Sitting of 15 May 1956

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  NEW WRIT
  For Tonbridge, in the room of Gerald Wellington Williams, Esquire (Chiltern Hundreds).
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (GREAT YARMOUTH PORT AND HAVEN)
    Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Great Yarmouth Port and Haven,presented by Mr. Watkinson; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 132.]
    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER) (WISBECH PORT AND HARBOUR)
    Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Wisbech Port and Harbour, presented by Mr. Watkinson; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 133.]
    ADVOCATES' WIDOWS' FUND ORDERCONFIRMATION
    Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to the Advocates' Widows' Fund, presented by Mr. J. Stuart; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 135.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Slaughterhouses
    Sir R. Boothbyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to announce the policy of Her Majesty's Government on slaughterhouses in Scotland.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) on 1st May.
    Sir R. Boothby: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that the delay in reaching any decision about slaughterhouses has been very considerable and is not doing much good to Scottish agriculture? If he has now passed the matter over to the Association of County Councils, would he ask them to buck up and produce their recommendations as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Stuart: I hope that there will not be undue delay. I will do my best.

    Oats (Price)
    Sir R. Boothbyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the price of the greater part of the oats sold in the north of Scotland was substantially below the average national price; and whether he will introduce a scheme of differential payments for this area, in order to encourage the increased production of this valuable fodder crop.
    Mr. J. Stuart: The average price of oats in the North of Scotland in the current cereal year is rather below the national average. This is the normal price relationship and I do not consider that special action on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend would be practicable.
    Sir R. Boothby:If my right hon. Friend does not like the idea of regional arrangements, will he do his best generally to try to reduce any gap that may exist between the realised market price and the guaranteed national average price throughout Scotland?
    Mr. Stuart: I should not like to commit myself to being able to achieve that desirable objective, but it does, of course, to some extent, depend on the quality of the oats, as my hon. Friend will be aware.
    Captain Duncan: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the suggestion in the Question is a dangerous one for Scotland, because it might react on the price for beef obtained in Scotland, which is higher than the national average?
    Mr. Stuart: I have reason to believe that some of the leaders of the farming world are not satisfied that this would be sound in principle.

    Air Raid Shelters
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now instruct local authorities to proceed with the demolition of surface air raid shelters.
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that there are still many air raid shelters in the City of Aberdeen which restrict the drying green space and amenities of the occupants of the respective houses;that the practice of his Department not to sanction the removal of such air raid shelters unless they are structurally dangerous, cannot be economically repaired, are dangerous to health and morals or prevent approved development, is too narrow and rigid, and inflicts hardships on many occupants of houses whose drying green space and amenities are restricted;and if he will relax and extend the practice of his Department in such a way as to enable these grievances to be removed.
    Mrs. Cullenasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to have air raid shelters demolished, especially those in the back courts of tenement property.
    Mr. J. Stuart:It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to preserve all sound air raid shelters unless there are compelling grounds for demolition. I am always prepared to consider whether, in particular cases— because of the effects on health or amenity or for other reasons — such grounds exist.
    Mr. Hannan: In view of the fact that we are now ten years away from the last
    1802
    war, and the fact that these shelters would be quite ineffective in a nuclear age, is it not possible for a general order to be given for their complete demolition?
    Mr. Stuart: We have to take into account the fact that, in a fall-out area, they might be of some use, but I agree that this is a matter we must keep under consideration. Until better arrangements can be discovered, I do not think that it would be wise to demolish the whole lot.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman coming to recognise the folly of having built air raid shelters for only one purpose? If they had been built so that they could serve a civil purpose as well as a war-time one, they would not be merely eyesores. Will the right hon. Gentleman take this into account in respect of any further shelters to be built, so that they may serve a peace-time use as well as a war-time one?
    Mr. Stuart: I will bear that in mind.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State realise that these drying greens mentioned in my Question mean as much to the poor as extensive gardens do to the rich? Is it not a disgraceful thing to continue to deprive them of these amenities, and will the right hon. Gentleman take urgent steps to see that their amenities are restored?
    Mr. Stuart: I realise how annoying it is to have these drying greens obstructed in this way, and I should be glad to see the shelters cleared out if possible.

    Electricity Boards (Pensions Increases)
    Mr. Palmerasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will approve, for ex-company pensioners of the electricity supply industry in Scotland, pension increases similar to those now approved for England and Wales.
    Mr. J. Stuart: I have informed the Scottish electricity boards that I am prepared to approve the payment of increases in the pensions of ex-company pensioners for whom these boards are responsible. The details of the increases to be paid are at present under consideration.
    Mr. Palmer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the ex-company pensioners of the electricity supply industry in Scotland will be grateful to him for that assurance?

    Local Elections
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consult the local authorities in Scotland regarding means of increasing the public interest and participation in local elections.
    Mr. J. Stuart: I shall, of course, gladly consider carefully any suggestions that the local authority associations may wish to make to me on this subject, the importance of which I appreciate; but I am doubtful to what extent the remedy is to be found in Government action.
    Mr. Thomson: Would the Secretary of State seek the views of local authorities on the question of reverting to November as the date for local elections?
    Mr. Stuart: I am aware that there are varying views as to the date, but I will certainly look into that point.
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Is this situation not possibly due to some extent to the fact that successive Parliaments have deprived local authorities of real power? If my right hon. Friend could give back to local authorities some greater responsibility, would there not be more interest in the election of representatives?

    Business Firms (School Fees)
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had with business undertakings regarding proposals for financial assistance to employees in the education of their children.
    Mr. J. Stuart: I have had no such consultations.
    Mr. Thomson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Rolls-Royce, one of the biggest undertakings in Scotland, has recently announced a scheme for giving grants to employees arranging private schooling for their children? Does he not think that this is a very important matter which raises very big issues of principle in relation to Scottish education, and will he not seek consultations?
    Mr. Stuart: I am aware of the Rolls-Royce company's scheme, but I was not consulted about it and therefore have no particular knowledge of it. Indeed, I am not particularly concerned with it, although I admit its importance.

    Glenrothes (Development)
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to conclude the discussions with Glenrothes Development Corporation and the Fife County Council concerning future development of the new town.
    Mr. J. Stuart: My noble Friend the Minister of State is meeting the development corporation and the county council next month, and I can make no further statement until that meeting has taken place.
    Mr. Hamilton: Has the Secretary of State's attention been drawn to the Report of the Church of Scotland," Church and Nation", in which it asks for an investigation and special consideration by the Government of this problem, in view of the possible adverse effects on the proposals for further new towns in Scotland? When will the Government make a much bolder approach to the whole question of the redistribution of industry in Scotland?
    Mr. Stuart: That raises a wide question. As for the first part of the supplementary question, I can only say that we are dealing with this matter, and I do not think it would be helpful if I commented on it at this stage.

    Potato Gathering (School Children's Wages)
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of his decision to sanction the continued employment of children for potato gathering, he will now review the wages paid, having regard to the continued rise in the cost of living.
    Mr. J. Stuart: The rate of 1s. 3d. per hour recommended to be paid to school children, between 13 and 15 years of age, for potato gathering compares not unfavourably with the statutory rate of 1s. 3½ d. per hour for workers over 15 years and under 16 years. The rate for school children was reviewed in the light of all circumstances by the Departmental Committee on Assistance by Schools in April this year, and it unanimously recommended that the rate should be the same as last year. I have accepted the Committee's recommendation.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is it not the case that the cost of living has risen since this rate was agreed a year ago last April? Would the right hon. Gentleman not consider tying these rates of wages to the cost of living, or, alternatively, and better still for the children, tying them to the retail price of potatoes?
    Mr. Stuart: If we tied them to the cost of living it would raise very big questions throughout the industrial field. I think the fact that the rate is only a halfpenny less than the rate for children over 15 years of age, and the fact that the farmer concerned has to provide a mid-day meal, make it appear to be a fairly reasonable rate.
    Mr. Rankin: Is it not a fact that potato lifting by children was introduced merely as a temporary expedient? Is it now to become a permanent feature of agricultural work in Scotland?
    Mr. Stuart: That matter has been discussed before now. The hon. Member may or may not be aware that we are doing our best to get on with the development of a machine for the purpose.
    Mr. Hubbard: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what he considers to be a mid-day meal? Is he aware that a mid-day meal consists sometimes of a cup of tea and some bread and butter?
    Mr. Stuart: I know that mine today was one sandwich. I had not time for more.
    Mr. Hubbard: That is a shocking answer.

    Hospital, Dunfermline (Waiting List)
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the growing lists of patients waiting for admission to the West Fife Hospital, Dunfermline; and what steps are contemplated to reduce especially the waiting period of orthopaedic and general surgery patients.
    Mr. J. Stuart: Additional post-operative beds which will be available at another local hospital from July will expedite admissions, and two additional junior surgeons are being appointed. The casualty block due for completion at the end of 1957 will further increase local facilities.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that that Answer is satisfactory as far as it goes, but that there is an increasing need for the provision of orthopaedic beds in West Fife, where last year there were about 2,000 orthopaedic cases? Is he aware that there are only two beds available for such cases in the West Fife hospital, which necessitates patients having to travel to Bridge of Earn Hospital, with all the inconvience and expense involved?
    Mr. Stuart: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about this matter, and I assure him that the board is doing its best to deal with the position. It has never been envisaged that reliance on other hospitals— for example, that at Bridge of Earn—should cease in connection with orthopaedic cases.

    Agriculture (Improvement of Roads)
    Major Anstruther-Grayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that local authorities are delaying action along the lines of the Agriculture (Improvement of Roads) Act, 1955, pending the issue of an explanatory memorandum by his Department; and when this memorandum will be circulated.
    Mr. J. Stuart: I am aware that local authorities are expecting guidance in this matter and I hope to issue a circular to them at an early date.
    Major Anstruther-Gray: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that "at an early date" means fairly soon?
    Mr. Stuart: I will amend my Answer to "fairly soon".

    Road Signs (Scottish Tourist Board)
    Major Anstruther-Grayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that signs are being erected on the trunk roads at Gretna Green and Berwick-on-Tweed bearing on the front "Welcome to Scotland", and on the reverse side "Haste ye back to Scotland", and whether he proposes to erect similar signs at Coldstream and Carter Bar.
    Mr. J. Stuart: Yes, Sir. These signs, and a similar sign at Prestwick Airport, were put up by the Scottish Tourist Board, which informs me that it does not propose to erect any more at present.
    Major Anstruther-Gray: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the caption on the reverse side of this sign—" Haste ye back to Scotland"—is well chosen? Would it not be better to have on the reverse side, "Welcome to England", because we do not want to be selfish to the English?
    Mr. Stuart: The notices were erected by the Scottish Tourist Board, and I suppose it was concerned more with Scotland.
    Mr. T. Fraser: Is the Secretary of State aware that until very recently when one crossed the border going south the notice said "This is England", but that when one crossed the border going north the notice read "Beware of the sheep?"
    Major Anstruther-Gray: Is it not high time that we in Scotland followed that good example?
    Mr. Ross: Can the Minister tell us whether it was the Scottish Tourist Board which erected outside the Royal Burgh of Ayr a board stating "Home of the Royal Scots Fusiliers" rather than "Home of Robert Burns"?
    Mr. Stuart: I am afraid that I should require notice of that Question.

    School Milk (Holiday Periods)
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes he proposes to introduce affecting distribution of milk and meals to school children during holiday periods.
    Mr. J. Stuart: I am considering whether there should be any change in the present arrangements for supplying milk in holiday periods and I hope to reach a decision shortly.
    Mrs. Mann: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in spite of the fact that the milk has been cut and that the meals have been stopped for holiday periods in England, we feel that there are often special considerations applicable to Scotland, and would he take those special factors into consideration?
    Mr. Stuart: I assure the hon. Lady that
    I shall take those considerations into account. That is certainly my intention.

    Steel Strip Mill (Representations)
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had for a steel strip mill in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. J. Stuart: I am aware of the interest which both sides of Scottish industry have in this matter. I understand that the need for a fourth steel strip mill is still under consideration by the Iron and Steel Board.
    Mrs. Mann: Will the right hon. Gentleman say for how long this matter is likely to remain at the stage of "under consideration"? When may we expect a decision?
    Mr. Stuart: It is not really a matter which I can decide for the Iron and Steel Board. I do not think that I can give a helpful answer to the hon. Lady's question.
    Mr. Lawson: Would not the Minister remember that so long as Scotland merely produces steel for the heavier industries, this industry is likely to be based on industries that are old and are rapidly being outmoded? Will he keep in mind that the strip steel mill can keep Scotland right up to date so far as modern industries are concerned?
    Mr. Stuart: I personally would welcome it in Scotland.

    Quarry Project, Loch Lomond (Appeal)
    Mr. Steeleasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will hold a public inquiry in connection with the appeal against the Dunbarton County Council's decision regarding the proposed sand and gravel quarry at Mid Ross Farm, Loch Lomond.
    Mr. J. Stuart: I am awaiting the necessary information about the case from the county council. When I get it, I shall consider what action is necessary.
    Mr. Steele: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of public disquiet over this matter, and will he give it very careful consideration?
    Mr. Stuart: Yes.

    Administration (Handbook)
    Mr. Rossasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many copies of the 1956 edition of "Handbook on Scottish Administration" have been printed and at what cost; and how many copies of the 1950 edition were printed and how many were sold.
    Mr. J. Stuart: Four thousand copies of the 1956 edition of the "Handbook on Scottish Administration" have been printed at an estimated cost of £ 171. A total of 5,575 copies were printed of the 1950 edition, and stocks were exhausted some months ago.
    Mr. Ross: Will the Secretary of State see to it that copies of this excellent handbook are sent to the Lord Privy Seal and to any other obstreperous Member who questions our rights, at times, to take up time in this Chamber, so that when next we raise the point about the adequacy of the facilities of Scottish Members for asking Questions they will be a little more knowledgeable and, perhaps, a little more sympathetic?
    Mr. Stuart: I will examine that point.

    Court of Session (Delays)
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of complaints by litigants of the prolonged delay before their cases can be heard in the Court of Session; if he will explain the cause of this delay; and what steps he will take to reduce it to a minimum.
    Mr. J. Stuart: I understand that cases are being brought to trial more quickly since the appointment of an additional judge, and I am not aware of any recent complaints.
    Mrs. Mann: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the complaints are not that there are insufficient judges, but that even when a judge is available to hear a case there is no accommodation for him? Would the Minister look into this question of accommodation for the judge?
    Mr. Stuart: Perhaps the hon. Lady did not know, but it is the fact that an extra court room for jury trials was brought into use at the beginning of the summer session in 1954.

    Television Mast, Blackhill (Planning Permission)
    Miss Herbisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he had and with whom, before granting permission to the Independent Television Authority to erect a television mast 750 feet high at Blackhill, Lanarkshire.
    Mr. J. Stuart: Planning permission under the planning Acts is a matter for the local planning authority, and I am informed that permission for the television mast has been granted by Lanark County Council.
    Miss Herbison: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is great criticism of the erection of this television mast, particularly at a time when the Government are curtailing so greatly expenditure in the public building sector? Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that the people in this area would rather have seen this money spent on factory building, since they realise that very soon this mast will be completely derelict? Could not the Secretary of State, even at this late stage, do something to stop the building of this new television mast, which is a short distance from the present one?
    Mr. Stuart: As I have said, I think it is a matter for the local planning authority. I will certainly look into the matter, but I do not think that I am concerned.
    Mr. Woodburn: As a member of the Cabinet, is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it is technically possible, I understand, for this programme to be broadcast from the B.B.C. mast already in existence? How does he reconcile a duplication of this kind on behalf of I.T.A. with the need for economy?
    Mr. Stuart: I was not asked to reconcile it with economy. I am afraid I do not know enough about the subject to say whether the transmission could be made from the B.B.C. mast.

    Poliomyelitis (Vaccination)
    Mr. Rossasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children of the relevant age group have been registered for anti-polio vaccination; and for what percentage the vaccine will be available.
    Mr. J. Stuart: Just under 300,000 in Scotland. I hope that vaccine will be available before the end of June for about 20 per cent. of these; the others will have priority when vaccination is resumed later in the year.
    Mr. Ross: Could we have further details of what the right hon. Gentleman means by "later in the year "?
    Mr. Stuart: Yes, Sir. Vaccinations will be suspended at the end of June until after the polio season has passed. They will be recommenced in November or December.

    Inveresk Gate (Future use)
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are being taken to ensure the continued use of Inveresk Gate as a research institute.
    Mr. J. Stuart: The future of Inveresk Gate, including its possible use for research purposes, is still under consideration. I am not at present able to make a statement.
    Mr. Willis: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether this building is being offered to other Government Departments or nationalised industries for research purposes? Is he aware that there is a considerable feeling that it would be a great pity of it were no longer used for research purposes?
    Mr. Stuart: Yes, I agree with the hon. Getnleman, and it is being offered.

    Aberlady Bay Nature Reserve (Shooting Permits)
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent shooting in the Aberlady Bay Nature Reserve is restricted; and how many permits to shoot have been granted.
    Mr. J. Stuart: I am informed by East Lothian County Council, which manages this reserve, that for the last shooting season it restricted the number of permits to fifteen— confined to persons resident in the county— allowing only mallard and wigeon to be shot: and that no shooting was allowed after 31st January.
    Mr. Willis: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it is rather a contradiction that there should be a specially privileged class created to shoot in what is nominally a conservancy?
    Mr. Stuart: The county council presumably take the view that those who live within the county should have the prior claim, and that if one overdid it the birds might be annihilated.
    Major Anstruther-Gray: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in what has been a very controversial matter the present settlement has commended itself to most of the people concerned?

    Local Government Finance (Review)
    Mr. McInnesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the committee appointed to review all aspects of local government finance, including industrial derating, has yet reported.
    Mr. J. Stuart: This review is making good progress, but is not yet complete. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government informed the House on 8th May, the Government hope to begin discussions with the local authority associations by the autumn.
    Mr. McInnes: As it is quite possible that the report of this committee will have very far-reaching effects on local government, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to publish the report of the committee when it has concluded its deliberations?
    Mr. Stuart: I must ask the hon. Member to put down another Question on that subject. I do not know, but I think it would have to take place after discussions with the local authority associations.
    Mr. McInnes: I do not mind when it takes place, but what I want is a copy of the report to be made available, particularly to Scottish Members.
    Mr. Stuart: I will certainly consider that.

    Motorists (Drink and Drugs)
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes to take by way of administrative action, consultation or advice, in order to reduce the marked increase of drunk-in-charge cases reported to the police in recent years; and whether, if his powers are insufficient for the purpose, he will promote legislation to enlarge them.
    Mr. J. Stuart: Increased penalties for being under the influence of drink or a drug when driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle are proposed in the Road Traffic Bill now before Parliament. In addition, both the Highway Code and the pamphlet "Sense and Safety," which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation issued last January, stress the danger of such practices.
    Mr. Hannan: Would the right hon. Gentleman have regard to the latter part of my Question? Is he satisfied, for example, that even at the moment, in view of the alarming figures, he cannot do something either by administrative action or otherwise, as suggested in my Question? In particular, may I refer him to the supplementary question put to him by his hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Sir A. Gomme-Duncan) last week?
    Mr. Stuart: I think I covered the point because, as I said at the beginning, increased penalties for these offences are at present before Parliament.

