short of air crews; also that officers are being kept on flying duties at an age beyond what should be normal for this reason. The youth of this country has not lost its spirit of adventure; it is just that the game is not, under present conditions, worth the candle. Before the war leave for officers was up to a maximum of 61 days in the year. This period was reduced to 48 days. This may seem a lot, but one must remember that officers are on duty twenty-four hours a day for seven days of the week. Furthermore, they may be living away from their families—particularly junior officers.
When a war does come—and I, for one, sincerely hope that it will not—it is essential that officers should be fresh and not tired out as at present. Officers working at the Air Ministry, in particular, and presumably also at the War Office and the Admiralty, and on Headquarters Staffs, work far too long hours, and if war came the efficiency of these officers would be affected. I hope that the Government will take this into consideration and will not only restore the old leave grant of 61 days but also see that officers are paid enough for them to have a decent leave.
576
Now I come to a most important point. The Services would like an assurance from the Government that the Treasury will not be allowed partly to nullify the proposed increases in pay and allowances by introducing corresponding increases in, for instance, charges for married quarters, cutting travel concessions, et cetera; also that the N.A.A.F.I. will not be allowed to increase their prices purely on the strength of these pay increases. This they did in the Canal Zone when the increases in allowances were granted there, thus mostly nullifying their effect. Furthermore allowances, if they are going to be taxed, must, after deduction of tax, cover the expense for which they have been granted, otherwise the position is absurd. Taxing allowances was a purely political decision anyhow.
If I may move away from pay for a moment, I should like to make the point that the Services must try to keep faith with their own; otherwise they will lose more and more officers. In 1947, the Air Ministry published new scales of retiring ages, which were ages younger than those previously existing. Officers were given the option to remain on the old scale, if they had been commissioned before 1939 and if they retired at the rank which they held in 1947. This option is now being ignored by the Air Ministry, presumably on Treasury instructions, and officers are being retired at the earlier age whether they opted or not. Some of these officers took on schooling and other commitments in the knowledge that, unless they "blotted their copybooks," they would normally be on full pay until the later age. If any of these officers have sons, are they likely to encourage them to go into the Services?
Finally, I read in a reputable newspaper that allowances were not going to be increased, only pay. Surely this is the wrong way to do it. Officers' expenses vary greatly according to circumstances—where they are stationed and how frequently they are moved. Officers do not ask to live in luxury. They ask only that they shall be able to carry out their duties without living in a constant state of anxiety about the welfare of their families, especially when they are moved about, particularly overseas; that the costs of such moves will be borne by the country; that their children can be properly educated and, if the

577
parents are abroad, looked after during the holidays; and that, finally, they can retire in circumstances that will give them a reasonable standard of living. I apologise to your Lordships for having gone over the points again. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, for having brought up and allowed us to discuss this subject.
5.42 p.m.
LORD FREYBERG: My Lords, I rise to support the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Teynham. In common with all other speakers, I was glad to see Prime Minister's announcement at Bradford on January 18, that half-measures would achieve nothing. It is only a fair statement of fact that increased pay for the Services is not an extravagance; it is a necessity. The interpretation of this phrase will be shown to us, probably, when the White Paper is published during next month. However, I feel, as most people do, that the present position of the Services must be a serious one which requires prompt and sympathetic consideration.
The situation which has arisen is not new: it existed in the Army in the period between the two world wars. Though, from time to time, efforts were made to put grievances right, more often than not it was the old story of giving too little too late. We know that Service personnel are prevented by regulations from publicly putting forward their case, and no Regular officer or man is allowed to state his grievances in a General Election. That is quite right. But although regulations prevent serving officers from presenting their case for fair treatment, the regulations cannot place wives of serving officers under a similar ban, and I am glad to see that officers' wives have taken an active part in this campaign. A deputation of wives of senior ranking officers attended your Lordships' House early last month and told us about the undoubted hardships and injustices under which serving officers' wives and families are now living and working. The problems of planning Army life for all ranks, particularly those not on the strength of a unit, need simplifying. In ray opinion, we must try to get away from the system in which some Service personnel are housed and fed free of cost to themselves while others are required to make up from pay and allowances,
578
which are insufficient, the difference between the net allowance after payment of tax and the cost of providing accommodation and food.
I was interested in the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, who has made a careful study of pay and allowances regulations, and it seems to me that there is something radically wrong with a system that confuses everybody. For instance, a man receives pay, ration allowance, marriage allowance, lodging allowance, London allowance (where entitled), disturbance allowance for removal expenses, and local and overseas allowances. To make the matter even more difficult to follow, some allowances are subject to income tax and some individuals are exempt, while others pay income tax at the standard rate. It is all very confusing and nobody really knows where he stands financially. There is a school of thought that believes it would be far better to give everybody not on the strength of a unit an adequate salary, to include everything, and leave him to fend for himself, as do civil servants and those in industry. I do not place in that category the disturbance allowance. I hope that these problems and many others raised in this debate will be considered by the noble Lord who is to answer for the Government.
I want to confine my further remarks to three questions: first, the urgent need for periodical review of the rates of pay of Service personnel and the need to make the increases retrospective; secondly, the need to equate Service pay with corresponding payments it industry and commerce; and thirdly, the treatment of retired officers and men. Dealing with the first point, the rates of pay should be reviewed more frequently and increases implemented more speedily. The present method is slow and cumbersome, and in the past revisions have given only temporary relief. Increases are sometimes given a year later and are quickly overtaken by the rise of the cost of living. This situation has been recognised in the Civil Service by ante-dating the increases, but no such benefit has been given to the Services. Dealing with the second point, it is understood that Service pay is equated to correspondng cases in commerce. An equation of the basic rates is most unfair, since nearly all personnel employed outside the Services earn more