    Road, Leadburn—Howgate (Footpath)
    Mr. Prydeasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that a long stretch of the road between Leadburn and Howgate, Midlothian, is without a footpath for pedestrian traffic and children attending Howgate School run great risk; and if he will take steps to correct this anomaly.
    Mr. J. Stuart: I understand that Midlothian County Council has plans for widening this road and providing a footpath. It is for the council to decide whether the scheme should be included in the current year's programme.
    Mr. Pryde: In view of the increase in drunk-in-charge cases, and as this road is a main road into England, would not the right hon. Gentleman consider bringing pressure to bear on the county council in this matter?
    Mr. Stuart: The question of priority is a matter for the county council. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman's Question will receive the attention of the county council.

    Building Site, Glasgow
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will revoke the planning permission granted to Littlewood's Mail Order Stores Limited to erect a 14-storey building on ground between Miller Street and Queen Street, Glasgow.
    Mr. J. Stuart: The site of the proposed building which has, I understand, been approved by the Corporation of Glasgow as planning authority, is in an area zoned for commercial purposes in the Corporation's approved development plan. Any question of modifying the development plan, or revoking the permission already given, is a matter in the first instance for the corporation.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the Secretary of State aware that this firm has abandoned this project because it is alarmed at the effect of the Government's credit squeeze on the spending power of the housewives? Will the right hon. Gentleman convey that view to the Chancellor of the Exchequer? If the site has now been permanently abandoned, what is to happen to the steel which has been allocated to the building?
    Mr. Stuart: I am not aware of the details on that point, but I could, no doubt, obtain the necessary information and give it to the hon. Gentleman.

  HOUSING, SCOTLAND

    Former Service Camps
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the rapid deterioration of former Service camps; how many families are still occupying them; and when he expects them to be rehoused.
    Mr. J. Stuart: I am aware that conditions in some of the camps are not good, but the number of families has been reduced to 350 as compared with 700 a year ago and 1,200 in 1954. We are exerting constant pressure to secure the rehousing of the families and the closure of all the camps at the earliest possible date.

    Tenement Property
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that occupiers of tenement houses

    1815
    are being threatened with dispossession; and if he will introduce legislation to prohibit the sale of tenement property or to safeguard the purchasers thereof.
    Mr. J. Stuart: I am aware of the case which the hon. Member recently brought to my notice.
    As regards the second part of the Question, the Government have explained on several occasions why they are not prepared to introduce legislation to prohibit or control the sale of tenement houses. Prospective purchasers who may not fully appreciate the obligations which they are undertaking would be well advised to seek guidance in the usual way.
    Mr. Thomson: Is the Secretary of State aware that in the case of threatened eviction of which I have sent him details my constituent certainly took on obligations of which she was apparently ignorant? Is he aware that the solicitors acting for the landlord in that case have refused to give my constituent the legal agreement which formed part of the purchase? Is he aware that the only legal document she has is a two penny notebook provided by this firm of solicitors? Is he aware that the landlord, through his solicitors, has been bringing pressure to bear on both my constituent and myself to try to make us drop this matter? Would the right hon. Gentleman not take some positive steps in his Department to give guidance to tenement dwellers, who are not accustomed to house purchase, with regard to their rights and their obligations?
    Mr. Stuart: I am, of course, very sympathetic about the case in respect of which the hon. Gentleman wrote to me. I have the letter here. I will write to him on the points which he has raised, but legislation can deal with matters of this nature only in very general terms, and there are. a very great variety of different circumstances which arise in these cases.
    Mr. Steele: Will the right hon. Gentleman not agree that there is a Private Member's Bill in my name waiting on the stocks which would greatly assist in this matter? Is he aware that we are prepared to give him all facilities to pass it through the House?
    Mr. Stuart: I think that the hon. Member is aware that that has been discussed.

    Caithness
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will require from the local authorities concerned a report under Section 175 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, in view of the large number of applicants on the waiting lists for houses at Wick and Thurso, and in view of the number of homes unfit for human habitation in the landward areas.
    Mr. J. Stuart: The three local authorities concerned have made good housing progress since the war and I have approved their proposals for the next three years as contained in reports recently submitted under Section 1 of the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Act, 1954. I do not consider, therefore, that any further reports are necessary in the meantime.
    Sir D. Robertson: Does the Secretary of State realise that there are 500 families on the housing list in the small Burgh of Wick and 260 families on the housing list in the small Burgh of Thurso and that 40 per cent. of the houses in rural Caithness have been condemned as unfit for human habitation? Is not finance the real trouble?
    Mr. Stuart: It is also a question of materials and building operatives. Good progress is continuing, however. This is not an area of great density of population, and I know of no reason to cause me to take action not deemed to be necessary elsewhere.

    Subsidies (Working Party)
    Mr. Formanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with representatives of local authorities on the question of housing subsidies.
    Mr. Rossasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the subject and the outcome of his recent discussions with local authority representatives.
    Mr. J. Stuart: I met representatives of the three local authority associations on 20th April, when a Working Party of

    1817
    officials from the two sides was set up to ascertain all the relevant facts about housing subsidies. I hope to have their Report in June, when I shall resume discussions with the associations.
    Mr. Forman: 1 thank the right hon. Gentleman for that Answer, but could he tell us if the purpose of the meeting was to indicate to the local authorities that he proposes to reduce the housing subsidies in Scotland?
    Mr. Stuart: I asked the local authorities to consider what should be done for the future, but these discussions are on a confidential basis and I think that it would be better to await the Report of the Working Party.
    Mr. Woodburn: Can we take that Answer as an assurance that the Secretary of State has no ulterior motive in getting local authorities and officials to find out what he calls the facts? Has he given any indication that those facts have to be produced in such a way as to justify a reduction in subsidy?
    Mr. Stuart: I can only repeat that it will depend on the results of the discussions in progress.
    Mr. Ross: Can the Secretary of State give a little more clearly the terms of reference of this committee? Surely all the facts are known.
    Mr. Stuart: There are no direct terms of reference. It is a Working Party of officials and representatives of local authorities to discuss what we should best do for the future.

    Old People
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland which local authorities provide special housing accommodation for the aged; and the number of such houses so provided.
    Mr. J. Stuart: About 10,000 small houses with one or two rooms have been approved since the war, the majority for old people. I am sending the hon. Member a list of the 156 local authorities concerned.
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his future housing policy for the aged.
    Mr. J. Stuart: In April, 1952, the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee gave me a Report containing, among other things, detailed recommendations about the housing of older people which I commended to local authorities. More recently, my Department have collaborated with the Corporation of Edinburgh in designing a demonstration block for old people which should be started soon.
    The proportion of houses for this class in approved schemes has trebled during the past four years and is increasing. I am anxious that local authorities and voluntary bodies interested in the welfare of old people should intensify their work in this important field, and I shall do all that I can to ensure that these encouraging developments continue.
    Mr. Lawson: Is the Minister aware that it was announced on 1st May by the Minister of Housing and Local Government that a special inquiry is to be instituted in England? Are we to take it that in this respect Scotland is ahead of England, or is it that Scotland will have to learn from England and do as England is doing?
    Mr. Stuart: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are doing our best in Scotland but I have not got the figures to enable me to say whether or not Scotland is ahead of England in this matter.

  MINISTRY OF WORKS

    Royal Parks (Deck Chairs)
    Mr. Hunterasked the Minister of Works the reasons for increasing the charges for persons using deck chairs in the Royal Parks by 33⅓per cent.
    The Minister of Works (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn): The charge was raised from 3d. to 4d. when a new agreement was negotiated for the hire of chairs from 1st April this year. This increase was agreed to meet rising costs after close scrutiny of the contractor's accounts.
    Mr. Hunter: Is the Minister aware that in the parks under the control of the London County Council the hire charge for a deck-chair is 3d. Will he watch the position in the Royal Parks very carefully? Otherwise if the increase in

    1819
    charge continues, it will become increasingly difficult for a family even to sit in deck chairs in the Royal Parks?
    Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: In the case of the Royal Parks the contract which we held came to an end on 31st March last. Increased charges were necessary for various reasons. It is not for me to speak for the London County Council, but I think that the council has the same contractor, and its contract has not yet come to an end.

    Kensington Palace Orangery
    Mr. Nicholsonasked the Minister of Works whether he now has any proposals for the Orangery at Kensington Palace.
    Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: I now propose to furnish the Orangery as it ought to be, with statuary and trees as these become available.
    The Victoria and Albert Museum is kindly lending a great vase from Hadrian's Villa to be placed in the centre. There is difficulty, however, in finding suitable classical statues and busts for the niches. I should, therefore, be very glad to hear from any owner who would consider lending good copies of classical sculpture, either full-length figures or busts, to embellish this masterpiece of Sir Christopher Wren.
    Mr. Nicholson: When my right hon. Friend said that he would be glad to hear from any member, did he mean any member of the public?
    Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: I thought I said "any owner".

    Building Contracts (Fixed Price Tendering)
    Captain Duncanasked the Minister of Works to make a statement about the possibility of returning to fixed price tendering in Government building contracts.
    Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: I have had discussions about this with representatives of the National Federation of Building Trades Employers, the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors and representatives of the building and civil engineering trades operatives: and explained that arising out of the Government's wish to move towards a return to
    1820
    fixed price tendering it had been decided as an experiment to invite tenders on a fixed price basis for selected projects of values not exceeding £100,000 for which my own Department is responsible.
    I feel sure, in view of the general advantages to be gained by all concerned, that I shall have, in this experiment the good will of the industries concerned.
    Captain Duncan: While welcoming that as a start may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that it will be very welcome in Scotland, where fixed price tendering for building contracts has been the case for a long time? To what extent will he extend this practice to other Departments in Scotland, and in England as well?
    Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: As regards Government Departments in general, I only wish to say at this stage that if a good start is made I hope that the practice will be extended to other Departments.
    Mr. Stokes: Why does the Minister suggest, as I understood his Answer, that there should any longer be any limit to the size of a fixed price tender? Is he aware that in the export market we all have to tender for fixed prices; why should we not have to do so at home?
    Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: I hope that in due course we shall get back to that, but naturally I have had to take account of opinion in the industries concerned. This is a start and an experiment; there is no reason why it should not be extended as we go on.
    Mr. McInnes: Does the Minister intend also to include in the tenders the appropriate penalty clauses?
    Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: Yes, Sir; I think that will be the case.

  SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

    Research Associations (Development Work)
    Mr. Callaghanasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, how far it is the policy of the Government to encourage research

    1821
    associations to undertake development work; and to what extent this is being carried out.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. J. R. Bevins): Development work is an important part of the work of research associations which the Government encourage by means of grants paid by the D.S.I.R. These grants supplement the contributions made by industry. The resources devoted to development are decided by the councils of the associations, which are made up predominantly of industrialists but include representatives of the Department. The associations as a whole spend approximately one-quarter of their budgets or over £ 1 million on development.
    Mr. Callaghan: In view of the fact that our scientific manpower resources are so scarce, would it not be a good idea to encourage much more development to be done through the research associations for the benefit of industry generally? Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there has been a recommendation to this effect. What are the Government going to do to put a little impulsive effort behind it?
    Mr. Bevins: Yes, my noble Friend is very well aware of the recommendation made by the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy, and several development companies have been formed by research associations. In addition to that, we are starting to try out civil development contracts with scientific research associations.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Troops, Germany (Accommodation)
    Mr. Fernyhoughasked the Secretary of State for War what steps he is taking to make available alternative accommodation for British troops and their wives and families in Germany who may be homeless after 6th May as a result of the recent decision of the Bundesrat not to extend requisitioning.
    The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Fitzroy Maclean): None is necessary at this stage. The Federal Government took steps to prevent the evictions which the hon. Member has in mind.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Does that mean that the agreement under the Paris Agreement really supersedes the Bundesrat's new order? Will the Minister make it per-
    1822
    fectly clear to the Germans that if any British troops are affected, they will not remain in Germany but will be brought home?
    Mr. Maclean: The position is that the legislative action necessary to fulfil their international obligations is a matter for the Federal Government, but, naturally, Her Majesty's Government are watching the position closely and will do everything to safeguard the interests of the forces there.
    Mr. Strachey: Will the Under-Secretary keep this matter very much in mind, because, as the status of our troops in Germany changes, as it is bound to do, nothing is more important than that the comparatively high standard of comfort of the troops and, above all, of their families is maintained in this big command. This has as much influence on recruiting as almost anything else.
    Mr. Maclean: Yes, Sir; my right hon. Friend is well aware of the importance of those considerations.

    Unnecessary Fatigues and Waste of Time
    Mr. Doddsasked the Secretary of State for War what progress has been made in the declared intention of getting rid of unnecessary fatigues and time wasting activities.
    Mr. F. Maclean: Unnecessary scrubbing, burnishing, blancoing and polishing have been forbidden and unit administration has been reviewed to cut out waste of time. My right hon. Friend has received preliminary reports which indicate that considerable progress has been made. There will, however, be no question of any slackness being tolerated in the personal turn-out and smartness of soldiers or in the effectiveness and cleanliness of their arms, equipment or barracks.
    Mr. Dodds: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the declaration about getting rid of "bull" has been well received in most quarters and should encourage the recruitment of the right type of man for the technical Army of the future? Will he and his right hon. Friend press on with reforms which will get rid of stupid duties without any loss of efficiency?
    Mr. Maclean: Yes, Sir; that is what we are doing.

    Training, Deerbolt Camp
    Mr. Fenner Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for War if he will now make a statement on the impersonation of coloured persons engaged in riots which at present forms part of the monthly routine at Deerbolt Camp.
    Mr. F. Maclean: My right hon. Friend has been into this Question and is satisfied that the present practice adopted in training should not give offence.
    Mr. Brockway: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he has had consultations with the Secretary of State for the Colonies on this matter, as he promised, and whether he is aware that this practice is in fact giving considerable offence among coloured peoples in Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean?
    Mr. Maclean: Yes, Sir, my right hon. Friend has been in touch with the Colonial Secretary. I would add that instructions have been issued that special care should be taken to avoid impersonations which could be taken as representing any particular territory.
    Mr. H. Fraser: Would my right hon. Friend consider asking that the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) should give his services so as to stir the rioters up to even greater indignation?

    Ovenden Camp, Halifax
    Mr. A. Robertsasked the Secretary of State for War how much money has been spent in maintenance on the Ovenden Camp, Halifax, since its occupation by the Royal Army Pay Corps.
    Mr. F. Maclean: About £ 9,000, including several small alterations and improvements.
    Mr. Roberts: In view of the excessive expenditure and the unsatisfactory site of this camp, will the Under-Secretary consider transferring the Royal Army Pay Corps back to its original quarters in Leeds?
    Mr. Maclean: No, Sir. I do not accept that the expenditure in question is excessive for a camp of that size, nor do I accept that its present site is unsatisfactory. My right hon. Friend is not willing to consider transferring it back to Leeds.

    Syrian, Israeli and Egyptian Officers (Training)
    Mr. Remnantasked the Secretary of State for War for what purpose and under what agreements the ten Syrian, Israeli and Egyptian officers are receiving instruction at War Department establishments.
    Mr. F. Maclean: This instruction depends on no formal agreement. It has long been our policy to offer courses at military establishments to friendly States with the object of furthering good relations.
    Mr. Remnant: Will my hon. Friend explain why he classifies some of these countries as friendly States? Would it not be infinitely better to stop receiving their officers and training them in war until they have changed their attitude towards this country?
    Mr. Maclean: If some of these countries are not as friendly as they might be, possibly the effect of these courses will be to make them more friendly.

    Accounting and Stocktaking Methods (Inquiry)
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for War what progress is being made with the inquiry being conducted by his Department with a view to improving stocktaking methods in the Army and eliminating accounting errors; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. F. Maclean: This inquiry has involved much detailed investigation, and an extensive programme of visits to depots to examine the practical difficulties of storehouse organisation, accounting and stocktaking methods. The conclusions to be drawn from this examination and proposals for improving existing methods are now being worked out.
    Mr. Johnson: Is progress really being made with that inquiry? When shall we see some practical results?
    Mr. Maclean: Yes, Sir, progress is being made, and I hope that it will be possible to report conclusions shortly, but it would be improper for me to seek to prejudge these conclusions before they are reached by the Working Party.

    Troops, Singapore (Political Activities)
    Mr. Fernyhoughasked the Secretary of State for War why British soldiers stationed in Singapore have been forbidden when off duty or when talking to Asian civilians to discuss Malayan independence.
    Mr. F. Maclean: No such orders have been issued to British soldiers in Singapore. They have, however, been reminded of the limitations imposed by Queen's Regulations on political activities..
    Mr. Fernyhough: I have here a cutting from a reliable newspaper—[Horn. MEMBERS "Which is it?"]— the Westminster Press— which indicates that the General Officer Commanding Singapore District —
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has not yet asked a question.
    Mr. Fernyhough: I was about to do
    so.
    Mr. Speaker: It would be more in order if the hon. Member asked his question first. We should then know that he was asking a question and not making a speech.
    Mr. Fernyhough: It is hon. Members opposite—
    Mr. Nabarro: Write to the Daily Worker or perhaps Tribune.
    Mr. Fernyhough: If the brain of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) were as big as his mouth, he would be a very clever fellow. Is the Under-Secretary aware that this order was issued by the General Officer Commanding Singapore District? Would he not agree that when officers give lectures in which they give these instructions, that is treating grown-up soldiers as though they were simple children, and that instructions of this kind harm recruiting more than anything else does?
    Mr. Maclean: I have already indicated that orders on the lines indicated by the hon. Member were not issued by General Tulloch, or anybody else.
    Mr. Awbery: Is it not desirable that both soldiers and civilians in Singapore and Malaya should know as much as possible about independence, and that
    1826
    therefore discussion between civilians and our soldiers should be encouraged?
    Mr. Maclean: Nothing is being done to prevent discussion on those lines.

    Savings Incentives (Information)
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallettasked the Secretary of State for War what special steps are being taken to bring the new incentives to savings to the notice of officers and men serving in the Army.
    Mr. F. Maclean: Special posters and leaflets are being prepared by Her Majesty's Forces Savings Committee. These will be prominently displayed and widely distributed. In addition, all unit savings officers are being provided with full details of the new securities.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Will these posters be displayed and, if so, by what date? Does my hon. Friend agree that the recent increases in Service pay, coupled with the new incentive to saving, offer a special opportunity to an imaginative savings drive in the Services?
    Mr. Maclean: Yes, Sir; I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. and gallant Friend an exact date, but the posters are at present being printed.
    Mr. Callaghan: Does the Under-Secretary really think that the Government lottery will prove more attractive than Housey-housey?

    Lieut.-General Sir Richard Hull
    Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for War what appointment has recently been assigned to Lieut.-General Sir Richard Hull; and the terms of reference relating to his examination of the possible date of termination of National Service.
    Mr. F. Maclean: I gave the terms of reference of the Committee of which General Hull is Chairman in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-;West (Mr. Janner) last Tuesday.
    Mr. Stokes: While everybody recognises the great ability of General Hull, may I ask the Under-Secretary whether he will call his attention particularly to the latter part of his terms of reference about the extent to which civilians and outside organisations can be used? If

    1827
    he makes a good report, at least we may get corresponding action by the other Services which will speedily lead to the abolition of National Service.
    Mr. Maclean: I think that we can count on General Hull to read his terms of reference with due care.
    Mr. Allaun: Does not the Under-Secretary feel that this morning's news from Russia of a cut of 1,200,000 men strengthens the reasons for entirely abolishing conscription in this country?
    Mr. Stokes: I do not think that it makes the slightest difference.

    Personal Cases
    Mr. Shurmerasked the Secretary of State for War why he is still retaining in the service in East Africa No. 23081966 Signalman J. Allgood who is suffering from a fractured wrist which has been in plaster for four months and which, in the opinion of the Army surgeons, will never unite completely, but will remain as a permanent disability.
    Mr. F. Maclean: This soldier is suffering from a fracture of a small bone in his left wrist. He is being kept in the Army because a recent medical board found him fit for restricted duties in East Africa. His wrist is being kept under observation.
    Mr. Shurmer: Is the Under-Secretary aware that it is fourteen months since this man broke his wrist, and that it was supposed to have healed? He was sent to Kenya, and for the last five months has had a plaster on his wrist. The man is getting very depressed, according to letters which he is writing home, and does the Under-Secretary not think that he should reconsider this case and allow the man to return home?
    Mr. Maclean: My information is that there has been no deterioration in the state of the soldier's wrist, and that useful work is available for him in East Africa.
    Mr. Shurmer: Is the Under-Secretary aware that this disability is admitted by Army surgeons to be permanent?
    Mr. V. Yatesasked the Secretary of State for War why 22963938 Private Churchley, Royal Army Ordnance Corps, was regarded as a deserter, and visited by military policemen at his home at 230,
    1828
    New John Street, West Birmingham, on 23rd April when he was on sick leave pending discharge; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent a recurrence of such an incident.
    Mr. F. Maclean: Private Churchley absented himself without leave on 8th March and was notified as an absentee to the Royal Military Police. He returned to his unit voluntarily on 14th March; and the Royal Victoria Hospital, Netley, cancelled its original notification. Unfortunately, because an out-of-date address was used, the cancellation was delayed seven weeks in the post, whereas the original notification had been delayed only a few days. In the eyes of the military police, Private Churchley was, therefore, an absentee when they visited his home on 23rd April.
    I am satisfied that existing regulations for dealing with absentees are adequate and that they were properly complied with in this case except that an old address was used. No change of procedure is necessary, but I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my regret for the trouble caused to Mrs. Churchley by this mistake.
    Mr. Yates: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that Answer; and I am sure that he will realise that when military police call on a soldier who is on leave pending discharge it gives rise to very serious misgivings, and that some steps ought to be taken to see that that sort of incident should not recur.
    Mr. Maclean: Yes, steps are taken, but occasional mistakes of this kind are bound to creep in when an organisation is the size of the Army. I am glad to say that on this occasion very friendly relations seem to have been established between Mrs. Churchley and the military police, so much so that I gather she asked them to come back on a further occasion to have tea.

    N.A.A.F.I.
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the Secretary of State for War to give the names of the Chairman, Deputy Chairman and civilian members of the Board of Management of Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes; and whether he is satisfied that there is adequate public accountability by this organisation in view of the large sums of money which it handles.
    Mr. F. Maclean: Mr. W. F. Beale is the Chairman, Mr. C. E. M. Hardie is the Deputy Chairman and the remaining two civilian members of the Board are Mr. C. H. W. Troughton and Mr. Hector Laing.
    The Corporation's accounts are audited by a firm of chartered accountants and my right hon. Friend is satisfied with the procedure for general control by the three Services, which has been explained in answer to recent Questions by the hon. Member.
    Mr. Hynd: When the Under-Secretary told me recently that the Annual Report of N.A.A.F.I. was available in the Library, was he aware that there was available only a bare summary of accounts? Is it not time that we had more information about N.A.A.F.I., because of the veil of secrecy which seems to surround it?
    Mr. Maclean: I will certainly examine the possibility of issuing a fuller report.

    Young Soldiers, Cyprus
    Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for War how many boy soldiers of 16 years of age. and how many others under the age of 18, are serving in or with the Leicestershire Regiment in Cyprus.
    Mr. F.Maclean: Three and eight, respectively.
    Mr. Janner: Does the hon. Member think that it is about time he took these lads away from Cyprus —[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—particularly in view of the prevailing conditions? Does he not think that youngsters of this age ought not to be in an atmosphere of that description, and will he do something to allay the anxieties of the parents of these boys?
    Mr. Maclean: I have nothing to add to the very full statements which have been made upon this subject by both my right hon. Friend and myself.

  QUESTIONS FOR WRITTEN ANSWER
  Mr.Albuasked the Prime Minister what instructions have been given to Departments as to the time to be taken in answering Questions for Written Answer.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
  The present instructions to Departments, which are based on the Second Report of the Select Committee on Procedure, are that a Question for Written Answer should be answered as speedily as possible and certainly not later than seven days from the date for which the Answer is requested.
  Mr. Albu: Would the right hon. Gentleman draw the attention of Departments to the fact that the longer they delay in answering Written Questions, the more likely are they to have Questions put down for Oral Answer?
  Mr. Butler: Yes we have already taken steps to notify Departments that that is the case. I hope that the hon. Member's Question and the Answer which I have given today on behalf of the Prime Minister will indicate my right hon. Friend's interest in seeing that these matters are dealt with expeditiously.
  Dame Irene Ward: My right hon. Friend will bear in mind, I am sure, that it is possible to put down a starred Question to a Minister on the wrong day and then, of course, get an Answer.
  Mr. Butler: I am aware that the hon. Lady is fully cognisant of all the procedures in this House which expedite business and make it more satisfactory.
  Mr. K. Thompson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members try to avoid overloading the Order Paper with both starred and unstarred Questions by indulging in correspondence with Departments, but that replies to letters to Departments very often take a month or longer?
  Mr. Butler: It is most important that correspondence between hon. Members and Departments should be answered as expeditiously as possible, and I will certainly bring that to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

  NEW MEMBER SWORN
  George Forrest, Esquire, for Mid-Ulster.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) for one hour after Ten o'clock.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

LIMITATION OF SCHOOL CLASSES
3.34 p.m.
Mr. Harold Davies: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to limit the size of. School classes.s
The purpose of the Bill which I seek to introduce is to limit the size of school classes in Britain by January, 1958, so that thereafter no class of school children in Britain shall consist of more than 35 children. This is not a permissive measure this provision is to be obligatory. The figure 35 is not Utopian, but I have selected it because, as the present Leader of the House will appreciate, it is five above the permitted number in a secondary modern school class and five below the permitted number in a primary school class.
The Select Committee on Estimates in its Eighth Report in the Session 1952–53 said that we have schools that are unsuitable for children and that they suffered from gross overcrowding. That Report said:
"At every point we were confronted by overcrowding, lack of schools, heavy transport costs, shortage of teachers and often rapidly deteriorating and even dangerous school buildings"
While the permitted maximum number of children in a class is 40 in a primary school class and 30 in a secondary school class, figures today show that nearly 47 per cent. of our school classes exceed those numbers. Both sides of the House are in agreement, I am sure, about the need to reduce those figures. I am sure that the Leader of the House, who was one of the architects of the Education Act, 1944, would himself like to see these overcrowded classes reduced in size. I sincerely believe that if this nation made a real effort we could, by January, 1958, reduce these classes.
In my own constituency, there are school classes of 60 and 57 and 70 each, taught by one teacher. They are found in schools in areas of new building. These classes are in makeshift classrooms, hired halls, chapel and church halls, and miners' welfare institutes, and other types of building are being pressed into service.
I wish I could have the attention of some hon. Members who are making
1832
rather a noise. This is an important subject. If they do not want to listen, I should be grateful if they would be good enough to leave the Chamber. There is an hon. Gentleman opposite who has been making interruptions all the afternoon and he is continuing to do so while I am speaking.
Mr. Dudley Williams rose—
Mr. Davies: No, I shall not give way.
The same Select Committee reported that the time lag between the completion of houses and school buildings was a subject of major concern. I appeal to right hon. Members on both sides of the House to consider seriously the object of the Bill I seek to introduce, because I believe that we could between us do a good job for our school children by 1958. The Select Committee's Report said:
"The building of schools lags seriously behind the building of houses in most places and this aggravates overcrowding, compels local authorities to hire temporary school accommodation and commits them to exceptional heavy expenditure on transport, beyond that allowed by statute."
A report from the Ministry of Education, in 1952, commented on the growing school population. I shall not weary the House with a mass of statistics, many of which are already well known, but I must submit a few essential figures. The school population in 1947 was 4.8 million, by 1951 it was up to 5.6 million, and by 1954 it was 6.3 million. It is estimated that the number will rise in 1958 to 6.6 million and that then it will gradually drop to about 5.9 million. We shall have past the peak after 1958, so, by a concerted effort by hon. Members of this House, we could do a real job of work on behalf of our school children by that year.
I am encouraged to think we could reduce the size of the classes by that time by an Answer given by the Minister of Education to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) the other day, an Answer which delighted me. The right hon Gentleman said:
"In January, 1955, the numbers of pupils per full-time teacher in Staffordshire were 33.4 for juniors and 22–9 for seniors. The corresponding figures for England and Wales as a whole were 31.5 and 21.0."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 3rd May, 1956; Vol. 552, c. 571.]
Consequently, hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House will say that, mathematically, it is within the

1833
bounds of possibility, though I know that mathematics and reality are not always the same thing. There are physical obstacles.
I deprecate the high figures in Staffordshire, but the point is made that we have a sufficient number of teachers if we could administratively do the job. I do not want to speak politically. We should not make the child the shuttlecock of political parties, but I must say that we had not recovered, by the time war broke out, from the cut which was imposed in 1931. I see that one of my hon. Friends is laughing, but he knows nothing about the case. I repeat that we had not recovered from the 1931 school programme and, in addition, 5,000 schools were damaged by enemy action during the war. According to the Education Report of 1952, 47 per cent. of our classes were too large.
The Manchester Guardian reported on 18th July, 1953, that
"… the Select Committee were so concerned about conditions in schools that they made proposals to secure improvements. The Minister demolishes those proposals, but offers nothing new in their place. There is nothing in the document which suggests that anything will be done to deal with the fundamental facts exposed by the Select Committee."
I am asking the House to do something to deal with those fundamental facts.
An hon. Member who was speaking for teachers from the benches opposite pointed out the other day that in the past few years the size of classes had increased by 33 per cent. in the primary schools, but we were spending only 2s. 5d. per head of the population per week on primary schools and 11s. 8d. per week on armaments. I believe that the raw materials and the finance could be found by some slight cut in the armaments programme to provide for this primary need. A total of 71,000 out of 128,000 classes in Britain are at present too large.
The tragedy is illustrated by an Answer given in the House on 31st October, 1955. to the effect that whereas 28.9 per cent. of classes were over-sized in 1954, nearly 30 per cent. were over-sized by 1955. The House must do something about this if Britain is to maintain her moral lead and to keep her place in the scientific world. We can never do that by not giving the child milk today and stuffing it with cream ten years' hence. If we are to meet the problem of scientific education
1834
the House must seriously face this issue today.
By means of this Bill I am trying to make a real effort to face the difficulties. I beg the Minister of Education to realise that all the talk of extravagance in education is completely untrue. We were spending £ 100 million on education in 1938. According to the Minister's figures, we are now spending £ 3152 million. The school population has gone up by nearly 3 million, yet we are spending barely three times as much as we were spending in 1938, since when there has been a considerable drop in the value of the £.

The hon. and gallant Member for Poole (Captain Pilkington) recently asked the Minister of Education what, in terms of December, 1952, was the cost of a primary place. The Minister said that it was £ 262 in 1949 and £ 129 in 1954. The hon. and gallant Member then asked the Minister to ensure that that very satisfactory economy would be mentioned by my hon. and right hon. Friends in their constituencies. I am mentioning it now. If there has been a cut of that nature, who and what have suffered? The building programme has suffered, the school equipment has suffered and the children who are the backbone of the country have suffered. The House should not tolerate that situation.
I appeal to the House to do something immediately. Teacher recruitment can help meet the situation. On 26th April, the Minister showed in an Answer that teacher recruiting was improving. The Minister is pleased at that, as we all are, but he said that he could not expand the training colleges. I hope that he will be able to do so. One of my hon. Friends asked the other day how many of the schools in the school building programme had been postponed. We were told that 330 out of 941 schools had not been started up to last March. The House should be ashamed of that record, because teachers and children have to suffer in consequence.
I beg the House to urge upon the Minister to press forward with this school building programme. According to a circular which the Minister has sent out, the right hon. Gentleman is expecting something of a miracle from the education authorities in assuming that at the present cost per place new buildings can

1835
be erected. If the House permits me to introduce my Bill I hope that all of us, on both sides, can make a job of providing the necessary school accommodation.
Choleric critics of our youth today talk about juvenile delinquency. Some want more beatings and some more Beatitudes. Neither beating nor prayer can solve the problem of slum schools and overcrowded schools. We opened our proceedings in the House today with a prayer. I believe that a child has a divine right to his curiosity and sense of wonder. How can that child satisfy his curiosity and sense of wonder in the kind of schools which we are tolerating in Britain today? My prayer is, "Grant us today the serenity to accept the things we cannot change, the courage to change those we can, and the wisdom to know the difference." We can change the present situation in our schools and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will help us to do so.
3.48 p.m.
Mr. Angus Maude: In rising to oppose the application for leave to introduce the Bill I do not, of course, doubt for a moment the excellence of the aim which the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) has in mind. It is quite clear that he wants the best system of education and smaller classes, and so do we all. The point is whether the means which he seeks to persuade the House to adopt is the right one or the one most likely to secure his end.
This is clearly not an issue between the two parties, and I think that hon. and right hon. Members opposite have good precedents on their side if they will join with me and some of my hon. Friends in opposing this application. The hon. Member for Leek said that he would not worry the House with statistics, and neither will I. Everyone knows that statistics are extraordinarily difficult to interpret and make relevant to this proposal, since 35 is not a maximum number for any class of school. The figures are 30 and 40. The average number of children now in primary schools is just about 35 per class, which the hon. Member for Leek proposes, while the average-size class in secondary schools is well below 35.
1836
It is, of course, true that there is still a large number of classes which are over the permitted maximum and over the 35 in all classes of schools, particularly where there are new housing estates. That is certainly true. But, of course, the reason why there are large numbers of over-size classes is not because of a slack Minister, a slack House of Commons or a large number of slack local education authorities who are letting people get away with dereliction of duty, but simply because it has proved physically impossible to cope with the enormous number of children resulting from the increased birthrates of the 1940s.
This is not a problem which exists only in this country. I have recently come back from two months spent in looking at schools in the United States, where they have a far worse problem. There, they have the money and the resources to produce an enormous number of school buildings, but it is extremely unlikely that they will be able to find the number of teachers required. This is the problem that we have to face.
If we grant the hon. Member leave to introduce his Bill, and the Bill ultimately goes through, can we, in fact, provide, without undesirable secondary effects, the number of extra teachers and buildings required to make these maxima effective? We have to realise that in face of the enormous number of competing demands, particularly for young women teachers nowadays, if we greatly increase the number of teachers we are likely to have an immediate shortage of nurses, medical auxiliaries and staff in all the other professions on which the Welfare State now depends.
We have to realise that we are now getting more teachers than we have ever had before, and that more teachers are going into the teacher training colleges than ever before. That is a tremendous achievement. Can we get more? I believe that in time we may be able to get more, but I am fairly certain that the effect on other professions would be very considerable now if we tried to increase the number very much.
There are, of course, other implications. There is the building question, about which I want to say a word or two in a minute. At this stage, I would like to see whether the machinery which the hon. Gentleman wants to provide for

1837
ensuring that there shall be no oversize classes is the best. Here I would like to say that his idea is not a new one. It is one which was canvassed actively on both sides of the House during the Committee stage of the Education Act, 1944. This will be found in HANSARD of 15th February, 1944, when an Amendment was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) to write into the Bill a maximum figure for the size of classes in different kinds of schools.
There was a long and careful debate on this subject, and in the course of it the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who was then Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, replying on behalf of the Coalition Government, said quite clearly that in his view writing the permitted size of classes into regulations which could be altered according to change in circumstances by the Minister was a far better method than writing a maximum firmly into the Bill, not merely because they could be more readily adjusted to change in circumstances but, as the right hon. Gentleman for South Shields said, "If you put it into a Statute you are only too likely to find that a slack or economically minded education authority will say, 'Oh, we are allowed by Statute to have 35 children in each class and we can, therefore, allow those classes which have already less than 35 to increase up to that figure '." There is psychologically, of course, something in that.
In conclusion, I want to impress upon the House two things. First, has the House, which I have no doubt feels considerable sympathy with the hon. Member, really considered what would be the implication on the building programme and on the provision of teachers by trying to do this? We have to realise that at present there is still a very large number of small village schools in this country, single class schools, schools with one or two classes, with one or two teachers, some of which go over the figure of 40 or over the figure of 35. What would happen if we tried rigidly to impose on the schools that maxima?
We would probably find that there were three or four children over the
1838
maxima in one particular year or one generation of children. In three years' time it might be five under the maxima and in another three years it might again be five over. If we expect that village school to build another classroom or provide another teacher, or if we have to provide transport for those children to go away from that village to a school in a local town just because we have three or five children over the permitted maxima, the position becomes impossible. We hope and believe that the way things are going at the moment the size of classes in primary schools will continually decline over the next few years.
We shall have a very difficult time in secondary schools, but the one thing that we must not do is to divert building resources and teacher resources away from the secondary schools for the next ten years by unnecessarily tinkering with and making more rigid the structure of the primary schools, where the position will not get too bad. The hon. Member may say, "If we put a maximum in a Statute that will provide a target at which local education authorities will have to aim." The powers are there already. Under Grant Regulation No. 10, the Minister has power by Order to see that those local authorities which go over the maximum are called to account.
If the hon. Member and his hon. Friend think that the Minister is not being tough enough with the local education authorities—I myself think that he is—I suggest that the best thing they can do is to ask him Questions or raise the matter on the Adjournment rather than to take up the time of the House with legislation that cannot be effective.
Mr. Harold Davies: A disgusting suggestion.
Mr. Maude: I would ask hon. Members not only on this side of the House but hon. and right hon. Members opposite, who may have to administer this very difficult piece of legislation, unless they are quite confident that they will never be again in office, to join with us in opposing the Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12:—>
The House divided: Ayes 154, Noes 181.