579
than their basic pay, by the addition of overtime and bonuses, in cash and kind, and there is no system of overtime in the Services. Anybody of my age group who has taken part in two world wars has nothing but the greatest admiration for the people in commerce. We have seen them come out and take their part in these wars. I believe that they would be the first to recognise the need to equate pay and allowances on a proper basis.
As to the last point, retirement pay for the Services, I believe your Lordships will never be allowed to forget the hardship that the Treasury have caused to the officers who retired under the 1919 Code. I think we can rest on the fact that my noble friend Lord Jeffreys and the group of retired officers in your Lordships' House who attend to this matter will keep at it. But there is a case of injustice in our present code. A major, or officer of equivalent rank, qualifies for a maximum retired pay of £500 per annum after twenty-two years' service. It is generally recognised that an officer should serve beyond the age of 45 if suitable employment can be found. Assuming that he does, he cannot draw on his retired pay during further service nor earn any further increases to retired pay or grant as a reward for his additional service. Retired pay should be assessed for service and for rank alone. A move should be made for increases for further service, as is done in the case of other ranks.
I was interested in the hopes expressed by Lord Portal of Hungerford. Interpreting the statement made by the Prime Minister at Bradford, I should say that his hopes were that, first, we should have a generous increase in the basic rates of pay and allowances; secondly, posting expenses, and thirdly, an adequate educational allowance. In my opinion, it depends greatly on who interprets the expressions of opinion. If it is left to that Department that we all know so well, we may be disappointed. Half-measures will achieve nothing. We all remember what happened between the wars, in 1935, when the Government decided to cut by 28·8 per cent. the pay and allowances of the old soldiers enlisted at 3s. 6d. a day, at the time when they were cutting the police by 10 per cent. and the teachers by 10 per cent.: two days after the order was promulgated there was the incident at
580
Invergordon; and the Government dropped it straight away—they got their answer. I feel that the Government are getting their answer now. The Army is giving its answer with its feet: it is marching out, thousands at a time; and I am told on authority that something has got to be done, and done quickly. I hope that the Government will take note of the points raised in your Lordships' House. I beg to support the Motion.
5.51 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord who has just spoken will forgive me if I do not follow the same line that he has adopted, but I want to deal with only one aspect of this matter which has been raised by my noble friend Lord Teynham. I refer to the question of educational allowance for what I may briefly term Service children and, in particular, the statement made on November 2 in another place by the then Minister of Defence, because in this matter it is the only thing that shows us, to some extent, what is in the Government's mind.
The first important thing in that statement was that in dealing, with Service children the Government have realised, I believe for the first time, that one of the most important things in education is continuity; and at long last they have said that they are prepared to begin to help. Nevertheless, that statement was greeted with somewhat mixed feelings by officers, warrant officers and non-commissioned officers who have children of school age. Perhaps I may quote the words of one of them, a friend of mine, who said: "We know that the Government are hard up, and at first sight it really did look as if they were going to do what they could to help us. But, of course, that is not so; there are the usual Treasury 'wangles'." Those are his words, and that is the natural attitude of many of these officers and non-commissioned officers. And if that remains their attitude they will be leaving the Services.
I will try to explain to your Lordships to what particularly they are referring, but first may I be bold enough to try to suggest to certain noble Lords what this figure of £75 per annum is, and how it was arrived at. I venture to say that the mind of the Government works in

581
much the same way as mine did when (your Lordships will not remember it), on the last Army Estimates, I spoke on this subject and suggested that some education allowance must be given, and that the least that should be considered as a beginning was £75 a year for each child at a boarding school. I will tell your Lordships how that figure was arrived at. There was no yardstick to compare it with, except the Foreign Service; and members of the Foreign Service, as your Lordships have heard, get £150 a year if they are Grade A officers or £100 a year if they are Grade B officers. That allowance is free of tax, but is paid only while they are abroad. When they come home, as I understand it—it seems most unfair, because the fees remain the same—they get no allowance for education. What they do about their children at boarding school I do not know. But when suggested this figure I realised at there was one difference between the Foreign Service and the Armed Forces—namely, that when members of the Foreign Service are posted home from a tour of duty abroad they always come to London; and I suppose the argument is that there is some reasonable chance of establishing a permanent home in or near London when they are at home. So, comparing the Armed Forces with the Foreign Service, I suggest that the allowance should start at £75 a year, payable wherever the parent is stationed, at home or abroad. Clearly, nothing less would be any goad. Of course, Governments always offer the least that they can, and perhaps one should not complain on that account.
Here we come to the first of what my noble friend called the "Treasury swindles," because it is clearly a matter in which the Treasury have interfered. The payment of £75 I submit, is the least that can be decently offered, if anything is to be offered, towards boarding school fees. Officers come home and they at once have to pay tax on this new £75 a year for each child at boarding school. If £75 a year is, in the opinion of the Government (though not in mine) just adequate, how can £45 or £50 a year, which is what they get when they are at home, be adequate? So that, clearly, on one hand these men are being offered £75 a year to help them, and on the other
582
the Treasury are saying: "Sometimes; the rest of the time we will take it away through the back door." What is an officer to do when he is at home for two or three years? Is he to take his child away from boarding school and put it at a day school when he is stationed at home, because he cannot afford the boarding school, and then in two or three years' time, when he is posted abroad again, try to find another vacancy at a boarding school?—which will be impossible. That is not honest treatment. To offer something with conditions of that sort attached would not be considered common honesty in the commercial world.
We then come to the next what my noble friend called "swindle." In order to get continuity of education, the Government have now said that if the parents of a child that goes to a day school go abroad, and the child is lodged with relatives or guardians—which, of course, in most cases is usually "Granny"—an allowance of £25 a year, something just under 10s. a week, will be paid to help with the keep of that child. I am not arguing whether that is an adequate offer, but clearly it is the smallest offer that could in common decency be made. I admit that it is quite proper that the money the parents would pay if they had the children with them should be handed by the parents to the "Grannies," and that the £25 is additional allowance. The same thing occurs as happens with the boarding allowance. Father, perhaps, is posted to (shall I say?) Singapore; and mother goes, too. The child is sent to "Granny" in Devon, where there is a nice day school, and 10s. a week is paid to "Granny." Father comes home and is posted to Inverness; and mother goes there, too. But as this continuity of education is to be encouraged, the child stays on with "Granny" in Devon, at least during the school term. "Granny," however, is no longer going to get the 10s. a week. She will be taxed on it, and all she will get is 6s. Is that common decency? It is really a most reprehensible offer to make to anyone.
There is one further matter in the statement made by the then Minister of Defence that I would bring to your Lordships' notice, which is a most obnoxious