Division No. 182.]

AYES

[3.58 p.m.

Ainsley, J. W.

Hamilton, W. W.

Parker, J.

Albu, A. H.

Hannan, W.

Parkin, B. T.

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Hayman, F. H.

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

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

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Awbery, S. S.

Herbison, Miss M.

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Bacon, Miss Alice

Hobson, C. R.

Proctor, W. T.

Balfour, A.

Holmes, Horace

Pryde, D. J.

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

Holt, A. F.

Rankin, John

Benson, G.

Houghton, Douglas

Redhead, E. C.

Beswick, F.

Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

Reeves, J.

Blackburn, F.

Hubbard, T. F.

Reid, William

Boardman, H.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

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

Hunter, A. E.

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Bowles, F. G.

Irving, S. (Dartford)

Ross, William

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Brockway, A. F.

Janner, B.

Short, E. W.

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

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

Silverman, Juilus (Aston)

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Burke, W. A.

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Callaghan, L. J.

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

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

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Kenyon, C.

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Champion, A. J.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Chetwynd, G. R.

King, Dr. H. M.

Snow, J. W.

Clunie, J.

Lawson, G. M.

Sparks, J. A.

Coldrick, W.

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Steele, T.

Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Logan, D. G.

Summerskill, R. Hon. E.

Crossman, R. H. S.

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

MacColl, J. E.

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

McInnes, J.

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Deer, G.

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Delargy, H. J.

Mahon, Simon

Timmons, J.

Dodds, N. N.

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Viant, S. P.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Mellish, R. J.

Wade, D. W.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Messer, Sir F.

Warbey, W. N.

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Mikardo, Ian

Watkins, T. E.

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Mitchison, G. R.

West, D. G.

Fernyhough, E.

Monslow, W.

Wheeldon, W. E.

Finch, H.J.

Mort, D. L.

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Moyle, A.

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

Gibson, C. W.

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Oliver, G. H.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Orbach, M.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Grey, C. F.

Oswald, T.

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Owen, W. J.

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

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

Zilliacus, K.

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Grimond, J.

Palmer, A. M. F.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Mr. Shurman and Mr. Harold Davies.

NOES

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Carr, Robert

Godber, J. B.

Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Channon, H.

Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

Chichester-Clark, R.

Gower, H. R.

Arbuthnot, John

Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

Graham, Sir Fergus

Armstrong, C. W.

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Grant, W. (Woodside)

Ashton, H.

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

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

Baldwin, A. E.

Crouch, R. F.

Green, A.

Balniel, Lord

Deedes, W. F.

Gresham Cooke, R.

Barlow, Sir John

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Barter, John

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. MCA.

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Drayson, G. B.

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

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

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Biggs-Davison, J. A.

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Duthie, W. S.

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Black, C. W.

Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

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

Boothby, Sir Robert

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Bossom, Sir A. C.

Errington, Sir Eric

Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

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

Erroll, F. J.

Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

Boyle, Sir Edward

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Braine, B. R.

Fisher, Nigel

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Forrest, George

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

Fort, R.

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Bryan, P.

Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Freeth, D. K.

Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

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

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

Campbell, Sir David

George, J. C. (Pollok)

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

1840

1841

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

Neave, Alrey

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Nicholls, Harmar

Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

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

Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

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

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Hyde, Montgomery

Oakshott, H. D.

Stuart, R. Hon. James (Moray)

Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

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

Studholme, H, G.

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Teeling, W.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Page, R. G.

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Keegan, D.

Partridge, E.

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

Kerr, H. W.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Thornton-Kemsley, G. N.

Lagden, G. W.

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

Leavey, J. A.

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Leburn, W. G.

Powell, J. Enoch

Touche, Sir Gordon

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

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

Turner, H. F. L.

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Profumo, J. D.

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Raikes, Sir Victor

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

Ramsden, J. E.

Vickers, Miss J. H.

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Rawlinson, Peter

Vosper, D. F.

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

Redmayne, M.

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Remnant, Hon. P.

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

McAdden, S. J.

Renton, D. L. M.

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

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

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Roper, Sir Harold

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

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

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Russell, R. S.

Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

Maddan, Martin

Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Sharples, R. C.

Wood, Hon. R.

Mathew, R.

Shepherd, William

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Mawby, R. L.

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

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

Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Moore, Sir Thomas

Spearman, A. C. M.

Mr. Maude and

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Speir, R. M.

Mr. Beresford Craddock.

Nairn, D. L. S.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  FAMILY ALLOWANCES AND NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.8 p.m.
  The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I suppose, Sir that in accordance with the custom of the House I should, as I have a young family, disclose an interest, though I must add that I understand that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will in due course deprive me of a substantial part of that interest.
  The Bill, like old Gaul, is really in three parts. First, it implements the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee on Widow's Benefit, which I laid before this House in the early part of February and on which I made a statement on 27th February. Secondly, it makes a number of important changes in the structure and scope of the family allowances scheme. Thirdly, it implements the promise contained in the Budget speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to increase the rate of family allowance by 2s. in respect of the third and subsequent children.
  The close connection which exists between the family allowance scheme and the national insurance system provides, in a way, the underlying structural unity of the Bill. As hon. Members will be aware, it is the fact that a child as defined for family allowance purposes is also for that reason, and by that means, defined as a child for national insurance purposes. Consequently, by widening the definition of "child" for the purpose of the Family Allowance Acts, we automatically widen it also for national insurance purposes. The purpose of this Bill on those two matters is to carry out what I may describe as the theme of providing, in particular, benefits for widows, especially those with children, and additional benefits also for the family. That is the underlying theme and the centre of unity of the Bill.
  The Bill itself is not as long as the amount of material with which it deals might suggest. If I may be allowed to say so, the parliamentary draftsmen have
  1844
  done extremely good work in compressing—or, if I may borrow a phrase from the Department of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, pressurising —
  Mr. J. T. Price: Shame.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:— the contents of the Bill into a comparatively limited space. If the hon. Gentleman is not careful, I shall talk about de-retirement.
  To take the first part of the Bill, that which relates to widows, the provisions of the Measure implement, and in full, the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee. Perhaps in that context I might be allowed to say a word about the Committee itself. It seemed to me on another Measure that there was perhaps some misunderstanding of its position and function, and as we are at the moment proposing to implement a number of its proposals it might be helpful to the House if I said a word about it.
  It is, of course, advisory. The responsibility for acting or not acting on its advice remains with the House and with the Government. It is, on the other hand, a body which contains among its members very distinguished representatives on both sides of industry as well as extremely experienced independent people, it has a procedure which enables it to deal with evidence either orally or in writing, and it is a body with great experience of the highly complex problems of national insurance.
  Therefore, while I would not for one moment suggest that it is right to accept its advice without thought or criticism, none the less I am certain that serious students of these matters will weigh seriously any recommendations coming from that body. In respect of this Report it has certainly seemed to us right to ask Parliament to implement the recommendations in full.
  The Report, and, therefore, the provisions contained in the Bill, emphasise and carry perhaps a little further the conception of widowhood which was originally brought out in the Beveridge Report and the Coalition White Paper. Adopting what was then a new idea, the line was taken that widowhood as such ought not to attract a permanent pension, but that what resources were available should be concentrated on three categories of

  1845
  widow— the widow with children, the sick widow and the older widow— and that those who fell into none of those three categories should after a period of 13 weeks, during which they would draw the widows' benefit provided under the Act which the right hon. Gentleman the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) carried through the House, go back into the battle of life on the same basis as the spinsters.
  Thus, the idea was that the resources available from the Fund were in greater measure and in more adequate degree to be concentrated on the three categories to whom I have referred. In its Report the Committee endorses that attitude and in some of its proposals it carries the doctrine a little further, as appears from the terms of the Bill. It certainly seems to me that the underlying ideas of the treatment of widowhood to which I have referred are sound and in many ways far more wholesome than the older idea.
  The most important of the Committee's recommendations was that a "substantial increase"— that was the expression which it used— should be made in the allowance in respect of widows' children. At present, the rate is 11s. 6d. for the first child and 3s. 6d. for the second and each subsequent child, though in their case there is also the family allowance. What the Bill proposes, after consideration of the advice from the Committee, is an increase of 5s. in respect of each child. In other words, it is proposed to raise the weekly payment in respect of the first child from I Is. 6d. to 16s. 6d. and in respect of other children from 3s. 6d. to 8s. 6d., to which is added the 8s. family allowance for the second child and, under the other provisions of the Bill to which I made a passing reference a moment ago, 10s. in respect of third and subsequent children. What the widow will get will be 16s. 6d. for the first and second children and 18s. 6d. for other children.
  The effect of this, to give an example, is a widow with three children under the existing provisions gets, if we include family allowance, 74s. 6d. per week, and the proposals will raise the amount to 91s. 6d. a week. That is an increase of 5s. for each child and 2s. for the third child by way of the increased rate of family allowance. It is also proposed
  1846
  to make a similar increase of 5s. in respect of widows' children under the industrial injuries scheme.

  I suggest that this is a substantial increase within the spirit and the thought of the Committee's recommendation, and I think it is right that we should make such an increase. The Committee found that of all National Insurance beneflciaries widows with children were the section which had in largest degree to resort to National Assistance. Indeed, it found in the case of widows with four or more children that 75 per cent. of them were resorting to National Assistance, which compares very adversely indeed with any other category of National Insurance beneficiary.
  This increase should help in considerable degree the widows who are left with children, and they will certainly mark, if the House adopts them, a remarkable increase when compared with 1948. For the first children widows will be receiving more than double what they received in 1948 and for second and other children, family allowances included, about three times what they received then.
  The Committee made another important recommendation which affects other categories of widows and, in particular, affects not only the widow who is colloquially known as the "10s. widow" but the other, and perhaps less frequently referred to, category of widow who under the National Insurance scheme receives no pension at all. I referred a moment ago to the underlying idea of widowhood in the Report, and, in particular, to the idea that the young fit childless widow ought to be helped and encouraged to restore her ordinary position in the workaday world.

  It has been found that one of her difficulties in doing so at the end of either her widows' benefit or her widowed mothers' allowance has been that her ordinary contribution position under National Insurance has been insufficient to provide her with the sickness and unemployment benefit which she may need at any time. The Committee has therefore suggested, and we have accepted its advice, that the right way to deal with the difficulty is to provide that when one of these widows comes out from benefit, either from the widows' allowance or the widowed mothers' allowance, she should be given what, if I am not again offending

  1847
  the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price), is colloquially known as a "flying start" in National Insurance. That is to say, she should be put in the position of eligibility on the basis of the same contributions as originally established her widow's insurance position, in relation to both sickness and unemployment benefit.
  As the House will recall, sickness benefit can be drawn as long as the person concerned is sick, but unemployment benefit depends on the length of contribution and, therefore, the exact amount of unemployment benefit which the widow will be able to draw will depend on the length of her marriage. The idea is to provide her with a position in which she is eligible, immediately on coming into the situation in which she has to earn her own living, to be fully equipped against the dangers of sickness and unemployment.
  That is comparatively easy to state, but it is extraordinarily complex to do. What we propose in the Bill is slightly to enlarge the regulation-making power under the 1946 Act to enable us to effect this by regulations, and if the House accepts the Clause I should propose to lay regulations, which will be subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure, as soon as I can after the Bill becomes law. That provision will affect about 40,000 of the ladies in the 10s. a week category as well as a number of those who are not in possession of any pension at all.
  There is one other proposal which will also help widows in that category, and that is the proposal contained in the Bill to reduce the qualifying period of marriage for widowhood benefits from ten years to three years. The effect of that, as soon as the Bill is law, will be to bring into pension at the full National Insurance rates about 5,000 to 6,000 widows at present receiving either 10s. a week or no pension at all; and in future years it will mean that about 1,000 in each year who would not otherwise receive a pension will, in fact, receive it.
  There is one proposal in the Measure which, contrary to the others to which I have referred, operates in the direction of restricting rather than expanding benefits, and perhaps I should say a word in particular about that. At present, if a widow is over 50 when her husband
  1848
  dies she receives a widow's pension until it becomes a retirement pension; in other words, she receives pension for life. If she is over 40, under the existing law, when she ceases to draw widowed mother's allowance—that is, when her children cease to be children for whom benefit is paid under the scheme—she will also draw pension for life.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly will remember that that was not a proposal of the Beveridge scheme, but it was a proposal which he himself introduced between the publication of the White Paper and the introduction of his Bill. If he will allow me to say so, he introduced it for the extremely sensible purpose of assisting the widow to keep a house together while she had young or adolescent children. The right hon. Gentleman gave that reason in the course of the debate.
  We are proposing to achieve the same end as that which the right hon. Gentleman had in mind, but by a different method— by the proposal in the Bill to pay the widowed mother's own share of widowed mother's allowance to her while she has any child under 18, even though that child, being neither at school nor an apprentice, is not itself entitled to family allowance or the children's portion of widowed mother's allowance. We feel that that would help with the problem which the right hon. Gentleman had in mind.
  Experience has shown that this is a better method of dealing with it. I do not say this in any criticism of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal; he launched this great and new scheme against the background that we had to see how it would work. In practice, the provision for the payment of permanent pension after 40 if at that age the widowed mother came out of widowed mother's allowance, has produced anomalies and unfairnesses.
  I do not want to weary the House with examples, but I have one example which illustrates the point which I am seeking to make. Let us take the case of a woman aged 45 when her husband dies— a woman who has a daughter aged 14That woman would be entitled to pension for life. If, however, her husband had lived for another four years, until she was 49 and her child was 18, she would not be entitled to pension for life.

  1849
  That kind of anomaly in a scheme of this sort has given rise to a feeling of unfairness, and we have come to the conclusion that it is better to deal with the objective which the right hon. Gentleman had in mind by securing that all widowed mothers shall get their own share of widowed mother's allowance until the youngest child is 18, rather than by the provision to which I have referred and which the right hon. Gentleman introduced.
  Dr. Horace King: Is not the right hon. Gentleman creating another anomaly? We are now to have widowed mothers who move into this class at the age of 40. All the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman has employed about the barrier between the ages of 49 and 50 also apply between the ages of 39 and 40. He is taking out of the pension field a group of women who, having borne children and, as widowed mothers, brought them up, will be faced, at the age of 40, with the task of trying to earn their living, with no pension under the Bill.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think the hon. Gentleman can have understood what I was trying to say, and I am sure that that is my fault rather than his. These matters are very complicated. We can discuss this matter further, but I think we are eliminating the kind of anomalies of which I gave an example.
  Mr. Thomas Steele: The right hon. Gentleman has said, in effect, that of the two widows he described, one would have a pension and the other would not; but under the provisions of the Bill, neither would have a pension.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Neither would have a permanent pension, but both would have the widowed mother's share of widowed mother's allowance until the child was 18. Under the present law they would not have that. This is a subject on which it will be interesting to hear the views of the House, but it seems to us, as it seemed to the National Insurance Advisory Committee, after hearing evidence, that this was a more practical and fair way of dealing with the anomalies and difficulties which have arisen in the operation of the present law. It seems to us much less anomalous and much fairer.
  Mr. Bernard Taylor: Is it not the case that the proposal is to increase the age of the child from 16 to 18—two years—but to increase the age of the mother from 40 to 50—ten years?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will come to the question of the ages of 16 and 18 when I come to the part of the Bill dealing with family allowances. When the hon. Member has had time to consider what I have said, he may desire to reflect further on the matter. This is a matter to which not only the Government but also the National Insurance Advisory Committee have devoted a good deal of thought, and they have come to the conclusion which I have outlined. I know that the hon. Member will want to consider the point seriously before forming his own final views.
  It is not, of course, proposed to bring the solution to which I have referred into force so as to affect any existing widow, or until the new provisions with respect to what I call the flying start, which require the making of regulations and the affirmative Resolution procedure, have come into force. This will, of course, take care of any difficulty which it seems might otherwise arise.
  I will not refer in detail to the other smaller provisions in the Committee's Report, but I will refer, in passing, if I may, to the removal of a small difficulty that has arisen in connection with marriages which by the law of the place where they were contracted could have been polygamous but were in fact monogamous.
  Mr. Kenneth Thompson: Which are they?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If my hon. Friend wants an explanation, the man, by law, could have married a number of women but, in fact, has married only one. I think that is a fairly accurate summary, and perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) will bear me out.
  The National Insurance Commissioner has decided, in those cases, that although there has been what seemed an ordinary monogamous marriage in practice, if, by law, it could have been polygamous, it should not be treated as a marriage either for widowed mother allowance or for any other National Insurance purpose. There have been a few cases affecting Commonwealth citizens, and we have decided to

  1851
  put the matter right and to provide that if the marriage is, in fact, monogamous, then it shall be treated as a marriage for all purposes of widowhood benefit, retirement pension and maternity grant of the National Insurance scheme. That is one of the small matters discovered after the operation of the scheme for a number of years, but it affects some of our fellow citizens from the Commonwealth overseas, and, for that reason, we are particularly glad to put it right.
  The other part of the Bill relates to family allowances. Clause 1 (1) implements the promise of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget to increase by 2s. the rate of family allowance for the third child and subsequent children. That was discussed in the Budget debate and I do not think it is incumbent upon me to argue it at any length. It will have this effect it will be paid in respect of 1,850,000 children who are in or part of 1,150,000 families—families which themselves contain no fewer than 4 million children. It will, therefore, be a payment— it will cost about £ 10 million in a full year which will help the larger families.
  The food surveys published by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food confirm the fact, and there is little doubt, as is evidenced by common observation of hon. Members, that particularly large families are a section of society which need a little assistance at this time. I suppose it is the common experience of hon. Members that of all groups of our society the large family is worse off in many ways than a single person or a small family. So it seemed right to us to make this adjustment of family allowances operate directly to help the larger family.
  The justification needs only this additional argument, that it is, of course, the fact that the high standards which now operate in the care and upbringing of children are in a large degree responsible for the rising standard of physique and health in the children of this country. The maintenance of this standard imposes heavy sacrifices and burdens on the parents, and I think it is in the broad national interest that, even in these times when additional expenditure is difficult to justify some additional payment should be given to help in that direction.
  1852
  The original Family Allowances Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Jowitt, or Sir William Jowitt as he then was, was introduced by a quotation from "The Vicar of Wakefield"
  "who was ever of opinion that the honest man who married and brought up a large family did more service than he who continued single and only talked of population?"
  Sir William Jowitt referred, as I should like to refer, to that as a "robust and a vigorous sentiment." It is in that spirit that this provision is put forward.
  In the same spirit, there is a provision which implements an undertaking given by my right hon. and hon. Friends to raise the age of entitlement to Family Allowance for school children and apprentices. Under the present law family allowance is paid until a child's fifteenth birthday, or until 31st July following his or her sixteenth birthday if he or she is at school or apprenticed. So far as school children and apprentices are concerned, it is proposed to raise that age to the eighteenth birthday.
  I gave some consideration to the question whether we should adopt again the terminal date of 31st July following the child's birthday and I came to the conclusion that it would be wrong for a number of reasons. It would be anomalous for many to go on paying family allowance after the eighteenth birthday, since people at eighteen become adults for normal National Insurance purposes. Equally, they become liable to call-up for National Service and there might be some unfairness at paying in respect of those who were deferred when those who were called up would not receive it.
  It also avoids the difficulty of gambling on the turn of the dates, depending on the child's birthday. If you manage to arrange things so well as to be born just after 31st July, under the present scheme you get about a year's more Family Allowance than if you timed your entry into this world to arrive on 31st July.
  Mr. James Griffiths: It is the same as the Premium Bonds.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is perhaps introducing another element of chance, but I must not provoke the right hon. Gentleman.
  Also, the date 31st July is quite irrelevant to apprentices, and for these reasons