583
phrase. The sentence is this [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 545 (No. 45), col. 1034]:
"Putting it shortly, officers and other ranks serving overseas and those serving at home who are subject to frequent postings will receive an allowance …"
and so on. Who are the Service people who are not subject to frequent postings? I have racked my brains and, at any rate as regards the Army, I have found two commissioned officers who if they are, as they usually are, of a certain age, might come into this category. One is the Quartermaster at the Staff College, and the other is the Quartermaster at the Royal Military Academy—they are usually fairly elderly and more or less static. But who are the other people who are not subject to frequent postings? It is exactly as my noble friend Lord Middleton said: we have a new regulation and nobody will know whether he can claim these allowances or not. What does "frequent postings" mean—every year, every two years, every three years, or not likely to be posted throughout a child's education? What does it mean? I ask Her Majesty's Government not to put that sort of regulation into a financial matter by which everyone is going to be misled and from which, if there is any doubt in the matter, the officer will certainly not benefit.
I have nearly finished, but may I ask my noble friend Lord Carrington one question about a matter which appears to be somewhat uncertain? From the statement made by the former Minister of Defence, to which I have referred, it would appear that if a child goes to a boarding school the parent will receive £75 per annum towards the cost of education at that boarding school. The question I want to ask my noble friend is this: if the boarding school is not in this country, is the allowance still paid, or is it not? I wish to draw his attention to the fact that there is an excellent school in Penang, run by the Incorporated Society of Planters, to which already certain officers have sent their children. If I understand correctly certain War Office correspondence which has been shown me, the parents of those children will not be entitled to the allowance which the former Minister of Defence promised, for children at boarding school. If my
584
noble friend can give me that answer today, I would be grateful, but in any case perhaps he will look into the matter. Finally, may I ask Her Majesty's Government this question? When, as a matter of Government policy, officers—or, indeed, anyone else—have been promised certain allowances for certain specific purposes, will Her Majesty's Government make sure that no Department, whether the Treasury, the War Office or any other, prevents Government policy from being carried out in full by some somewhat dishonest "jiggery-pokery?"
6.5 p.m.
LORD FORBES: My Lords, there are two great and ancient institutions in this country, the Crown and those who serve the Crown. I maintain that the Armed Forces, forming part of those who serve the Crown, are in grave danger of losing status and efficiency unless something is done immediately to improve the pay and conditions of the officers. The status of the Armed Forces of the Crown must never be allowed to decline one iota. In fact, we must always be striving to raise it so that the Armed Forces can continue to carry out their arduous and exacting duties throughout the world with the confidence and backing of this country. We must not forget that we, as a nation, rely on quality in our Armed Forces and not on quantity. We must also not forget that conditions have changed greatly since the last war. The cold war, or, perhaps we should call it, the warm war, is with us, and this accentuates more than ever before the need for really efficient and contented officers.
There are two fundamental facts which Her Majesty's Government must grasp. One of them, which has been mentioned many times already to-day, is that very few officers to-day have private means; and the second is that commissions are now open to all. This means that the Regular officer's life must be a career. In civilian life, one can take a career as being the chances of making a livelihood up to about sixty years of age. Now of course this is not possible in the Armed Forces, because only a few officers can attain the higher ranks which would enable them to go on serving up to that age. Taking the Army as an example, we find that only just over 50 per cent. of the Regular officers who join the Army ever become lieutenant-colonels, and the

585
chances of promotion above the rank of lieutenant-colonel decline rapidly, with the result that only a few officers become generals. This means that a large number of officers are forced to leave the Services at the age of about forty-five, when promotion on a time basis ceases and when promotion by selection begins. This early pruning is, of course, peculiar to the Armed Forces. It must be accepted; it cannot be altered. However, we must realise that the officer who, by his own ability, serves on and becomes a lieutenant-colonel, has made a reasonable success of his career. If he does not attain the higher ranks, it is probably due to the fact that the road to the higher ranks narrows very considerably, and all cannot tread the same road together; therefore some have to fall out.
This brings one to the fundamental fact that the Armed Forces cannot be a full career for all, although some, by their exceptional merit, do obtain it. I therefore maintain that it is up to Her Majesty's Government either to find alternative employment for these officers who are forced to leave early (and I agree that this will be a difficult problem) or they must provide adequate retired pay to compensate these officers for having their careers cut short. After all, the officer who gives the first and the best twenty to twenty-five years of his adult life to the service of the country deserves some recognition, especially when one considers that he is being forced to lease the Services probably at the age of about forty-five, a most awkward age, when he is probably too old to begin learning a new profession and, at the same time, too young to retire.
Unfortunately, the career prospects in the Armed Forces have not improved much during the last fifty years, whereas in industry the career prospects have improved enormously. To verify this, all we need do is to ask the married officer serving to-day whether he is going to send his son or sons into the Armed Forces. I am afraid that often we get the answer "No" or "I doubt it". It would be a tremendous pity if this family tradition in the Armed Forces should ever break down just because serving officers became disgruntled and adversely influenced their sons, because this would also affect recruiting, since recruiting for the Regular Forces is done very largely through Service families. It is true to say that the officer's shoe, especially
586
the married officer's shoe, pinches financially throughout his service. This fact has already been ably expounded by other noble Lords so I will not go into it further. However, I should like to say that the most important point of all is that the officer, when he joins, should know that Her Majesty's Government will give him a really comfortable pair of shoes to wear when he is forced to retire.
I should like now to say a few words about retired pay. The first thing we must get quite clear is that retired pay to most officers is really a sort of retaining fee, because the Regular officer on retirement is immediately transferred to the Regular Army Reserve of Officers, from which he is liable to be recalled at very short notice. Not only should consideration be given to improving the existing rates of retired pay, but also existing rates of retired pay must be made available to all retired officers, irrespective of their dates of retirement, so that the same rates of retired pay would be available for similar service to the country.
This would not only remove a gross injustice done to many officers who retired under earlier codes of pay but would also simplify the administration of retired pay. It is up to the Government of the day to ensure that retired pay or pension is always worth what it was intended to be worth when it was laid down. The present position about retired pay is that it is based on length of service, pay and rank on retirement. This cannot be right and must lead to anomalies, especially when the cost of living is altering and when the pound is no longer pegged to the gold standard. I submit that retired pay should be linked for adjustment to basic Service pay; when it is necessary to raise basic Service pay, the same reason will also justify a rise in retired pay.
Governments in the past have always been loth to raise retired pay, so I would take the liberty of suggesting another scheme in the hope that it may be more palatable to Her Majesty's Government. I would suggest that, besides the existing retired pay, there should also be a contributory pension scheme: that is, the Government and the officer would both make contributions towards this pension. In the end, the officer would benefit not only by his own contributions but also

587
by the contributions from the Government. This scheme is already well known to those engaged in industry, where an urgent need was found for attracting personnel into the industry and retaining them. If this scheme appeals to the good employer in industry, surely Her Majesty's Government should also join the ranks of good employers. The very idea of both employer and employee contributing towards the same scheme has much to be commended.
The main points of a contributory pension scheme, as your Lordships may know, are, first of all, that whatever contributions the officer makes he can never lose, unless, of course, he is dismissed from the Service. He can also make contributions to suit his own purse: the larger the contributions he makes, the larger will be his reward when he receives his pension. If the officer dies before pensionable age, his widow or children will receive all the contributions made by the officer and also the contributions made by the Government. If the officer stays on until pensionable age, he will receive full insurance benefit from his own contributions and also from the contributions of the Government.
There is yet another advantage, because, under the present regulations, the officer could claim tax relief on the contributions that he makes. I would go further and say also that this contributory pension should be interchangeable from one profession to another, so that the officer, on leaving the Service, could take his pension with him to another profession, and so his pension would always be mounting up. This would not only be of great advantage to the officer but would also be a safeguard to the country, because the country would know that no officer would merely mark time waiting for his pension to become payable. The officer would always be marching down the road, knowing that his pension was there waiting for him—unless, of course, he happened to march into one of Her Majesty's prisons. This scheme would give the officer that security for the future for which he looks on joining the Armed Forces.
There may be some officers who do not want to retire. Those should, wherever possible, be rehabilitated, with assistance from the Government. We
588
must not forget that it is totally foreign for officers to go touting round seeking employment; this just is not done in the Armed Forces. Also, we must remember that the officer who leaves the Armed Forces without any influential contacts in other spheres of life does so at a great disadvantage. However, there is a big field opening up for the retired officer, because there are many firms to-day who employ almost entirely technical or scientific staffs. This means that they have not anyone with the right qualifications for looking after the personnel side. Surely this is where the retired officer, with his tremendous knowledge of handling personnel, could step into the breach better than anyone else could.
Various points have been raised concerning officers' children. I would say only this: I think that, as regards the education of an officer's child, the school is not everything. We must not forget that a great part of a child's education comes from the time spent IN the home. It is the example of the parents in the home which counts for so much. Therefore it is of paramount importance that children should be with their parents whenever possible during the holidays. I realise that it is not possible for children to join officers at every station. This fact is accepted in the right spirit by Service families. It is, however, utterly wrong that children should not be able to join their fathers during the holidays because of expensive travel. This not only would be bad for the child but would also place the wife in an awkward position; either she stays with her husband and the children are left with relatives, which must be bad, or the wife stays with the children and cannot join her husband. There are already far too many broken homes through divorce. It would be utterly shameful for any Government to participate in a scheme that might lead to further broken homes. I therefore recommend that the Government should ensure that officers' children get at least two free trooping trips a year. I know that there are present regulations whereby some children get free trooping, but this concession cannot be used during the first year of a posting and cannot be used during the last nine months of a posting, so the concession is not a great one.
My Lords, we must remember that the manpower picture in the Services never

589
stands still. Alterations and fluctuations made to-day will affect the Services for many years to come. Those responsible for planning manpower must try to ensure that not only the needs of to-day are met but also, so far as possible, the needs of the future. We must also remember that if an officer is to lead men in troubled places it is essential that he himself should be free from all family and financial difficulties. I should like to urge Her Majesty's Government to be generous towards officers, so that they can afford to take part in sports and games, as I consider that this, more than any training manual, will teach officers more about leadership. I do not know about nuclear warfare, but I think I can safely say that should a nuclear war develop, more than ever before will leadership be the greatest asset that an officer can possess.
If an officer is kept too tied financially there is a danger that he will become what is known as a "bookworm," because he will always be striving to improve his knowledge in the hopes of getting further up the ladder towards higher pay. This dangerous seed is already in the ground, because Governments have failed oo realise that conditions have changed so enormously during the last few years. This seed must never be allowed to germinate. I hope that the Government have plans on a scale so far undreamed of for putting all these matters right. There are a number of really good officers just sitting on the fence, waiting to hear what improvements in their pay and conditions the Government propose to make. If the Government take adequate steps these officers will fall back contented into their Service life; if not, Her Majesty's Government must face the consequence of a large number of good officers leaving the Armed Forces, and of the status of the Armed Forces of the Crown falling. My Lords, I may have uttered some grave warnings; I only hope that my warnings will prove to be unfounded. As things stand to-day, I do not think I have overstated the case in the least.
6.25 p.m.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I could not help feeling throughout your Lordships' debate so far that, had it not been for the extent of the sacrifice and the service that generations of officers have given, we should not be debating this
590
excellent Motion which the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, has put before us. I also feel that, were it not for the service and sacrifice of officers in such unpleasant places as Malaya, and in similar conditions throughout the world, the fruits of those measures about which the noble and learned Lord opposite spoke might be still further away.
There is one point that I should like to bring before your Lordships and to the notice of the noble Lord who is to reply. I think that he may be able in the near future to give a favourable reply to this matter, because it does not involve pay or any further expenditure of cash—in fact, rather an economy. I am quite certain that in the age group of officers from, say, 28 to 35, many are leaving the three Services because, at some stage in the near future, they will have to submit themselves to the Staff College examination. In these times of full employment, of which we have heard so much, there are few officers who will submit themselves, or feel able to submit themselves, to the intense self-discipline and study which training at the Staff College and the Staff College examination involve. In but a few years the officers who have seen service in the last war and had regimental or unit service will be very rare birds indeed.
I am not suggesting that the Services should have inferior officers because they have not been able to pass Staff College; but, as your Lordships know, there are many officers who have been able to carry the heat and the brunt of the day and yet make no pretence of being able to undergo the rigorous training that the Staff College involves. Because these general duty officers are leaving the Service, regiments will in a short time be deprived of their training experience with young men, especially National Service men, and with dangerous implements and machines. I believe that if the noble Lord who is to reply could confer with his colleagues it might be possible for the Staff College examination and Staff College training not to be required to such a great extent as it is at the present time" especially in the Army, for officers of that age group.
Furthermore, when an officer reaches the age of twenty-eight, although he may be an expert on training not very clever young men at throwing Mills grenades

591
and other dangerous implements (we have seen a report of a recent accident), as a regimental officer he is not specially trained for the requirements of industry and commerce. That is not so with other ranks. A senior sergeant aged twenty-eight, or an other rank who has not been promoted but who has a clean sheet for ten or twelve years, is a valuable person and is bound to have a skilled trade at his elbow should he decide to come out of the Forces. Any employer would take on a good N.C.O. or a warrant officer at that age; he is just the sort of man required by industry. I think it should also be remembered—this has not been pointed out to your Lordships—that to a large extent the training of such N.C.Os., senior and junior men, throughout their course, chequered career or not in the Army, has been carried out by officers, whom we are trying, by means of this debate, to keep in the Service.
We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Kindersley, that a new association of officers' wives has been formed. I do not know whether such an association has the blessing of officers or those in high places, but there is no doubt that every point put forward by this association of officers' wives has been covered throughout by the noble and gallant Lords who have spoken in the debate to-day. I may not be a very suitable person to carry forward the case of officers' wives, but as a very junior subaltern I know that a senior officer's wife is a very different sort of person from any other person's wife. It is also quite certain that when a girl becomes engaged to a young officer (and this is Leap Year, my Lords) she is anybody's potential wife. If that girl is not impressed by the measures which the noble and gallant Lord may be putting before your Lordships in the very near future, then I fancy that her decision as to whether or not that young officer shall stay on in his unit will weigh very heavily indeed. Then there will be another crop of officers leaving the Service, officers whose experience is vital in the difficult and dangerous task of training young National Servicemen.
There is only one further point that I wish to put before your Lordships in support of words put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, with regard to equality between Service officers and
592
their counterparts in the Civil Service. Not only is the most junior officer liable at any time to be reprimanded by his immediate senior, but, through lack of judgment, perhaps through his own fault, and perhaps not, he can commit an offence so grave that he may be court-martialled with most glaring publicity, and the possibility of being cashiered and dismissed the Service. Worse still, he is liable to be the direct cause of death or injury to other young men who are forced into doing National Service under his command. That is a very big responsibility to ask any young man to undertake. As a National Service officer he has to do such training; whether he likes it or not, he must show young National Service men how grenades should and should not be thrown. Unless something can be done about his conditions and, above all, about his pay and the conditions of his family, about which so much has been said with such eloquence this afternoon in your Lordships' House, I very much doubt whether the future generation of young officers will voluntarily decide that they can carry on in such a profession.
6.34 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I hope I shall not trespass against an ancient and honourable custom of your House by repeating any arguments made by noble Lords before me. I wish to say merely that I endorse and agree with them all. Particular emphasis has rightly been laid upon the allowances to officers, and particularly to married officers with families. Exception has been taken to the fact that these are subject to tax; but we must recollect that the authorities naturally wish to subject these allowances to tax, because an officer may be liable to surtax, and no man in any other profession is able to arrange for the education of his children until he has made an allowance for paying income tax and surtax. He pays it out of his net income. I take slight exception, however, to the way in which it was stated in your House, because if you ask a man who has a boy at school what are the fees he has to pay, he does not say the cost is £740 a year less tax; he says it is £400 or whatever the sum may be. It has been mentioned in your Lordships' House that the additional allowance is £75 subject to tax. I submit that it would be much more logical to say that it is £42 7s. 6d. It is the same with all other allowances.