  1853
  it seems a sensible and clean-cut idea to terminate this allowance on the eighteenth birthday. These modest concessions, costing a little over £2 million, will help, in particular, those people who keep their children at school for a longer period than they are compelled to by law, or apprentice them in a skilled trade, and as such will attract the House as being in accordance with a sensible social policy.
  The Bill also raises the age of entitlement to family allowance to 16 in the case of a wholly incapacitated child. The reason why that is raised only to 16 is because at 16 such a child becomes entitled to National Assistance in its own right. But under the existing provisions there has been a gap between the age of 15 when such a child, as he cannot continue at school, has ceased to be entitled to family allowance, and the time he became entitled to the National Assistance in his own right
  Some time ago my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) introduced a Private Member's Bill in which was contained the substance of what is now Clause 5 of this Bill. The provision in that Bill, which did not reach the Statute Book, and in this Clause, are designed to deal with children committed to a local authority for care and whom it is considered expeditious and wise to send back to their families on a temporary basis. There was some doubt about what was the legal authority for doing that and the Bill puts it beyond doubt. It also provides that when such a child is returned to its family the allowances shall be payable in respect of the child. 1 should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree for the thought which he gave to the proposals contained in his Bill, and which we have now decided to incorparate in this Measure.
  Clause 4 extends the power we have to make reciprocal arrangements for family allowances purposes with other countries. Under present conditions we can make reciprocal arrangements regarding family allowance only with the Commonwealth. This extends the power to enable reciprocal arrangements to be made on the same basis as for National Insurance purposes. We are entering into a reciprocal agreement with Belgium
  1854
  for National Insurance purposes under which Belgium is making a concession to us in respect of her family allowances scheme. If the House gives us this power we shall wish to make reciprocal arrangements with Belgium in connection with our family allowances.
  The cost of this Bill can be looked at in this way. It falls both on the Exchequer and on the National Insurance Fund. So far as the Exchequer is concerned the 2s. for the third and subsequent child will cost £10 million in a full year and the extending of family allowance ages will cost £2 million in a full year. There is, therefore, a total cost of £ 12 million to the Exchequer. The cost to the National Insurance Fund, on which the biggest item is the additional payment for widows' children, will be £ 34 million in a full year. That is a substantial sum and whenever National Insurance benefits are increased it is necessary to consider the effect on the contribution rates. This particular expenditure will tend to decline after about ten years, and, therefore, the permanent cost of this National Insurance charge provided by the Bill does not seem to us sufficient to warrant changes in the contribution rates at present. It will have to be taken into account in the light of other changes which may have to be considered when the National Advisory Committee completes its Report.
  Mr. J. T. Price: A few moments ago the right hon. Gentleman referred to the large percentage of widows—I think 74 per cent.—who have to apply for National Assistance. In giving this estimate, should not there be a saving on National Assistance?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has saved much time, because there is to be. I am giving the House the full facts. There will also be a charge on the Industrial Injuries Fund, because I explained that we are extending this in respect of industrial injuries by £160,000 a year to begin with and rising to £250,000. There, again, we have had to consider the effect on the industrial injuries contribution particularly in view of the Report by the Government Actuary of the First Quinquennial Actuarial Review of the Industrial Injuries Scheme.

  1855
  We came to the conclusion that this change would not of itself justify an increase in rates, although, clearly, that will have to be taken into account when the time comes to consider them. On the other side of the ledger—and I come now to gratify the hon. Member for Westhoughton—there will be a saving to National Assistance of about Elf million from the saving of the Bill as a whole. That necessarily is not a precise calculation because the matter will turn on the precise circumstances of a number of families. The hon. Member was quite right in saying that in considering the aspects of the Bill we want to know what reliefs it will bring here.
  Mr. Steele: I appreciate that there will be savings to the Assistance Board, but surely there will be some saving in reducing the age from 50 to 40 for widowed mothers. Does the figure of £3½ million take into account the savings which will be effected there?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, it does and that is why, as the hon. Member will, no doubt, recall, I said that, after ten years the amount of £3½million will tend to decline. It will tend to decline because of the compensating adjustment of the Fund. That is why it will tend to fall and why we feel that this can be looked at, not as a permanent increased charge of this order on the Fund, but a permanent charge perhaps on the nation.
  Dr. King: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Can he say how much will be saved on the change from age 40 to 50 for widows? That will be a matter we shall want to raise in Committee, and if we knew how much it would cost that would help both the Government and us in our discussions.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would rather not hazard a figure without further thought. There will be very little saving in the beginning because, as I have indicated, this will not affect existing widows as they have a settled expectation of this benefit. It will tend to grow after ten years.
  Mr. K. Thompson: My right hon. Friend has now made clear to me what was not clear before, that the existing rights of a widow drawing a pension will not be interfered with. When my right
  1856
  hon. Friend spoke earlier on this subject he said that they would not be interfered with as they exist now or until the "flying start" has become effective. I take it that the two exceptions are quite separate and that existing rights will be maintained?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My hon. Friend is quite right. He, or probably I, must have telescoped two separate points. I am coming to a convenient part of my speech to deal with that.
  The Bill provides a number of appointed days for different provisions. We did not propose to appoint a day for the 40–50 change until the provisions for a "flying start" could be brought into effect. The bringing into effect of these provisions will depend on the making of a regulation under the Bill when it becomes an Act and an affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. As my hon. Friend said, the other exception of existing widows will not be affected as it is a quite separate provision.
  We have a number of powers to make appointed days. It would obviously be wrong to start speculating now on when those days will be. That must be when Parliament decides that the Bill shall become law. I very much hope, however, that we shall be able to put into force the extension of family allowances of school children up to 18 at the beginning of August. The reason is that a number of children will be coming out under the existing law on 31st July, following their sixteenth birthday, and it would puzzle people concerned if we took them out of family allowances and then put them back a few months later. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already said that it is hoped to bring into effect the increased family allowances for the third and subsequent children on 1st October. The 2nd October is the nearest pay day to the beginning of that month.
  This Bill reflects in two ways certain ideas of social policy which we wish, despite the economic difficulties of the time, to seek to achieve. The first is the concentration of the resources available in some of the directions where they seem to be most needed. The other is to give some further support to the family as the only sound foundation of a sound society and the care for the young, which must be the major pre-occupation of any com-

  1857
  munity which has a faith in its future. Because it seems to us that this is a serious and sincere attempt to serve those efforts, I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. H. A. Marquand: The Minister was commendably brief in the agreeable speech he made. I am afraid that, unlike him, I cannot claim a direct personal pecuniary interest in the matter any more. I might have had one had the Bill been introduced a year or two earlier. My personal interest, nonetheless, still remains very strong. As a parent, I have had some experience of receiving family allowance, and, as a son, I have had some experience of living in the household of a widow.
  As the right hon. Gentleman told us, the Bill contains two main provisions, the increase of certain family allowances, which was foreshadowed in the Budget Statement, and the implementation of the recommendations of the National Insurance Advisory Committee on Widow's Benefit. Of course, we welcome both those improvements in the conditions of our people, as far as they go. Perhaps I may be permitted to say that I especially welcome the provision in regard to widows because, when the right hon. Gentleman first announced his intention to implement those recommendations of the Committee, he told us that he would not be able to do it this Session. When he made that announcement 1 intervened and said
  "…16s. 6d. is still a pitifully small sum on which to bring up, feed and clothe a growing child? If that is the most he can do, will he not at least do it at once?"
  I must say that I am glad that in subsequent representations which I made to the Lord Privy Seal I found that apparently the Government had changed their mind
  On 27th February the Minister said:
  "It will not be possible to proceed with this legislation this Session."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1956; Vol. 549, c. 837–8.]
  However, when I questioned the Lord Privy Seal, whom I am glad to see here to-day, on 8th March— when he announced certain provisions concerning elections in Northern Ireland— I asked:
  "If the right hon. Gentleman can find time for this legislation, could he not also find time for the Bill to implement improvements
  1858
  in widows' pensions recently announced, on which I promised him that the Opposition would give him an easy passage?"
  The right hon. Gentleman replied:
  "I must, of course, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman in respect of that very important matter to which he draws attention, say that it is an obligatory duty which we have to perform."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March. 1956; Vol. 549. c. 2329.]
  I was pleased, and I am sure that many widows who will benefit from these provisions were also pleased.
  As a result, we have this Bill before us and, if I have played any part in expediting its introduction, I am all the more grateful that it has been brought in. I am glad indeed to hear again this afternoon from the Minister that he is going to do his best, if the Bill is given a Second Reading— as I am sure it will be, and its Third Reading— — to use the powers given him under the Bill to make the necessary Regulations as soon as possible.
  I have said already that we would give the Bill an easy passage and today we certainly intend to fulfil that promise. We shall not attempt to oppose its Second Reading. We shall criticise it in parts no doubt during our proceedings this afternoon. We look forward to opportunities on the Committee stage to examine it even more carefully. If we have undertaken to give the Bill an easy passage, that does not mean—and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it ought not to mean—that we are pledging ourselves to see it rushed through Committee. We want to have opportunities in Committee to examine very carefully all the various proposals, and, if possible, to persuade the Government to improve some of them.
  Asking, as we do, for careful deliberation during the Committee stage— and we on our part undertake that there will be no delaying tactics— we want to see the provisions for the children of this country improved, and improved to the maximum degree possible. We shall not stand in the way of any improvements, even though they do not go as far as we should like, but we want the opportunity to explain how we think this Bill will affect the mothers, the widows and the children of this country during the course of that Committee stage.
  Turning now to the family allowances provisions of the Bill which are contained in Clause 1, these were announced by the

  1859
  Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Statement. They were part of the Budget provisions for the general economy of the country. As I think the Minister indicated this afternoon, they were in line with the policy of the Tory Party. As I understand that policy, it has been to get rid as quickly as possible of all subsidies and to give some compensation to those who are to be most hit by the policy of raising the price of food, which the abolition of subsidies entails.
  The Minister today passed rather rapidly over that aspect of these proposals, almost as rapidly as the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech passed over the elimination of the bread subsidy, which he mentioned almost in passing and which some hon. Members indeed failed to notice in the general course of his speech. We are faced this afternoon with the consequences of the abolition of the bread subsidy and with the consequences of the Government's measures in regard to the milk subsidy, both of which have raised the price of bread and milk, and this has happened on top of and in addition to the steady rise in food prices which has already taken place.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) reminded the House in the Budget debate that in 1955 alone, whereas the rise in the general index of prices was 6 per cent., the rise in food prices was no less than 8 per cent. As a consequence of the Budget measures, there is likely to be a still further rise, so that the extra 2s. per week family allowance which is proposed this afternoon is some compensation for the rises in food prices and, in particular, for the rise in the prices of bread and milk.
  We have had many arguments about prices and their effect on different classes of the community, but nobody can deny that children eat bread and milk. Nobody can deny that they must be, and ought to be, among the principal consumers of bread and milk. These rises in prices of bread and milk affect them more than anyone else in the community. We have to ask ourselves whether the proposal to increase family allowances by 2s. for the third and subsequent children in a family is sufficient compensation for the rise in bread and milk prices.
  1860
  I ask the Government this question: Does not the second child eat bread and milk too? The right hon. Gentleman said that these burdens fall more heavily on the large family than on the small one. It is perfectly true, but they fall upon all families in which there are young children. We should have preferred to see a proposal from the Government to compensate all families by way of a rise in family allowances not by going so far as to provide a family allowance in respect of the first child, but by continuing the established policy, on which I think both parties in the House are agreed, to pay family allowances for the second and subsequent children in a family. We should have preferred to see — and we think the Government ought to have introduced it— an all-round increase in family allowances.
  Admitting the special needs of the large family—and, of course, one must admit that the large family is most severely hit by the various difficulties which confront working class families at present—none the less, we feel that this particular addition is inadequate, and we would welcome —and we will see whether we cannot at later stages of the Bill persuade the Minister to be bold and take the whole step—a provision in this Bill to pay family allowances to the second as well as to the third and subsequent children.
  I need not spend any time at all on the change provided in the Bill in the definition of what constitutes a child. We owe that to that Advisory Committee which put this definition forward as one of the recommendations in its Report on widow's benefit. I should like to say that the Minister's tribute this afternoon to the Advisory Committee is well deserved and, once again, we should like to join with the right hon. Gentleman in thanking the Advisory Committee for the very considerable amount of time which it devoted to studying this and other problems.
  We hope that this change in the definition of what constitutes a child, that is, the raising of the age to 18, will provide some incentive to the children themselves to stay on at school or become apprentices; in other words, to accept and engage in education, instead of trying to rush out into paid work at the first opportunity, and that it will also reduce the incentive of parents to do the same thing—to hurry

  1861
  their children out because of the poverty of the family as a whole. We very much hope that in consequence we shall have children staying on in school for longer periods, and more boys, and even girls if possible, entering apprenticeships in industry, instead of taking the very often comparatively well-paid jobs that lead nowhere.
  I turn now to Clause 2, which contains the implementation of the Advisory Committee's recommendations about widows. These recommendations by the Committee were very wise, very penetrating and very ingenious, and when we read them we were really delighted. The solution which they have found for many of the problems and anomolies which have been created by the working of the National Insurance Acts up-to-date are greatly to be commended. They were ingenious and sensible. We particularly welcome the change in the qualifying period of marriage, and the introduction of eligibility for unemployment and sickness benefits, which the Committee recommended and which are provided for in this Bill
  We have only two qualifications in mind in extending our congratulations to the Committee on this Report. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West(Mr. Steele), if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye. Mr. Speaker. will want to expand on this matter to which he has devoted a great deal of study in the past. Therefore, I want to put it no stronger than to say that, despite the improvement in the right of widows to receive sickness and unemployment benefit, we are not sure whether it was really necessary to do away with the former category of "incapable of self-support." However, I pass that by because, as I said, my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West knows a great deal more about the working of this provision than I do, and he may wish to say something later.
  Similarly, we are not quite happy about Clause 2 (5) which deals with the substitution of the age of 50 for 40 as the qualifying age for pension of a widowed mother whose children have grown up and for whom she no longer receives an allowance. It is true that this is a recommendation of the Advisory Committee. It is equally true that the
  1862
  Committee justified it at great length in paragraphs 43 and 44 of the Report. The Minister this afternoon followed very much the lines of the argument which the Committee adduced in those paragraphs.
  One must admit that there is some force in the arguments which the Committee puts forward and which the right hon. Gentleman brought forward this afternoon. But did the Committee or does the right hon. Gentleman sufficiently take into account, in recommending his proposal, the difficulty which a widowed mother over the age of 40 encounters if she is trying to enter the labour market for the first time? We hope that she will be enabled by the family allowances and widow's benefit, and so on, to look after her family at home while they are young. We hope that she will not be forced to start earning her living while the family is still with her. At the end of that time, when the family is grown up, she will be 40 or more years of age. Between that time and her attaining the age of 50, she has to find a place in the labour market. It strikes one as an extremely difficult thing to have to do. even in times of full employment.
  The Minister said this afternoon that the provision for the payment of permanent pension after 40 has produced anomalies. That is true. Examples were given by the Committee and were repeated this afternoon by the Minister. But when the Minister was asked a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen (Dr. King), he was not quite easy in answering it. My hon. Friend suggested that though some anomalies may be removed by these provisions, new ones may be created. I was glad that the Minister at this point indicated a willingness to consider representations. I feel sure that hon. Friends of mine who have wide experience of the working of these provisions will want to make those representations this afternoon and later in Committee. We are glad to know that the Minister himself feels that a fuller examination is needed and that he will listen carefully to anything that is said.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I did not wish to indicate that I thought a fuller examination was needed. I said that the Advisory Committee and the Government had given careful thought to this matter.