593
I have no doubt that it is very clearly expressed in the Royal Warrant which allowances are subject to tax and which are not; but on the great day when a new Royal Warrant is made and issued to the public I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be quite frank and candid on this matter and will express clearly, in accounts of the new deal published in the papers, which allowances are subject to tax, so that people can take pencil and paper and see what is the real allowance. The real truth seems to me to be that the whole allowances will be continued but made subject to tax, instead of allowances being first calculated on what a man must pay and then grossed. If they are subject to tax, that is what should be done.
I have one other point to make on much the same line. I shall not follow the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, into a discussion of the 1919 Royal Warrant, but on the last occasion on which we debated that Warrant a point arose which is of some importance. I happened to speak then and quoted letters from naval officers, principally about the year 1935 when the new terms were issued, saying that they had made a bargain, and that they did not wish to vary the bargain even though the new conditions would give them a momentary increase of income; and that they preferred to adhere to the old terms of the Royal Warrant. No attention was paid to that, and their pensions were converted. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, answering that debate in an extremely able speech which I reread this morning, pointed out that the Royal Warrant in question contained a clause which enabled the Government to alter it up or down at any time or, at any rate, at stated intervals. My memory fails me as to the details.
LORD JEFFREYS: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, will read the Warrant he will see that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, was referring only to the Air Force, in which there were then very few people. There was special provision in the Warrants for both the Army and Navy which said that no officer was to suffer in any way in respect of that matter.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend, but the point I wish to make is that, whatever may be the terms of the new Royal
594
Warrant, anything that detracts from the offer made should be given exactly the same publicity as the favourable side of the new Warrant. People will then be able to consider the history of the past and to shape their course accordingly.
6.40 p.m.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, at this stage of the debate every point of this important problem has been covered and covered again, and I do not propose to weary your Lordships by recapitulating the arguments that have been brought forward. I do, however, want to underline two aspects of the problem which I stressed when I raised this subject in your Lordships' House nearly two years ago, and which affect the conditions of the married officer and the education of his children. The points about the education allowance have been covered many times, and most eloquently by my noble friend Lord Derwent, though I was sorry (if I understood him rightly) that he suggested the figure of £75. I would merely say that it is a pitifully small figure that is granted. The other point I should like to underline is that of hedging round allowances with restrictions. One of the many things that make an officer extremely angry is when he has to worry and fuss about whether he can get an allowance, and then, when he thinks he can, learns that he is not entitled to it because of some small quibble. Surely it was right, as was stated by the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Portal of Hungerford, that disturbance and removal allowances should, without question, be granted, to cover the necessary expenses every time a move has to be made on the posting of an officer. I hope that when Her Majesty's Government work out these new rates—a task which I believe is being carried out now—they will be framed is an imaginative way and in such a way that they will cover the real expenses and be a real help in solving the many difficulties of Service families.
6.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Stratheden and Campbell has just reminded us that two years ago, almost to a week, we were debating this very same subject, and, by and large, this debate, has shown us that we are in about the same place as we were when we left off after the reply

595
which was given by the then Minister of Defence, Lord Alexander of Tunis. For my part I should have very much liked to read out again the few remarks I addressed to your Lordships on February 3, 1954, because I find it hard to say anything different or indeed to improve on it. But I am mindful of the advice given by my noble friend Lord Saltoun, and I can assure Lord Carrington that I am going to do no such thing. But I am going to try to take up some of the salient points made in this debate—a debate in which we have had a mass of detail and in which I think a number of really important points have stood out clearly.
This has been a very important debate and I think it has been a most useful one in every respect, except that possibly, despite what my noble friend Lord Swinton said, this is rather a difficult time for a debate of this sort because of the fact that the Estimates are now settled. Whatever has been decided for 1956 has been decided, and it seems to me that my noble friends in front are not in a position to make any announcement. So no one will blame my noble friend Lord Carrington if in a few moments—and it is going to be a few moments—he does not find himself in a position to say very much. But our views have gone on record, and it is rather interesting to note that of the sixteen or seventeen speakers twelve of them have been regular supporters of Her Majesty's Government. On top of that, the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, when he was speaking from the Benches opposite said—or so I understood him to say—that he supported the Motion. I was not quite clear what was intended, because this is a Motion for Papers. But from the sense of his speech it was clear to me that he felt that a number of points made to-day demanded urgent attention. So we have gone on record this afternoon, and in a few days we shall know what the answer is. Then we shall return to this matter sooner or later, and either we shall return to give thanks or we shall return to the charge, or, as I think more likely, we shall be doing a bit of both.
The last time I spoke on this matter, in 1954, I said that I thought it was particularly incumbent upon Her Majesty's Government to take special care in their treatment of those classes of people who
596
did not have unions to speak for them in the same way as those classes of people who have their unions. Therefore I was delighted to read in the report of the speech made by the Prime Minister at Bradford that he referred to that very point. I think that that is an extremely good augury for the future. None the less, this view seems to be growing in the Services: that unions are not a bad thing. As most of us know by now, this debate was started by an association of officers wives. Already we have such things as the Officers' Pensions Society and the Association of Retired Naval Officers. And I am bound to say that, however much we should like, in the Services, to do without bodies of that sort to act as pressure groups, successive Governments have no-one but themselves to blame if the people concerned find it necessary to take action through channels of this sort.
The background of this debate, I think, is that those concerned—people in the Services—have been treated not merely stingily but unfairly. Furthermore, we have now come within measurable distance of breaking point. By "breaking point," I mean a point where those we want to keep in the Services will not stay and those we want to go into the Services will not go in. Let us look at this, for a moment, and try to pick out the important points in the wealth of detail which we have had in this debate. The essential point, I think, is that real earnings are far less than pay, largely because the allowances given never cover the expenses they are supposed to cover. This was a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, and by another noble Lord who spoke later and who said that pay was being absorbed by such things. I believe this particular point, that allowances do not cover what they are supposed to cover, is at the root of most of the trouble which is felt now, because every time one gets on to subjects such as these constant moves, entertainment allowances in stations abroad, and so forth, this sort of thing comes up.
I realise that it is not popular in this House to attempt to reach the Treasury officials who advise Ministers; but for years Ministers have received thoroughly bad advice on this subject. It is advice which bears no relation to the real costs, and the time has come, I feel, when we, on these Benches, must beg Ministers to probe far more deeply into the advice they get and to insist on proof that the

597
financial recommendations put up by the Treasury really will hold water and correspond with the facts of the case. The noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, who has now left the Chamber, dealt with the question of inflation. What he did not say was that we are concerned in this debate not only with the matter of pay but also with the matter of allowances. The arguments which he used about pay may or may not have been right in theory, but he seemed entirely to have overlooked the point that emoluments also arise out of allowances. Even on his theoretical presentation of the case, when the cost of services rises there is no reason why allowances which are meant to cover the cost of those services should not rise also. I think that disposes of the inflation argument of the noble Lord in regard to allowances.
Now I come to a point which was raised by many speakers, particularly by the noble Lords, Lord Teynham, Lord Derwent and Lord Stratheden and Campbell. I put it like this. In recent years those who have lived in a fixed place in the United Kingdom have received a number of ever-growing benefits from the Welfare State, and it is right that they should receive those benefits. They have been received particularly in matters of education, and to a lesser extent in health. The record of health treatment in the Services has always been better than that of education. The same applies to housing. Now we find that Service families are not being kept in step with the benefits which other people receive from the Welfare State. That is the gist of the criticism. And as pay, taxation and the cost of living are all calculated on the basis that those benefits are being received, the effect on those who do not receive them is correspondingly worse.
Another point made by several noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Teynham, Lord Templewood and Lord Forbes, is that the cushion of private means has now disappeared. Fewer of the old type of officer, on whom the tradition of the Services depends so much, can afford to go into the Services, and the fewer who do go have not the cushion of private means that their ancestors had. But we are not depending entirely on that type of officer; we are looking to a type of officer of the right character, whatever his origins, and people of that sort will have little or no private means. So, when some sudden crisis comes along—double
598
moves or illness in the family, or whatever it may be—there is no cushion of private means, as there used to be in the past, to tide over until family affairs settle down. We do not hear much about this aspect, but every now and again it comes to the surface in the papers when some wretched creature has to stand his trial for misappropriation of funds or something of that sort. Those who can read between the lines know what a ghastly story probably lies behind the whole thing.
The impact of taxation on pay and on allowances has resulted in a levelling down and not a levelling up. In the course of the debate reference has been made to the fact that the differences between the standard of living of the skilled artisan, the Service man and a professional man have narrowed. That may well be. We are not concerned with snobbery but with standards, and the point that many noble Lords have made and which I wish to make again is that, although that may well be right, the handling of Service officers' affairs by successive Governments and by the Treasury the whole time has not merely reduced the standard of living as compared with that of the skilled artisan; it has reduced the standard of living of Service families in comparison with that of the professional classes, of bank officials and of the other people mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kindersley. If I am right in saying that that has happened—and I think figures will prove it—that is utterly wrong. We shall go on still longer in this way unless a real change is made by the Government in the handling of this problem.
As many noble Lords said, present pay and allowances are not serving their purpose. We are failing to keep Service emoluments in step with emoluments of those in the corresponding social scale, and so we are debasing the coinage of the Services in this new world to which the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, referred, just at a time when, as another noble Lord said, we have to see that the best technicians are in the Services to deal with the problems of the nuclear age and are able to get rewards which compare with the rewards which similar technicians would get, at least in Government establishments dealing with these problems, if not outside in civilian life. I

599
have done my best to sum up the detailed arguments which have been brought forward in this debate. I hope that the debate, now concluding so far as the Back Benchers are concerned, will serve to show noble Lords in front of me two things: first, that an urgent case has been put up for a completely new approach to this problem; and secondly, that if this problem is approached in a new way, the strongest support will be available to them from the Benches behind them.
6.57 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I hope that I shall be forgiven if I intervene for a few moments. I feel that perhaps something more should be said from this side of the House after the long array of speeches from the other side. I have listened to most of them, and I think I may say that we are in general agreement with what has been said; and it is unnecessary for me to repeat the points made. I believe that a case has been made on two grounds; first, that pay is inadequate, and, secondly, that in order to make the Services attractive to-day we have to provide serving officers with some scope at the end of their service. I want to stress the second point, which has been referred to by other speakers. I think the Services are losing a large number of men prematurely simply because they feel that, if they stay to the end of their normal period of service, their opportunities of useful employment will be largely diminished. Many of them fear that they may well have to live on the meagre pensions which they get. In my view, it is not sufficient to increase pay; the Government ought to give serious consideration also to the question of ensuring employment for serving officers at the end of their term. That might well be the most important contribution the Government could make to the improvement of conditions.
I should also like to stress what my noble friend Lord Lucan said: that often the intangible things are an important factor in the cost of Service life. It is not sufficient merely to calculate the actual cost of living on a minimum basis. We have to take into account the traditions which every serving officer is expected to maintain, just as it is no good sending a boy to an expensive school unless one enables him to take a full part
600
in the life of the school. This debate has been based on the conditions and pay of serving officers, but almost every word that has been said about officers applies also to the men. I do not criticise the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, for confining his Motion to serving officers—I recognise that there are special considerations which apply to them—but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will be under no illusions but that we on this side of the House take the view that all that has been said applies to a large extent to the men as well, and that any improvement in pay and conditions must apply to them as well as to the serving officers.
7.0 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the number of your Lordships who have taken part in this debate, and the speeches that have been made, demonstrate the importance of the subject which we have discussed this evening. I do not think that any officer in the Services has any cause to complain of the advocacy advanced on his behalf during the debate, with the possible exception of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge. Even if the noble Lord were here, I do not think it would be necessary for me to answer him, because he was suitably dealt with both by my noble friend Lord Swinton (who I know has had to go to another meeting) and by my noble friend Lord Bridgeman. The Government, as well as those of your Lordships who have spoken, realise fully the importance of attracting, by good pay and the best condition possible, the right type of officers. Indeed, long before my noble friend Lord Teynham had put his Motion on the Order Paper the Government were considering, discussing and formulating their plans for an increase in pay for the Services.
My noble friend knows, since I have told him so, that the Government are not in a position this afternoon to disclose what the pay increases are to be, and of course that puts me personally in rather an embarrassing position, since it leaves me with very little to say. I do not propose therefore to take up much of your Lordships' time this evening on the question of pay. I am sure the House will agree with me that if one has little to say, one had better not take too long to say it. All I can do is to assure the House that all the arguments which have been put forward this afternoon on the subject of