  1863
  What I did say— and it was hardly necessary to say it — was that I will, of course, listen to any point which any hon. Gentleman desires to raise.
  Mr. Marquand: I did not wish to misrepresent the Minister. I am quite satisfied with the undertaking that he has just given.
  May I turn to the case of the widowed mother with children still in her care. As I have already said in this debate and in discussion on another Bill, it is highly desirable, in my view, that such a mother should be able to stay at home and look after the family, at least while any of the children are below school age. All recent studies of child delinquency, child psychology and so on show that this is extremely important. What happens during the years of infancy may form the whole character of a person later on. The constant presence in the home of a parent— and, of course, particularly of the mother— is vital to that sense of security and confidence which has to be built up at those tender years. Even later than school age, in my own experience, it seems that it is vitally important that the children should know that the mother is there when they come home.
  Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan indicated assent.
  Mr. Marquand: I am glad to see the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan) nodding approval. I know he gives a great deal of thought to these matters. From study in one's own family and other families, one feels that perhaps during the last twenty years or so, that important aspect of family life may have been under-estimated in the revolt from the old-fashioned strict family life of the Victorian period. We are now coming round again to realise its importance. Therefore, I hope that everything we can do will be done to assist those mothers who see their duty in that way and who wish to stay at home and look after the infants and later the schoolchildren
  The situation of such widows has been anything but satisfactory. The Minister referred to this, and I should like to emphasise it again by quoting from the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee on the Question of Widow's Benefit. Paragraph 38 says:
  "About 30 per cent. of women receiving widowed mother's allowance are receiving
  1864
  supplementary national assistance. This percentage is higher than for any other class of National Insurance beneficiary. Further, this is an average figure. While the percentage for the widow with one child is much the same as for beneficiaries generally, the percentage for the larger families is very much greater, rising to about 75 per cent. for families of four children or more."
  That is a deplorable state of affairs. We have to ask ourselves whether the increases and the improvements proposed in this Bill will be sufficient to take these children out of assistance. Will it be sufficient to give them the chance to live a proper family life? The numbers of persons on assistance, as the Minister told me not long ago in answer to a Question, have risen by 30,000 since the last increase in National Assistance scales. Today there are 1,600,000 persons drawing National Assistance, to whom, I suppose, we may add 900,000 in respect of their dependants. I do not know the exact figure. Perhaps nobody knows. Probably one in twenty of our population at the present time, if not actually drawing in the sense of having a book, is dependant upon National Assistance to some degree. We cannot be happy about that situation.
  Retirement pensioners are not within the scope of the Bill, and about them I will say no more, but we cannot be happy about the position as it affects widows. At the time of the last Report of the National Assistance Board, 93,000 widows were drawing National Assistance. It is too large a number altogether. In fact, I would say that it is 93,000 too large.
  The estimate presented to us this afternoon and contained in the Explanatory Memorandum of the Bill shows that the saving to the National Assistance Board if these proposals are implemented will be £1,500,000. Good— fine— but how many people will be taken off National Assistance? The Minister has said that he could not be quite precise about the figure of £ 1,500,000— that it was in round figures. I wish that he had been able to hazard a guess as to the number of widows and their families who could have been taken off National Assistance in the time mentioned in the Memorandum. Possibly there may be time for him to look at that later on and to consult with the National Assistance Board
  We really want to know what the position is. We want to give these children

  1865
  a real home of their own, and a real chance as they get older. How many of these children of widows drawing National Assistance ever really have the chance, about which we are so fond of boasting, of getting to the grammar school, and from the grammar school to the university with State scholarships. They may be able enough to qualify, but the pressure to go out to work to help the widowed mother is so great that children with some sense of responsibility are all to often led to miss those opportunities. They are a depressed class in our community and we want to be sure what will happen to them.
  What is the measure of what such families and what such children ought to receive? I am very grateful—and I am sure that all who are interested in this problem are very grateful—for the remarkable article which appeared in The Times on 14th May setting out figures giving us an idea of what various classes benefiting from various sorts of social benefits in fact receive. If we look at National Assistance we see that in respect of the child under five years only 13s. is paid, and for the child between five and 10 the amount is 15s. 6d. By the time the child is 11, 18s. is paid by the National Assistance Board and between 16 and 17 the Board—which has the duty of finding out what is necessary to maintain a child—pays 23s. 6d.
  Those figures are substantially higher than those proposed in this Bill for the widow's children. If we look at war pensions, we find that the amount payable to the widow for her children is even higher than that. Here, I do not want to be misunderstood. I hope that I cannot be. I hope that nobody in this House who knows anything about war pensions would think for a second that I would want to suggest any kind of reduction or lowering of the standard of war pensions or of the pensions and allowances paid to war widows. I hope that any record I have is sufficiently good to make it quite clear that I would never suggest that.
  I am bound to say, however, that the widowed mother with three children who is drawing National Insurance will receive 92s. 6d. a week under these provisions; the war widow similarly placed will receive 127s. 6d. I think that 127s. 6d. is a much more satisfactory figure. It
  1866
  seems to me, then, that despite the provisions proposed in the Bill—and they are improvements—the National Insurance widow without other resources will still have to go to the National Assistance Board at least for her rent
  I do not regard that as satisfactory. I have received a letter from the Secretary of the National Joint Committee of Working Women's Organisations, which says:
  "…there is an urgent case for asking that the benefits paid in respect of widows' children should represent the full cost of maintaining the children, plus a contribution to the family overheads '"
  The letter goes on to say
  "The national Joint Committee last month discussed very fully the Minister's statement of 27th February. Their view was that an increase of 5s. for each child was inadequate, and they want to urge very strongly that the benefit should be at least 20s. or 21s.
  In view of what is regarded as a reasonable sum to pay to war widows, and in view of what is regarded by the National Assistance Board as the minimum to be paid, they are not far off the mark. So I want to say—as I gave warning on another Bill that we might have to do—that during the Committee stage we really feel that it will be our bounden duty to seek for some improvement of these allowances.
  May I say just one thing more? We discussed recently the earnings rule for pensioners of various kinds. This afternoon we are discussing the position of widows. The more we go into it the more do we find anomalies, complexities and variations of payment which are very difficult for us to understand—they are still more difficult for the pensioner himself or herself to understand. The Parliamentary Secretary admitted that fact the other day and said that she would do her best to get the new provision concerning the earnings rule widely publicised and explained in popular terms. If I am not mistaken, we have yet to receive the Report of the Advisory Committee on Contribution Conditions. These conditions, again, may be complicated and difficult to understand.
  What we are doing is to tackle this problem piecemeal. We on this side feel that in view of all the difficulties that have been thrown up by these various separate examinations, what is now needed is a thoroughly comprehensive review of the whole of the system of

  1867
  National Insurance. We are sorry that it was not done when opportunity occurred for the statutory review at the end of a five-year period. We are sorry that that review was hurried through because of the imminence of the General Election. We shall certainly do our best — and we hope that the Minister will do his best— to get a more thorough and satisfactory comprehensive review of all these conditions before very long.
  5.18 p.m.
  Mr. John Tilney: As I shall take up the time of the House for only a few minutes, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesborough, East (Mr. Marquand) will forgive me if I do not comment on his many comparatively minor points. The words he used in effect welcomed the Bill, which will, I believe, find an echo up and down the country.
  I thank my right hon. Friend for his courteous reference to the Bill I had the honour to introduce in the last Parliament, the third Clause of which he has been good enough to embody in Clause 5 of this Bill. There were two other Clauses in that Bill which was withdrawn, and I should like to express my appreciation to the many voluntary bodies, especially on Merseyside, which helped me with that Measure. I believe the House would also like to express its thanks to the many voluntary workers who, even in these days of the Welfare State, work unobtrusively and unsubsidised behind the scenes helping many a child and many a home.
  The second Clause of my Bill would have enabled the court, on the making of a judicial separation order involving the custody of children, to direct to whom any allowance should be payable. I agree with my right hon. Friend that the problem arising when a parent goes away with a family allowances book, leaving the children with the other parent, can be tackled much more easily administratively than by a Bill of this kind.
  There was one other Clause which raised a matter of which I think the House would like to take note. Although we all agree on the principle of family allowances in binding a family together, we have to accept the fact that there are a number of families, either where parents are mentally backward or where some-
  1868
  thing goes wrong between them, where some of the children are handed over to a local authority or a voluntary home. In such cases the social worker often finds great difficulty in getting the money which is handed over to the parent by way of family allowances sent to the voluntary home to pay for the children.
  I know it is said that this is a matter of principle and that it is up to the parent to buy a postal order, to get pen, paper and envelopes, and to send the money every week, but our experience in the Army brings home to us the great difficulty of getting some families to put pen to paper or to make a businesslike effort in this direction.
  I should like to quote to the House two cases which have been brought to my notice. In one, there were six children in the family and the third child, a boy of ten, was in a voluntary home. The mother was finding it very hard to manage on the money allowed to her by her husband and she was in arrears in her payments to the voluntary home. Many visits were made by the voluntary workers, but the mother continued to say that she found it very difficult to send the money as the temptation of having it in her own hands was too strong.
  In another case, where there were arrears of payment, the social workers who had been trying to help the family, which had fallen on very evil days, had to give evidence against the family because it had not paid its proper contribution for the upkeep of one of the children in a voluntary home.
  The first Clause of my Bill endeavoured to make it possible for such a parent to sign a document, before a justice of the peace or some other authorised person, allowing a voluntary body or a local authority for a short period of time, say, 12 weeks, to draw the family allowance for those particular children. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that as Form FAM.36 enables a parent to delegate authority to collect family allowance while the legal parent is physically unable to do so, and while we allow children to be sent away from the family into a home, to some extent the principle of keeping the family together has already been abrogated.
  If my right hon. Friend would look once again into the problem and see

  1869
  whether by administrative means something can be done to remove the temptation from many of these parents, not only the parents but also many of the social workers would indeed be grateful to him
  5.24 p. m
  Dr. Horace King: I am tempted to follow the details—important details—which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) has raised in his speech, but I will say only that many hon. Members on both sides of the House would be unwilling that family allowances should be paid to parents who proved by their conduct that they were not fit to have their children and whose children have had to come under the protection of the State. I congratulate the hon. Member on succeeding in getting quite a useful little Clause into this good little Bill.
  Mr. Steele: It is not a minor Clause.
  Dr. King: It is a major Clause; I am corrected by my hon. Friend. He is right. It is quite an important improvement.
  I hope that I misunderstood the hon. Member for Wavertee when, in paying tribute to those who do voluntary work, the hon. Member said that "even under the Welfare State" much voluntary work is going on. I am sure that he will agree that once the political battle over establishing some new part of the Welfare State has receded into the past, both political parties in the country and both sides of the House realise that the Welfare State does not dry up the wells of human charity. In the State hospitals, in the State institutions for mental defectives—in one of which I recently saw the parents of the children have made the gift of an extra building, by voluntary effort—in the State schools through parents' associations and in the voluntary work being done by hundreds of thousands of people in the National Health Service and in the care of the old folk, such as by the provision of travelling meals, we have seen that the Welfare State does not mean the abolition of human good will and charity but often means a great opportunity for its expansion and development. I congratulate the hon. Member on the Clause which he has managed to get into the Bill, and it will please all who give voluntary service to child welfare.
  1870
  I believe that the great National Insurance framework which we built up was, on the whole, a magnificent achievement of the first Labour Government after the war. I watched it with admiration from outside and I have learned to admire it and its creators even more deeply since I came into the House. It had, however, one serious defect, in that it failed to match up to the problems of widows. It is true that one could not do everything or foresee everything in shaping the insurance scheme, but I am afraid that when the House was considering it in those early post-war days, and even somewhat in this Bill, it was not fully alive to the hardships which are endured by widows, and especially by widowed mothers.
  I welcome the Bill and pay tribute to the capable and kindly way in which the Minister has introduced it. One is always afraid, when a Minister goes from the Treasury to a great welfare Ministry like the Ministry of Pensions, no matter how many intermediate stages he passes through —
  Mr. Douglas Houghton: The right hon. Gentleman did not go direct; he paid an intermediate call.
  Dr. King: I said that he had passed through an intermediate stage. It may be that that was a mellowing process. Nevertheless, one is a little afraid lest the voice of the Treasury should suddenly emerge in the Ministry of Pensions. The present Minister follows a line of very distinguished predecessors at this Ministry since the war, from both sides of the House. He is in charge of one of the most loved Ministries which has ever been set up in any country of the world, manned by people who are doing a fine job in National Assistance, in care for disabled soldiers and old-age pensioners and in all the great social work which makes people outside the House and in it very proud of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. We are sure that he will add his own distinguished contribution to that line of Labour and Conservative predecessors.
  I hope that as we discuss the Bill in Committee the Minister will be as courteous as he always is on the Floor of the House and that we shall have an opportunity seriously and in detail to

  1871
  examine the question of adequate assistance for widows. Let us be quite clear that although this is a good Bill— I know it is the custom for the Opposition to say that it does not go far enough— my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) is right in saying that much of the virtue and benefit of it is minimised by the result of Government policy in other ways. The increased benefits for children, increased family allowance benefits, and increased widows' benefits are largely gobbled up by the rise in the cost of living, and far from there being a real advance in the relative position of the widowed mother, as one would imagine from the Minister's introduction and from the wording of the Bill, the advance is a minor one, because it has to be set against the fall in the value of money.
  I assure the Minister that I do not make that point from the traditional grudging point of view of an Opposition speaker. It would be ungracious not to welcome this Bill. I particularly welcome the extension of the family allowance to children who go to school after the age of 15 up to the age of 18, and the extension of the children's allowance to apprentices of that age. This is a matter which, as the Minister will remember, we debated on the Finance Bill some two years ago, and I am more than happy to see that particular provision in the Bill.
  There is one tiny section of the Bill which gives me even greater pleasure. We are here recognising in this House, really for the first time, the particularly anomalous position of one group of parents, namely, those who have mentally defective children who are sufficiently backward not even to be able to go to special schools for defective children. As I mentioned during the Finance Bill debate some two or three years ago, while financial concessions are made for the bright child who goes on with his education, while concessions are made for the backward child who goes to a school for the mentally defective and continues his education, this narrow group of parents whose children are so helpless that they must be cared for at home has received no such help. The family allowance was dropped when such children attained the age of 15, and then, for a year, the parents had to keep them until, at the age of 16,
  1872
  they became nominally adults and were covered by National Insurance. I want again to pay tribute to the mothers of England who look after such helpless children in their homes, doing a 24-hours-a-day job. I thank the Minister most sincerely for reaching out, and. by means of this Bill, giving a helping hand to some of the noblest parents that Britain has.
  It is worth remembering that, by and large, this Bill caters for decent fathers and mothers, for decent widows and for decent widowers, just as it caters for decent children. The Press might occasionally mention the mass of decent fathers, mothers and widows of Britain instead of giving the idea that all mothers waste their family allowances and all our youth consists of Teddy boys. By and large, we have a great and wonderful family life in this country, and if this Bill helps to develop and stimulate it, good work will be done.
  There is one provision in the Bill, which some may regard as a detail, but which I none the less welcome as important, namely, that a woman whose husband has died will automatically be put at once on to full insurance rights without having to make a number of payments to qualify. I would remind the Minister that these widows will still have to pay their National Insurance contributions. We must not forget the 10s. widow and the no shilling widow. I remember that when I raised this matter of the difficulties experienced by 10s. widows some years ago, I got indignant letters from women who asid, "You talk about the 10s. widow. We are no shilling widows." Widows who go out to earn their living under very difficult conditions have to pay their full National Insurance contributions out of their often meagre wages. The consequence is that the so-called 10s. widow is at the moment getting less than half of her 10s. when that amount is set against what she has to pay back to the State.
  I want to say a word or two this afternoon about the position of widows, in anticipation of what I hope will be a serious debate in Committee. In my view, the general formula, of which the Minister has given a rough indication this afternoon, is exceedingly plausible and rather dangerous. The Minister spoke of the young, fit and childless widow. He said, quite rightly, that Britain cannot

  1873
  afford to keep for ever, without her doing any work, the young, fit childless widow.
  Let us make it quite clear that none of the payments we make to any widows in this country would keep them; no young, fit and childless widow even now, at the age of 40, could live on what she would get from the present National Assistance benefits. We do not hand out to them £ 10 or £ 15 a week so that they may sit hack in luxury and idleness. Nevertheless, I believe that some such fear was in the minds of those who shaped the first National Insurance Act, was at the back of the minds of the Committees which have reported to the Minister, and is even behind this Bill today.
  I believe that we are doing injustice to a group of widows whose husbands happened to die on the wrong day. of all anomalies, the worst is the anomaly which shifts out of the full benefits of the Welfare State into the 10s. National Insurance class a group of widows whose only misfortune is that their husbands died on the wrong side of a certain appointed day. Among those, the 10s. widow receives only the concession in the Bill that she will walk straight into full insurance rights if she starts paying her insurance contributions.
  I have been worried about the change of age from 40 to 50, and that was why I interrupted the Minister. I hope there will be second thoughts about this in Committee, particularly as regards the widowed mother in the 40 to 50 age group. The Minister pointed out that there were anomalies under the present scheme. I tried to suggest that there would be still graver anomalies even when we moved the age to 50 and excluded any widow between 40 and 50, once her children were grown up, from getting any benefit under this scheme.
  I am worried about the widowed mother with two or three children who, having brought up her children, comes to the age, as it will be under this Bill of somewhere between 40 and 50 and whose youngest child passes from the stage when the child itself and the mother qualify for any help. Somewhere between the age of 40 and 50 the widowed mother has to go out on to the labour market. She has done one of the noblest and most highly skilled jobs which anyone can do in the community. Very often, she has
  1874
  brought up her children in the cramping circumstances of widows' allowances, and has saved the State at least three, and possibly four, times the expense which might have been incurred, if, on becoming a widow, she had decided to abrogate her responsibility and throw it upon the State. We pay £ 6 or £ 7— sometimes £ 8— a week to keep deprived children under the children's committees of this country. We probably pay any sum between £ 3 and £ 6 a week to keep the child who has gone wrong in Borstal or some other preventive or protective institution. Yet these widowed mothers have been keeping their children on something like a third of that amount.
  I seriously suggest that all the proposed figures for payments to widows in this Bill are inadequate. If we are to say to a widowed mother, "Having done that service for the State, having brought up your children, you are now 43. 44 or 45 and you must compete in the labour market and learn a new trade. There is nothing the State can do for you." we shall be doing a great wrong to some very deserving mothers. When we get down to business in Committee, I hope that with the Minister's support we shall be able to devise some means of increasing the help proposed for widowed mothers. I conclude as I began by saying that 1 welcome the Bill and hope that in Committee we shall take the opportunity as a council of State to examine some of the fundamental issues which it raises and particularly that of the widowed mother
  5.40 p.m.
  Mr. Raymond Gower: My right hon. Friend must be extremely gratified with the reception which the Bill has received. It does not complete the picture of National Insurance in this country, but it will be agreed that it is another logical step following on what Governments from both sides of the House have done for many years, starting, of course, soon after the turn of the century with the Liberal Government of that day.
  There is only one alarming Clause in the Bill which my right hon. Friend did not explain clearly and that is the Clause which changes the meaning of monogamy and polygamy. I trust that it has no sinister aspect and is not otherwise out of keeping with the Bill. The other

  1875
  Clauses seem to have general acceptance. Like the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) I have been disturbed by the problem of widows. Of course, if we treated widowhood itself as a basis for much larger benefits, I suppose that my right hon. Friend would then have to run in terror from the National Association of Spinsters. That is an awful possibility with which he and future Ministers might be confronted.
  Mr. S. O. Davies: The hon. Member should not be personal.
  Mr. Gower: The spinsters might claim, with some justice, that their plight was even worse, because they have not had the good fortune at some stage of their lives of having the assistance of a husband. They might say that in that respect life had treated them even more poorly than it had their widowed friends.
  My right hon. Friend has not entirely dealt with what I consider to be a major defect. It is true that the Bill goes some way to meeting the problems of widowed mothers, but it does not deal with the fact that many widows, by virtue of having been married, on the death of their husbands find themselves suddenly suffering under a substantial disability. Does my hon. Friend contemplate taking some action which will meet the transitional period between a woman becoming a widow and beginning to earn? There is already an arrangement by which, when a woman becomes a widow, for a certain number of weeks she receives a full widow's pension. Could not that arrangement be extended to cover a longer time? It is one of the difficulties of the 10s. widows and the so-called "no shilling" widows that they are suddenly faced with the job of having to work again.
  I should say that the disability is far greater if a woman has been married for 30 years, while it may be negligible in the case of a woman married for only two or three years. I do not suggest that my right hon. Friend should consider widowhood as such as a ground for special consideration. A woman may have been married merely for a matter of months and in that case her marriage is merely an incident in her life. However, if she has been married for a very long time, she
  1876
  may have a case for continuing to receive for a far longer period the payments which are made for so many weeks. The length of time for which she receives the payments could be adjusted according to the length of her married life.
  We all recognise that this is an extremely difficult problem. I have been in touch with both kinds of widow. An odd feature is that a person who receives 10s. is more aware of her plight than is a person who receives nothing at all. It is one of the peculiarities of the problem that the no shilling widow in many cases does not realise her plight. Because she receives a limited benefit, the 10s. widow cannot understand why that benefit is not increased and it is extremely difficult to explain. It is not easy to make a long explanation on the lines of my right hon. Friend's speech. It is impossible in some cases to explain why their benefits are the only ones which have stood still in this way. I hope that the difficulty about this period of time would at least be considered and studied.
  On both sides of the House the Bill is welcomed. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) said that the increases will be swallowed up in the price increases of recent years. That is not entirely the case, because many recipients of family allowances have increased their earnings. The provisions of the Bill are to meet the particular problems of the larger family. I recognise, of course, that there are those whose earnings have not increased, but a large number of people with large families will have increased their earnings and the provisions of the Bill are to meet the peculiar problems of those with extra family responsibilities.
  It was suggested by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East that all family allowances should have been increased, but we all recognise that that would be something on an entirely different level. In debates on former Bills there have been strong pleas for allowances for the first child, but we know that the cost of that, if not prohibitive, would be on a completely different level from that of the present Bill. That is not necessarily a valid criticism of the present Measure which within its scope is a logical step. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have often advocated different rates and selected differences in rates. This step is