601
pay—and there have been many—have already been most carefully studied during the review to which I have referred. I do not think I can do better than draw the attention of the House once again to the words of the Prime Minister in his speech at Bradford last week.
LORD SILKIN: Could the noble Lord say when an announcement is likely to be made on the subject?
LORD CARRINGTON: It will be next month. I should not like to be more precise than that.
My noble friend Lord Templewood referred to the Prime Minister's statement in that same speech that the objective of the Government was eventually to abolish National Service. These pay increases will represent a real attempt to solve the serious recruiting difficulties which now face the Services and to bring about the largest possible increase, not only in numbers of recruits but also in the length of time for which men, once recruited, stay in the Forces. If we can succeed in these aims, as we hope to do, then, clearly, considerable savings in manpower will follow, not only in training and other overheads but from the gain in experience and skill represented by long-service as opposed to short-service men.
It is not possible however, at this stage to say how big these savings would be. This would depend upon several factors—for example, on the success we have in attracting Regular recruits for long as opposed to short engagements, as well as on the effectiveness of a number of other schemes for economising in Service manpower which are now being considered. Nor is it possible at this stage to forecast what our commitments will be three or four years hence, since they must depend on the international situation at the time. All I can say, therefore, is that if, as we hope, the new pay code brings in many more recruits for much longer periods than at present, and if our commitments allow, then the abolition of National Service, which is definitely our long-term objective, could become a realisable plan.
About pensions and retired pay which several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Jeffreys, have raised again to-day, I am in much the same position. The arguments are well known and have been given due weight, but I have no
602
announcement to make to-day, although, as was stated in answer to a Question in mother place yesterday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be making a statement shortly. In case the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, should feel like interrupting, when asked what "shortly" meant my right honourable friend said, "Very soon." I can, however, say a little more about the conditions of service for officers.
It is perfectly true to say that, as compared with before the last war, and even more before the First World War, officers in the Services are relatively much worse off, not so much in pay as in their conditions of service. In the first place, broadly speaking, at the present moment most of the Army is stationed in places not nearly so agreeable as the foreign stations of before the war. In many cases the opportunities for sport and games and recreation are far more restricted. As many noble Lords have mentioned, there is a good deal mere disturbance—that is to say, moving from place to place—than there used to be. We are all aware of this, and naturally it has been taken into account in the pay discussions. But I do not think that the balance as compared with before the war is wholly adverse. For instance, the mechanisation of the Army and the scientific advances made in the Navy and Air Forces, in aircraft, radar and so on have resulted in officers and other ranks receiving technical training and becoming proficient in the sort of work which will be useful to them when looking for jobs on retirement.
Certainly promotion and prospects of a career are a good deal better to-day than previously, and I could not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, that that is not so. I remember that in the 1930's one frequently came across subalterns with from sixteen to eighteen years' service. To-day the situation is vastly different. Those now in the Services must feel, as they carry out then duties in Cyprus, Kenya, Malaya, Aden, Jordan and many other parts of the world, that they are a vital part of our national policy and are truly serving the interests of the nation in the career which they have chosen.
We shall all agree, however, that it is the duty of any Government to see that there is a proper career structure in the Services for officers as well as other

603
ranks. For some time past the Admiralty have been making a comprehensive review of the officer structure and training in the Royal Navy, and I should like to give the broad outlines of the scheme—because it has already been given in another place this afternoon—details of which are available in the Library if noble Lords are interested. The chief change concerns the permanent officers of the present separate general lists in the Executive, Engineering, Supply and Secretariat and Electrical Branches. On 1st January, 1957, these officers will be combined into a single General List. This new List will be a tangible mark of the unity of purpose and equality of status among the officers in it.
The creation of the single General List will have several other important consequences, some immediately, others in the long run. Starting in May, 1957, cadets, other than those entered as electrical specialists whose training requirements differ, will simply join as naval officers. They will not be entered for a particular branch. After three terms at Dartmouth they will be allocated to a specialisation, according to Service requirements, aptitude and individual preferences. The new General List officers will train together until the end of their first period in the Fleet. Up to the middle ranks, they will be employed mostly in their own specialisations, but there will be some interchange of appointments. Eventually, promotions to the rank of captain and above will be pooled. All officers of the General List will have equal powers of command. except that the command of seagoing ships and aircraft must necessarily be reserved to those officers with the proper experience. Above the rank of lieutenant commander ships will be commanded by Post-List officers.
Officers in the General List will have a longer and better career, as well as a more varied one. The Board of Admiralty aim to regulate the cadet entry so that, in the long term, three out of four lieutenant commanders can look for promotion to commander, though there can be no guarantee. The minimum age of compulsory retirement for General List officers will eventually be raised to fifty. As regards promotion from the lower deck, the Upper Yardmen scheme will continue. Fuller use will, however, be
604
made of ratings promoted to commissioned rank after substantial service. With the reduced cadet entry, the officers on what is now called the Branch List will be increasingly important. It will be renamed the Special Duties List and the titles of ranks will be changed. The Special Duties List will contain a proportion of commanders' posts. To meet any remaining deficiency of junior officers caused by the reduced cadet entry it is intended to introduce a Supplementary List for limited duties, initially for aircrew. These officers will be engaged for twelve years, with the option of withdrawal after eight. Some will be selected for a pensionable career.
The new scheme represents a long-term reform and will make little difference to the more senior officers at present serving. It will, however, offer improved prospects to young men now joining the Navy. The Board of Admiralty believe that it will be supported by the Service as laying the foundation of an officer structure in keeping with the needs of the times and the large technical developments yet to come. This scheme will, I think, commend itself to the House because one of the main concerns, as shown in the debate, has been with the length of career to which the average officer can look forward.
With regard to the Army, before the debate this afternoon I asked the War Office for some figures on expectations of promotion and the various ages at which that promotion occurs. I think they are interesting. I should emphasise that they are only a guide, drawn from the experience of the War Office over the last few years, and cannot be a firm forecast for the future. Of 100 subalterns commissioned at the age of 20½, all of them should become majors at the age of 33½ or thereabouts. About 60 per cent. of those should become lieutenant-colonels at from 42 to 45 years of age. Of those lieutenant-colonels 54 per cent. should become colonels and brigadiers at 45 to 48; 15 per cent. should become major-generals from 48 to 52; 3·3 per cent. should become lieutenant-generals, and 1·6 per cent. should reach the rank of general. There is provision in the Army to allow majors who are not promoted to continue, if they so desire, and, if there are vacancies, to serve in that rank until the age of fifty-five; and there are schemes in all Service Departments for offering

605
suitable officers of the rank of lieutenant-colonel and above employment in military posts as civilians. It is, of course, not always easy to resettle officers into suitable civilian employment, and this is recognised in the rates of retired pay given in some cases after only twenty years' service.
My noble friend Lord Forbes has suggested that there should be openings for retired officers in man management with firms whose staffs are mainly technical and scientific. I think that is a useful suggestion, for it would give employment to Regular officers who have much experience in this sort of work, but in many cases have no specialist, technical or professional qualifications. As a matter of fact, this has already been considered by the Committee on the Relationship between Employment in the Service and Civilian Life, under the chairmanship of Sir Godfrey Ince, late Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Labour, which has done such good work in the resettlement of ex-Regulars in civil employment. Arrangements were made in 1951, in connection with the Business Training Scheme of the Ministry of Labour, for the training of ex- Regulars for posts in man management. Admittedly, the number of posts of this kind into which ex-Regulars could be placed are rather restricted; but, within the limited field of employment, the opportunity of training the ex-Regular officer for this kind of post is already available.
As regards the Royal Air Force, the majority of pilots and navigators enter the General Duties Branch of the Royal Air Force via a direct commission. This is a comparatively new form of commission, which has no counterpart in any of the ground branches of the Royal Air Force. A pilot or navigator taking a direct commission can elect to take up a pensionable appointment from the start; that is to say, he can look forward to a career in the Royal Air Force until the normal retiring age and possibly longer, at the end of which he would get the usual terminal grant and the retired pay of a General List permanent officer. Alternatively, he can take an appointment for twelve years on the Active List followed by four years on the Reserve, with the option of going on to the Reserve after the end of eight years or transferring to a pensionable direct commission at any time. So much for the
606
three Services and the prospects for a career.
Several noble Lords during the course of this debate have mentioned the present £75 grant for officers whose children are being educated at boarding schools. Questions have already been asked in another place as to the reasons for fixing the size of this grant at a different figure from that of other grants made in somewhat similar circumstances to other Crown servants. I should first of all say that these grants are by no means "standard" rates, but vary according to the branch of the public service to which the officer belongs. For example, as has already been mentioned, there are two rates in force for different categories of Foreign Service officers, and another rate for officers of the Home Civil Service when serving abroad, and nothing when they are serving at home. All that can be said is that the different terms and conditions of service of the various categories of officers are borne in mind in fixing the rates, and it must always be a matter of judgment what each rate should be. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Derwent, whose advice I understand the Government took about what the figure should be, is now complaining that we followed it. So far as the Forces are concerned, it must be remembered that there is an element included in the rates of pay which is designed to compensate for the disturbance, family separation and difficult conditions of Service life, and that this is one of the factors which has to be taken into account in fixing the rate.
As regards the liability to taxation of the education grant, I am told that it would require legislation to exempt from income tax any grant of this kind which is paid to a Service parent while he is serving in the United Kingdom, and that it would be contrary to Government policy to single out grants of this kind for a statutory exemption in a Finance Bill. My noble friend Lord Dement asked me a question about whether the grant is payable to an officer who had a child in a boarding school abroad. I have here the relevant Army Council Instruction. Clause 7 (b) of that Instruction says:
"Boarding pupils must normally be at a boarding school in the United Kingdom. Where the school is overseas, application for allowances will be the subject of special consideration by the War Office."

607
If my noble friend will send me any of the correspondence he has about the subject I will gladly look into the matter and see whether anything can be done to help him in this way.
I realise that I have not answered a great many of the points and questions that have been put to me—it is difficult to do so in the circumstances—but if there are any which I can answer I will most certainly write to noble Lords after the debate. Of course, the Government accept the spirit and the manner in which my noble friend Lord Teynham has spoken. But I would much rather not accept his Motion, which would mean presenting the House and himself with a large quantity of paper which, I suspect, would be of very little value. It is the intention of the Government to produce to Parliament a little later on a much smaller and neater Paper, and I hope the noble Lord will, with that in mind, withdraw his Motion.
I realise only too well how inadequate my reply has been to this most interesting debate. We have listened to speeches full of constructive suggestions from many of your Lordships, such as the noble and gallant Viscount, Marshal of the Royal Air Force Lord Portal of Hungerford, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Freyberg, and many others who have had years of first-hand knowledge of this subject. Whatever else the debate may have done, the House has certainly put on record in an unmistakable fashion its opinion of pay and conditions for officers. I hope it will not be thought that because, in effect, all I have said is "Wait and see," Her Majesty's Government are not very much aware of the problems which have been raised to-day and have not taken the arguments of noble Lords into account in framing their proposals. I hope and believe that, when your Lordships have waited and have seen, you will be neither disappointed nor dissatisfied.
7.20 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I think that all of your Lordships will agree that we have had a useful debate on this most important subject. I do not want to
608
be too hard on the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, who unfortunately is not in the House at the present time, but although he said he was going to support my Motion I think his support went a little wide of the mark. The short answer to his point about an inquiry into Service pay and conditions is that we know already—it is known in all quarters—what are the difficulties as regards pay in the Services. I think that a new inquiry would be quite useless and a waste of time.
In one or two quarters I think it was said that the Motion had not been drawn sufficiently broadly to include other ranks and ratings. I purposely put down the Motion for officers only because I felt that we in this House had not had a debate on that aspect for a long time. We have debated men's conditions quite frequently, except as regards pensions, but we have not debated officers' conditions for some time. I was interested to hear from the noble Lord who replied for the Government about the new General List for the Royal Navy. In some ways, it seems like putting the clock back, because I think that many years ago under Lord Selborne, when he was First Lord of the Admiralty, officers were trained under General List conditions but the scheme was abolished after eighteen months. I should like to reserve my views on the General List until we have heard more about it. I was also interested to hear about the resettlement of officers. I am sure we are grateful to the noble Lord for giving us so much information on that point.
As regards the education allowance and tax points, the answer is that, irrespective of the tax, there is insufficient money to educate these children. It has been said that this debate may be too late. It is never too late to do the right thing if the will is there. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will take this debate seriously and will study the various points of view that have been raised. In view of the remarks of the noble Lord who has just spoken, I propose to ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BARNSLEY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
CAMMELL LAIRD AND COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
DOVER CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
ELDER YARD CHAPEL CHESTERFIELD BILL [H.L.]
FELIXSTOWE DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
FYLDE WATER BOARD BILL [H.L.]
HEYWOOD AND MIDDLETON WATER BILL [H.L.]
HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
LIVERPOOL OVERHEAD RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
LONDON NECROPOLIS BILL [H.L.]
MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
NORTH-EAST SURREY CREMATORIUM BOARD BILL [H.L.]
PONTYPOOL AND DISTRICT WATER BILL [H.L.]
RHYL URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
SAINT STEPHEN WALBROOK (SAINT ANTHOLIN'S CHURCHYARD) BILL [H.L.]
SION COLLEGE BILL [H.L.]
TEES CONSERVANCY BILL [H.L.]
TYNE TUNNEL BILL [H.L.]
WALTHAMSTOW CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Presented, and read 1a.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past seven o'clock.