  1877
  as logical as some of those advocated from the other side of the House. I hope that both sides of the House will combine to give the Bill an unopposed Second Reading.
  5.49 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Houghton: I am sure that the Minister has had a very agreeable task in introducing this Bill. Even hardened politicians like introducing popular rather than unpopular Measures, and although the right hon. Gentleman is pretty tough, I am sure that he found this an agreeable beginning to his period of office. This is his first substantial Bill as Minister of Pensions and National Insurance.
  When the right hon. Gentleman rose to speak, I think he must for a moment have found himself thinking of his perdecessor, who referred this matter we are discussing to the National Insurance Advisory Committee on Widow's Benefit in March, 1954. Certainly I find it strange not to see the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor in charge of this Bill, and I take this opportunity of expressing to him the gratitude I personally feel for his unfailing courtesy, and of paying a tribute to what I think was the most remarkable grasp which he had of this complex subject. Moreover, he carried on social policy in the Ministry in a way which, I feel sure, met with the approval of both sides of the House
  I wish to turn to the first main proposal of the Bill, which is really part of the Budgetary and economic policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, namely, the increase in the family allowance for the third child and subsequent children. This is welcome. I regret, however, that the right hon. Gentleman did not propose to increase the family allowance for the second child. I thought I saw the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) looking at me very keenly when he made his observations a few moments ago, for certainly I have always been an advocate of a family allowance for the first child.
  The Chancellor has missed an opportunity here. He has disclosed his mind twice now, saying he wants a period of stability. He did so first to the Economic Committee of the Trades Union Congress, and subsequently in public in a speech the other day. What the right hon. Gentleman wants now, as also voiced by the Prime Minister in his
  1878
  speech at Perth, is a period of stability, a period during which further calls on the national income in wages and salaries and personal incomes will be moderated and, if possible, brought for a time to a halt in order that our economy may recover and we may re-establish confidence in our future and build up our reserves.
  It seems to me that he could have struck a bold blow for this policy if he had been prepared to increase the family allowances all round. I think that it is the difficulty of the family man to meet the increases in costs which is, to a large extent, the inspiration behind the demand for higher wages and salaries. To have tempered that a little by an increase in the family allowances all round would have been a contribution towards the policy which the right hon. Gentleman wishes to follow.
  This introduction of a differential between the second child and the third and subsequent children is a new feature in the family allowance system. We have already many differentials in child allowances of one kind and another, and it is extraordinarily difficult for ordinary persons to relate the cost of children to such differing amounts, according to different circumstances. For that reason, it would have been preferable to have increased the family allowances generally instead of selecting the third child and subsequent children for this increase. Anyhow, it is too late to do anything about that now. I think the Money Resolution will prevent us from moving any Amendments in Committee to that end. As I read it, the Bill cannot be amended in that respect.
  I turn now to the child allowance for widowed mothers. This is a feature of the Bill which may be capable of discussion and possibly improvement in Committee. The question is, is the 5s. increase proposed enough? My right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), who began the debate from this side of the House, has already reported to the House the contents of a letter he received from a representative body of women's organisations. I doubt whether the increase is enough. Indeed, I think all our social payments are on the low side.
  I say again what I said in relation to the retirement pension, that I really think the time is coming when we shall have to

  1879
  raise our targets and lift our standards, because when the best has been said about the social payments, the fact remains they are, in general, either 1946 or 1948 standards written up to date. I do not think they are good enough.
  After all, we hear a great deal about the prosperity of the country and the higher standards of the working folk, which we can agree exist. There is no doubt about it. The general mass of the people of Britain are living on a higher standard today than ever before. We may as well acknowledge the truth, because that is it. Although they are all hard up— we are all hard up— that is largely because as their wages have increased, as they have in wide areas of industry, they naturally have pursued their expanding desire for the amenities and comforts and enjoyments of life, and in these days many things which would have been regarded as luxuries in my childhood are now accepted as common features of every household. We all want to see that continue.
  So our targets are bound to be too low if all we do is to bring up to date 1946 or 1948 standards— because 1946 standards, as I have repeatedly said, had their roots in 1938 standards and really provided for very little more than a reasonable public assistance level before the war. So if I pick out the proposed increase of 5s. for the widowed mother with a child and say it is low, that is a criticism which can be applied all round; but since we are dealing with this benefit for a particularly deserving section of those who receive the benefits of our welfare arrangements, we can say that this should be put higher, even though other benefits remain at their existing level. I think that further consideration of that should be given in Committee.
  The crucial test is the one which my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East made, of adding up the total income of the widowed mother to see whether all-in it represents a satisfactory standard of life for a woman who is left alone, who feels great insecurity and fear for the future, which unless she is careful she will convey to her children psychologically in a most undesirable way, whereas we want to see her firmly established in the community, able to face the future without any serious doubt of
  1880
  being able to bring up her family in a decent way.
  Now I come to the 10s. widows who at different times have assumed a political importance probably out of all proportion to their numbers. The 10s. widow has become almost as explosive as the pre-Oaksey widow, who in another connection scored a notable triumph over the Minister, assisted as she was by the most violent advocacy of the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), and by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan).
  We hope that the Minister will be prepared to consider the position of the 10s. widow. I know that some people argue that the 10s. widow should never have been. They argue that it was a mistake to allow this reserved benefit to continue. After all, in other connections certain benefits under the old scheme were discontinued and replaced by new ones, and some people grumbled about it. There was the expectation of many people to get the 10s. or 20s. pension at the appropriate age without the retirement condition. When it was replaced by the new benefit with the retirement condition, it will be remembered that there was a certain amount of grumbling about that. However, in this case the reserved right to the 10s. widow's pension was retained and carried forward under the new scheme. Therefore, it is no good saying now that the 10s. widow ought never to have been. She is.
  What do we do about it? It can be argued that, since this benefit was not perhaps fully justified at the time, we can let inflation fritter it away and reduce its value to a 2d. stamp without our feeling any pangs about it. That is a wrong approach. Having given the benefit of a personal reserved right, we have a duty to preserve its value.
  Mr. Gower: Would the hon. Member advocate that without doing something for the other class which has been mentioned in the debate?
  Mr. Houghton: I do not think we should confuse the two. If there are widows without benefit who ought to have benefit, let us provide it, but do not let us mix that up with the simple point of bringing up to date the purchasing power of the reserved 10s. widow's pension. This is the logic and equity of the

  1881
  matter. If the 10s. widow is not entitled to the benefit any more, we should have the courage to take it away. We should not leave the pension there and let it decline in value and justify that on the ground that it is a reserved benefit.
  Dr. King: I am sure my hon. Friend would agree that there is no grudging reservation of any kind and that the pension is something to which the widow has a right. There is no doubt about that at all, is there?
  Mr. Houghton: There is no doubt at all. The National Insurance Act, 1946, decided that she had the right. The Act could have taken it away, but it did not. It took other benefits away from the old scheme and replaced them by new, and the House could have done the same in this case. It did not do so, and therefore it confirmed the right of these widows to have their 10s. pension. If the House decides that it is no longer justified, it has a perfect right to withdraw it, for the House is supreme in this matter, but there is no suggestion that that should be done. Therefore we are under the simple obligation to maintain the purchasing power of the benefit to which this House decided these widows had a right, and which no one is now proposing to take away from them.
  I come now to the difficult question of the widowed mother and the problem of the 40–50 age limit. If I may say so with respect, it was on this point that the Minister failed to give us a very clear picture of the new proposals. He should have pointed out that the new proposals are a new set of proposals to replace the old. It is not a simple question of lifting the age from 40 to 50 below which a widowed mother, passing out of widowed mother's allowance, is barred from drawing a widow's pension. The new arrangement gives the widowed mother between 40 and 50 who passes out of widowed mother's allowance the right to retain the widow's element of the widowed mother's allowance until the child reaches the age of 18, whether it is at school or not. Indeed, she retains the widow's element of the widowed mother's allowance even if that child marries before the age of 18, as long as the child continues to live at home. This proposal is to be found in paragraph 40
  1882
  of the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee.
  This, of course, is a substantial improvement on the present arrangements for many widows, and it seeks to remedy the very thing that has been criticised this afternoon. It enables the widow whose child leaves school at the normal age to retain a widow's pension for three years longer, whatever age she may be; she is to retain the widow's element of the widowed mother's allowance for three years longer even though the child has left school and gone to work, and even though the child marries during that time. That is a very distinct additional provision, and in this particular case goes beyond the provision of giving allowances in respect of children who stay at school until they are 18. This is given to the widow whether the child continues at school or not, and even though the child is employed and bringing home wages and making a contribution to the maintenance of the home.
  It is a noticeable change in the proposals, and it means that a number of widowed mothers will continue to draw some benefit under the new proposals which they would not draw under the existing proposals, despite the benefit of the lower age. Therefore we have to weigh one set of proposals against the other. Some will benefit more under the new than under the old, and some will be better off under the old arrangements than under the new. This is the difficulty when we are facing a conception of benefit different from the one now in existence. I am not sure that there will be united opinion on this matter on either side of the House. In Committee arguments may be used on both sides for and against the new proposals. I see advantages in the new arrangements, and I should certainly wish to retain those advantages in any revision of the benefits agreed upon in Committee, whatever we do about the question of age.
  It is very difficult to generalise about widows. The best thing that can happen to most of them is that they should get married again, and the best chance of getting married again is to go out into the world and meet men—and that they are more likely to do at work than if they sit at home waiting for the milkman. We should do all we can to encourage widows to reinstate themselves in the community

  1883
  and workaday life and look to the future, either in the widowed state or in the hope of remarriage. I do not think that in these days we want to think of the widow as a sad-faced woman who wears widow's weeds for years after her husband dies and sits at home lamenting her lot.
  We must not be sentimental about this. It is for their own happiness and for the good of the community and their families that they should go out, but at the same time we want to safeguard those widows for whom that opportunity is not readily available. I suggest to the House that there is a new generation of women coming on now, many of whom will be the widows of the future.
  They are women who have done jobs of work, women who have skill, women who are used to office or factory life or work in hospitals or in domestic service, or who have done some other work while they were single. Many of them carry on their jobs for a while after they are married. In my constituency, many of them are doing jobs of that kind in the textile industry, while bringing up their children. There is a local tradition that women work in the mills, and they like to go on doing it. In many cases it provides them with the opportunity of getting out of their homes for some hours a day and mixing with other people while having a job of work. We want to encourage that wherever possible.
  We wish, however, to underpin the security of the household and the welfare of the family in all cases where for the widow to go out to work is not possible or appropriate. I wish that the administration of these benefits could be more flexible, and that we could look at the position of persons and of families separately and judge the merits of their particular circumstances. Obviously, that would be impossible. I think that when we come to choose between the old arrangement and the new, or try to find a compromise between the two, we should have these two considerations in mind— the encouragement of those who can go out to work while maintaining their own homes, and the position of those who are not, for various reasons, able to do so.
  We are giving a very valuable benefit to those not able to do so because of sickness or because they are unable to find a job. I am sure that from the trade
  1884
  union side those two concessions are very welcome indeed. It is the flying start to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, of putting them into insurance straight away, so that they will be safeguarded in cases of sickness or unemployment.
  These are the main features of the Bill which will engage our attention. In many ways, the Bill will be welcome, and I should like to say what a grand job of work has been done by the National Insurance Advisory Committee. I only wish there was some such instrument to give us a report before the Finance Bill, so that we should know what was going to be in it, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to say, "I am implementing the Report in full and you fully understand it because you have read it". How much better that would be.
  We have a curtain raiser to these National Insurance Bills when we have a full explanatory report, complete with historical details, from the Advisory Committee. I think that these reports are full of common sense, and that the House ought to study the recommendations very carefully before setting them aside. They are the keynote which we should have to guide us when we go into Committee.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan: Perhaps the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) will forgive me if I do not follow him in some of his more contentious arguments because I think that we can look forward to having some dingdong battles in Committee on the Bill.
  I should like to add my congratulations to those extended to my right hon. Friend on bringing forward this his first major Measure in his present office, and to echo also the very generous tribute which the hon. Member for Sowerby paid to my right hon. Friend's predecessor, Lord Ingleby. I have been a back bencher for five years and I have listened to practically every important speech which the noble Lord made as a Member of this House. It is in no way a reflection upon his successor to say that no one on either side of the House had as remarkable and detailed a grasp of these National Insurance problems as he had. He is in every sense of the word a technical expert. We on the back benches shall miss his counsel. We sometimes disagreed with him, but I must say that he was usually right.

  1885
  I am also delighted that my right hon. Friend was able to bring this Bill forward earlier than was anticipated. I hope that he will not allow the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) to suggest that he was the only one to try to bring pressure to bear on the Minister in this matter, because we did too.
  As regards the Bill itself and the changes affecting widows, I think that my right hon. Friend has the right basis in what he is proposing. I think that the principles are right but the difficulty will be their application. Although he has the timing of the appointed day to juggle with, I am afraid that there may be a series of anomalies and also a difficult hiatus caused by the parallel implementation of quite different principles. I think that we ought to look at that point very carefully in Committee.
  I do not want to delay the House, and the point which I should most like to talk about concerns the position of the widowed mother. I was very much in agreement with what the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East said today and in our consideration of another Bill when we raised the amount which the widowed mother could earn without deductions. I think that we were on the right lines. What we were making was a welcome relaxation in that respect, and we were improving on the remarkable change which the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summer-skill) made in the Bill in 1951, when she exempted the earnings of the widowed mother up to 60s. on an entirely different basis. But we must remember that we have not yet answered to our own satisfaction the question whether it is or is not right for widowed mothers to go out to work.
  Of course, we cannot generalise about this problem. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Sowerby that widows ought to go out to work in order to meet future husbands is going to make competition worse for spinsters. He also went on to suggest that it would be desirable to have the benefits adjusted to each particular case. He was right, but unfortunately it cannot be done in that way. I think that the truth of the matter is that the House and the country as a whole have not the material on which
  1886
  to take a proper view of the economic position of the widowed mother.
  In some localities it is possible for some widowed mothers to do part-time work which will in no way interfere with their making a home for the children. For others, that is not possible. Equally, there are some mothers who can go out to work and arrange for people to look after their children, while others find that impossible. There is no real evidence on which we can base our conclusion.
  If we look at the Report of the Advisory Committee on the earnings limit we find the statement there are 100,000 drawing the widowed mother's allowance, of whom 20,000 are earning £ 2 or more. But there are no statistics which tell us the total number of widowed mothers who in fact are going out to work. We do not know the numbers and we do not know their prospects in the labour market. I feel that that is not naturally the business of the Advisory Committee, and that it would be excellent if the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Pensions jointly could initiate a social survey which would give us the facts about all the economic and social circumstances which affect the life of the widowed mother.
  Now I want to make a suggestion in the full consciousness that I have no evidence in support of it. The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East said it was undesirable for a mother with children under school age to go to work. I entirely agree with him as regards the majority of cases. Indeed, I am beginning to wonder whether there is not a case for considering a social allowance to the widowed mother, apart from the allowances, for the fact of guardianship, in the sense that she loses the opportunity to go to work if she has to keep the home going for children who are not at school.
  That extra allowance or benefit, or whatever it may be called, would be payable only if the circumstances justified it, and it would be taxable. It could not be applied to every family or to every widowed mother who might not deem it desirable to go to work. Because I think that we have not yet found the right solution of the problems of the widowed mother, I hope that this suggestion will be considered.
  6.21 p. m.
  Mr. Tudor Watkins: I believe that all of us on this side of the House welcome the interesting remarks of the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan).
  Although I welcome the Bill, I am disappointed that we have not had a general review of the social insurance schemes long before now. Hon. Members are entitled to that because we know from experience of the 1948 legislation that there are a number of anomalies which should be corrected, particularly sickness benefit. For instance, some of us on this side of the House would like something done about Section 62 of the Act, and also about non-contributory pensioners. Quite a number of such anomalies could have been dealt with in this Bill but, as that has not been done, I hope that we shall have a future opportunity to deal with many of them.
  I want to pay tribute to those who have administered our National Insurance schemes from the beginning, and particularly to those who were brought into the organisation in 1948. They have done a wonderful job of work, and hon. Members can say generally that there has not been much criticism of the administration in that respect.
  I also want to join in the tribute paid to the National Insurance Advisory Committee for its excellent reports and work. Unfortunately we do not know what reports have been received from local advisory committees, of which there are a large number. I should like to see a White Paper giving their recommendations, although I think it would have to be a very large one, as a number of interesting recommendations have been made by those committees.
  The tone in which the Minister introduced the Second Reading of this Bill pleased me. I like the right hon. Gentleman much better as Minister of Pensions and National Insurance than as Minister of Transport, and I am glad that he excelled himself this afternoon. I welcome the increases but, speaking personally, I should welcome still more an all-round increase and family allowances paid for the first child as well. I am not saying that merely as party propaganda but because I believe firmly in it, as I am sure do other hon. Members.
  1888
  I have always linked family allowances with school meals. Both represent an ideal to me. However, school meals have not been passed on to the children as they should have been. I appreciate, Sir, that school meals do not come within the scope of the Bill but they are another form of family allowance.
  I welcome the uplift to the age of 18 because it will have a great influence on children staying on at school, especially in some rural districts where there is great demand upon their labour owing to the present manpower shortage. Parents continually ask me to do something to help their boys to leave school at the age of 15, so I welcome this increase, particularly as regards apprentices. There has been great difficulty in getting boys to take apprenticeships, so this increase will give an impetus in that direction also. I also welcome the provision in the Bill to include mentally and physically handicapped children. That is a great reform. The Minister ought to be proud of that provision, whatever else is in the Bill.
  I do not want to repeat what has been said about widowed mothers and widows, but I agree with the hon. Member for Reigate that we should have more information in that respect. It was possible to have a survey of those remaining at work up to the age of 55. Is it not possible to make a survey of the circumstances of widows after their bereavement? Conditions in districts vary considerably, and such information would confirm what some of us have said in this connection, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton).
  I was disappointed that the Minister did not give us figures in connection with the change from 40 to 50 years of age. Surely figures are available? Otherwise how do the actuaries estimate what contribution is required from the insured contributor? Perhaps this information will be available for the Committee stage of the Bill.
  I am certain that a great deal of advice has been given by local advisory committees. Have any of them made suggestions or recommendations about the new proposals in the Bill? I take the view that widowhood is a tragic thing. and I do not share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby as to what widows should do. We in Wales are sentimental and I should not like to

  1889
  advocate what my hon. Friend advocated this afternoon. At the same time, I agree that proper provision must be made for widows, and I only wish that something could have been done in this Bill for the 10s. widow. Those of us who look at this matter from the ethical standpoint remember that the Bible says that not one sparrow shall fall to the ground, and 1 place the 10s. widow in that category.
  Despite what I have said in favour of the Bill, I have offered some criticisms, and I hope that I shall have the opportunity during the Committee stage to make more. All the same, I say that this Bill is bound to make many people much happier.
  6.30 p. m.
  Mr. Thomas Steele: We have had a very interesting debate. It has shown the various opinions which are held on both sides of the House, and we shall no doubt have them developed in Committee.
  The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan) made a most interesting suggestion. I hope and trust that the Minister will follow it up. A social survey such as was suggested by the hon. Member would be very worth while. The Minister may recall that the National Institute of Economic and Social Research had the job of surveying the National Health Service, and had the Guillebaud Committee not had the information provided by the Institute, its Report would not have been so worth while. If the suggestion made by the hon. Member is adopted we shall have information which will be very helpful to us.
  The hon. Member for Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) indicated that the Bill contained some minor points. It has, of course, one major Clause, Clause 5, for which the hon. Gentleman himself was responsible. We should compliment him upon his responsibility for the major part of the Bill, but the minor parts are also very important.
  It can scarcely be expected that I shall say anything new at this stage. Even the Minister has mentioned the seaman from Sierra Leone whose wife is being brought within the scope of the Bill in that she will be able to obtain family allowance.
  1890
  The main question about family allowances is why the extra 2s. should be paid only in respect of third and subsequent children. My right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) put a point on which we are entitled to an answer. If the extra 2s. is part of the Government's plan to offset the abolition of the bread subsidy and the reduction in the milk subsidy, why is it not paid in respect of the second child as well as the other children?
  There is one point about family allowances which has not been made. If the Government feel that the third child requires an extra 2s., why should not the fourth child have an increase and so on —if the Government really believe in payment on results?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps in his leisure moments the hon. Gentleman would work out for me the answer in this case: it is reported to me by my Newcastle office that there is a case in which twelve family allowances are being issued to one family.
  Mr. Steele: I should like notice of the question. We had better leave that until the Committee stage, and I have no doubt that I shall have the answer to it then.
  With other hon. Members, I welcome the payment of family allowances in the case of children remaining at school until 18 or becoming apprentices. In relation to this provision I recall my own experiences in dealing with the existing position. There was the difficulty of the mentally unfit child, and also the problem of the boy who could not become an apprentice until he reached 16. I do not know whether that problem has now been overcome or whether there are still difficulties. I was always appalled at the number of letters and forms which had to be sent to the families and to headmasters of schools to certify that the children were still at school.
  At one time I had the idea that if we increased the age to sixteen for all children irrespective of whether they were at school, we should have overcome the problem of the mentally unfit child and should have abolished all the form-filling in respect of children at school, and also all the difficulties about apprenticeships, because it is recognised in trade union circles that, broadly speaking,

  1891
  children cannot become apprentices until they are sixteen. However, the Minister has gone beyond that in relation to children at school and apprentices, and I welcome the provision.
  I also welcome— it has been generally welcomed— the provision relating to sickness and unemployment benefit, with the contribution credits accorded to widows. This is very valuable. To widows who have young children it will be an extension of the widow's allowance as a form of resettlement benefit to enable them to get back into ordinary employment. The provision of contribution credits for widows is another instance of how we are departing from the idea of an insurance principle. I can remember a very telling speech in a previous debate by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), who is now Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, indicating how far we had departed from the insurance principle. If it were necessary, this provision would be further evidence that today the benefits under our social services are no longer really related to the contributions which are made.
  I hope that the Minister will think again about taking away the umbrella represented by the provision for a widow who is incapable of supporting herself. I remember what was said when this provision was being implemented. It is true that there are a number of widows who will not be able to get a doctor's certificate and draw sickness benefit. I am also certain that there will be a number, not many, who may under the provisions of the Bill draw unemployment benefit for a short time, but they will not be suitable for employment. They will fall between two stools, being unsuitable for employment and yet being unable to draw sickness benefit because no doctor will be prepared to give them a certificate. I trust that the existing provision will be retained to act as an umbrella for these cases. I have learned in my experience of insurance that everything that one can possibly think of is bound to happen, and that such cases as these arise.
  Most of the debate has been taken up in discussing the position of widowed mothers. I want to draw attention to what the then Minister of Pensions and
  1892
  National Insurance said on 13th December in the House when he informed us that he was referring the question of widow's benefit to the National Insurance Advisory Committee. The right hon. Gentleman made this interesting statement:
  "I am not altogether happy about the age of 50, which was rather arbitrarily chosen."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 1525.]
  That statement was made in the context of the debate in which we were discussing the 10s. widow and other widows. I may be wrong in my impression, but my impression was that the Minister had the feeling that the age of 50 was too high as the age at which a woman was able to draw a pension as a right. My impression was that he thought this question should be looked at.
  I also had the feeling that he was looking at the question having in mind the possibility of abolishing the right of the 10s. widow pensioner to her entitlement and perhaps reducing the age of 50 to 45 or even 40; because it seemed that what was running in his mind was the fact that the age of 50 was too high and should be reduced. I feel that, left to himself, the then Minister of Pensions and National Insurance might have made a proposal of that kind.
  I turn to page 31, Appendix III, of the White Paper. There is one interesting figure to which I want to draw the Minister's attention. Let us look at the figure for the age group 45–49, showing the type of award following the widow's allowance— after the first thirteen weeks; and we find that that age group was the highest percentage of widows who receive nothing under the new scheme. There are 4,000 widows getting the widowed mother's allowance, and 4,600 who get no benefit under the new scheme. That is 49 per cent. of the widows, who, at the end of the period of the widow's allowance, get nothing at all under the new scheme. That is the highest figure in any group. It is also the highest number of people, in the age groups shown under 50, entitled to some benefit under the provisions for widows. It seems to me that that reinforces my plea that something ought to be done for this group of widows.
  If we are to ask those widows to go into employment we must look at what their

  1893
  chances are. My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) made an interesting suggesting that they should all get married; but I do not know what their prospects are at that stage, and it is not always easy to ensure that they will get married.
  Let us look at Appendix VI of the White Paper. Unfortunately, the divisions of age groups are not exactly the same, but if we take the age group 45–54 and consider the total number of widows who normally are gainfully employed, we find that 46 per cent. are unemployed; whereas the figure for single women unemployed is only 25 per cent. As the age groups rise, the percentage increases. It is clear from these figures that the prospects of a widow getting employment after the age of 40 are not very good.
  I have read the Committee's Report very carefully, and it seems to me that instead of having in mind the conception which the Minister had when he asked the Committee to look at this question, it has gone in the other direction, and its proposals make matters worse for some of these widows. It seems to me that there is no evidence in the Report for increasing the age from 40 to 50.
  I wonder whether the Minister can give us any further information about this point. Perhaps we might be given it in Committee. If we look at Appendix III and at the group including widows up to the age of 50, we find that there are 12,900 widows getting widowed mother's allowance. Can we be given any information about what happens afterwards? It might be interesting to know the position.
  As the Minister indicated in a reply to a question put to him, it is clear that fewer widows will get the pension, because he said that he hopes to make savings in that direction to enable him to make provision for the extra 5s. for the widowed mother. The Minister was reinforced in that by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby, who said that we must look at the provisions of the Bill as against the old provisions. I am not so sure that the new provisions are all that can be desired.
  Let us look at the position of the widow aged between 40 and 50. It is true that under the new provisions she will be able to draw either sickness benefit or unemployment benefit when her widowed
  1894
  mother's allowance ceases. If sickness benefit is paid, possibly she will get it until she is 60, if she is ill, and she will then go on to her retirement pension.
  If she gets unemployment benefit, according to the provisions of the Bill. the possibility is that she will be entitled to unemployment benefit for a period of about nineteen months. But that is not a long-term benefit. In fact, she may not get the unemployment benefit for nineteen months, because payment of the unemployment benefit is subject to conditions. The first condition is that she must be available for work, and the possibility is that she might not be. In those circumstances she would not get the unemployment benefit.
  I have looked at the example which the Minister gave. The right hon. Gentleman indicated that there might be a widow aged 45 who has a child aged 14. At the end of the application of the widowed mother's allowance provisions she would now get a pension. But if the husband lived until the wife was 49 and the child 18, she would not get a pension. The new provisions mean that when she is 45 and the husband dies, she will draw the widowed mother's allowance until the child is 18 and by then she will be 49 years old. That does not necessarily mean that she will get a pension. In fact, she will be in exactly the same position as the other widow, and no pension will be paid at all. In effect, the right hon. Gentleman has said that whereas the widows are to get off to a flying start in connection with the provisions for sickness and unemployment benefits, the widows between 40 and 50 will be "grounded" by the proposed provisions.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman would apply his mind to how, in the example I gave, one can justify the widow's chance of a permanent pension being affected adversely by the fact that in my latter example her husband lived for four years longer than in my former example. The difference between the two would be highly unfair, whereas our proposal would put them on the same basis.
  Mr. Steele: I agree that the proposal would put them on the same basis but it is the unfortunate fact that neither would get a pension.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There are alternatives.
  Mr. Steele: But any alternatives do not measure up to what is required, because we have to look at this question of what is suitable at a particular stage. What age are we to decide upon for the giving of a permanent pension for the widow? It seemed to me that the previous Minister held the view that the present permanent position at the age of 50 represented an age that was too high, and that he had in mind reducing the age. But the provision for pension after the widowed mother allowance has ceased between the age of 40 and 50 needs careful examination. I believe it would be wrong to take away the present provision.
  The extra 5s. provided for the widowed mother has been mentioned. I am happy that this new principle has been accepted. I have mentioned before that I was never happy about the position. When the Beveridge proposals were put forward there was too much emphasis on the question of equality of benefit, and it seemed to me that the widowed mother with children could not be compared with old-age pensioners. I am happy that we have got away from that principle and have adopted this new one. My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby said that 5s. is not sufficient. He believes that all the targets are too low and should be raised. My right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East thinks that the provisions are not enough,
  I have extracted some figures which I wish to quote because I think them important. In paragraph 155. the Beveridge Report states:
  "The rate of …benefit proposed is designed to be sufficient, in combination with children's allowances, to meet subsistence needs, even if the widow does not undertake any gainful occupation while she is looking after the children."
  I think, in effect, we are hoping that now we shall do even more than provide merely subsistence levels. Taking a widow with two children aged 4 and 6, the provisions under the Bill would mean that the widow would have 40s.;the first and second child would have 16s. 6d. each, which is made up of 8s. and 3s. 6d. plus 5s., making a total of 73s. The National Assistance scales provide 40s. for the widow and the first child would have 15s. 6d. The second child would have
  1896
  13s. The very important factor of the rent is taken into account, and if we take it at 10s.;total that up we get 78s. 6d. So there we have National Assistance scales which are 5s. 6d. more than would be provided under this Bill.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That calculation depends on certain assumptions on the National Assistance side of the equation as to the age of the children owing to the different child allowances at different ages.
  Mr. Steele: I agree, but the right hon. Gentleman will note that the ages of 4 and 6 which I have taken are not the best ages I might have used had I desired to make the case much more damning. I have been conservative in my estimate in that regard.
  I have examined the Explanatory Memorandum issued before the National Assistance scales were increased on the last occasion, and I will take the example given there which I think is fair enough. It is that of a married couple with three children aged 12, 8 and 3— one in each age group. If the woman was widowed she would be entitled to £ 4 9s. 6d. under the Bill but under the National Assistance scales as outlined and the example used in that Memorandum she would be entitled to £4 19s., which would mean in effect that she would still be entitled to an Assistance grant of 9s. 6d.
  I appreciate and welcome the new principle which has been adopted, but there are certain grounds for criticism and room for discussion during the Committee stage about whether the amounts are right. No doubt Amendments will be moved.
  There is another Bill to be considered after this one, and I have no intention of taking up further the time of hon. Members. I agree with the main provisions of this Bill. We welcome its introduction. No doubt we shall find reason to discuss it in Committee and put forward Amendments, but we have no intention of opposing the Measure tonight.
  7.0 p. m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Edith Pitt): There have been so many comments this afternoon on this Bill which need an answer that I hope that hon. Members will accept that I will do my best to answer what I think are the major questions. The

  1897
  remainder we can perhaps deal with on the Committee stage of the Bill, because we on this side of the House are equally anxious to have adequate time to deal with the Bill.
  The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) welcomed the provisions of the Bill as far as they go. That in fact seems to have been the pattern of the majority of the speeches from the benches opposite. The right hon. Member queried the 2s. increase in family allowances for the third and subsequent children, and asked whether that was some compensation for the removal of subsidies. He referred also to the rise in food prices in 1955. The last thing I want to do is to disturb the harmony which has existed throughout the debate so far. This is not a controversial subject, but I think I should perhaps point out that family allowances were only 5s. per head when the party of the right hon. Member was in power. They were still 5s. when the party left office in 1951.
  The right hon. Member went on to ask why we could not make this increase for the second child. That point has been repeated several times. I would say in answer that the increase is an increase for the family. The money which is paid additionally for the third and subsequent children goes into the family exchequer and, I have no doubt, will be spent to meet the whole of the family requirements.
  The right hon. Member again stressed the difficulty which the widowed mother will encounter in entering the labour market, a point which was raised subsequently by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) and the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele). I think that I cannot do better than to refer to the specific wording of the Report (Cmd. 9684) which is very clear on the subject. The members of the National Insurance Advisory Committee, to whom tribute has been rightly paid as responsible individuals, said in paragraph 48:
  "We think that women who are widowed even in the late forties, or who have reached this age when widowed mother's allowance is no longer payable, ought in general to be able to find employment within that period. We have reached this conclusion after considering statistics, some of which were specially obtained for us, as to the occupational position of widows and the volume of unemployment amongst them."
  1898
  The Committee made a reservation:
  "We wish to emphasise, however, that our conclusion relates to present employment conditions: if large scale unemployment were to occur the qualifying age for widow's pension might have to he reconsidered."
  I think that in general that is the answer to the concern expressed today about the position of widows in their forties entering the employment field.
  The right hon. Member made reference again to National Assistance, and the fact that the numbers had risen, as was shown in the Answer which my right hon. Friend gave to him when he asked a Parliamentary Question. It is true that the numbers had gone up in the figures he quoted, but I think it is always a little invidious to quote just one example. If the right hon. Member had been able to go back a little further than the three months to which he referred he would I have found that the total number of people drawing National Assistance has dropped by nearly 200,000 since the year 1954 and early 1955. So there has been a considerable reduction in the number of individuals and families drawing National Assistance, although the right hon. Member referred specifically to the quarter at the beginning of this year.
  Mr. Marquand: The hon. Lady will understand that I asked that Question particularly to ascertain what had happened since the scale rates had been increased. Surely a comparison with the past is almost irrelevant to our present discussion. We have to discover how many are drawing Assistance on the present scale rates.
  Miss Pitt: What is really relevant, surely, is how many people in the population are having to seek National Assistance in order to supplement their income, whatever may be the source. The general tendency has fallen considerably over the past eighteen months.
  Mr. Marquand: Will the hon. Lady arrange, without the necessity of my putting a Question on the Order Paper, to get the up-to-date figures before the Committee stage of the Bill?
  Miss Pitt: Yes, indeed. The right hon. Member was unlucky in that the Question was not reached in time for an Oral Answer. We have more up-to-date information.

  1899
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) mentioned the question of deprived children, and in particular unco-operative parents who sometimes do not make the necessary contribution when their children are taken into care. I will refer to this matter only briefly, but I express to my hon. Friend my sympathy on the point that he has in mind. For eight years I served on the Children's Committee in Birmingham and I know the problems of dealing with deprived children. I am particularly glad that in this Bill we make a modest improvement, in my opinion, on the methods that are now being used in order to try to return those children to their parents and their own families.
  The hon. Member for Itchen stressed that we are not yet fully alive to the hardship of the widowed mother. Perhaps there is a large measure of truth in that. The widowed mother does not belong to any organised body and we do not get constant protests here or elsewhere made on behalf of these women. I am very glad that all hon. Members today find themselves so much in agreement with the need to give special care and attention to the widowed mother because of her responsibilities in bringing up a family.
  I should like also to thank the hon. Member for Itchen for his tribute to the Ministry. I liked especially the phrase he used when he said that it was "much loved." I think that all the officers of our Ministry will very much appreciate the fact that, whereas so often, I am afraid, civil servants are spoken of in less polite terms, the hon. Member has been most generous—and rightly so—in commending the work which they do.
  The hon. Member also said that he wished the Press would talk about normal families instead of abnormal ones. How I agree with the hon. Member. I remember him making the same point in an Adournment debate some time ago, when he said that the mother who murdered her child made news, but the mother who looked after her child never hit the newspaper headlines. Nevertheless, it is the good mother, the widowed mother, who looks after her children, makes a home for them and works and fights for them, with whom we are concerned today. Whether she makes news-
  1900
  paper headlines or not, it is a matter of conscience with all of us to help her as much as possible.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) asked if we could help him to explain to the 10s. widows the apparent difference of treatment in their case. We came across the question of the 10s. widow again in the speech of the hon. Member for Sowerby, (Mr. Houghton) who, much to my surprise, is an advocate of the 10s. widow. I shall have something to say on that subject a little later, so I shall content myself now by saying that the hon. Member always takes such a responsible view, and is so broad in his outlook on all welfare matters, that I am genuinely surprised to find him coming down in support of the 10s. widow.
  Mr. Houghton: Will the hon. Lady permit me to say that I pressed the case of the 10s. widow when my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) was Minister a long time ago? I have been consistent. I may be misguided, but that is how it is.
  Miss Pitt: The hon. Member is at least consistent in his affection, which is a very commendable trait.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Barry made one point which I should like to emphasise. It was apropos of the comment that 10s. is all too little to compensate for the removal of bread and milk subsidies. He said, very sensibly, that in the majority of cases, families welcome and enjoy the benefit of wage increases which will provide compensation for those changes.
  I come again to the remarks of the hon. Member for Sowerby, apart from his observations on the 10s. widow, I should again like to thank him for his tribute to Lord Ingleby, the former Minister. I hope that Lord Ingleby will read the comments and the tributes which have been accorded to him today. The hon. Member for Sowerby said that he is an advocate of family allowance for the first child, so he seems to be somewhat of a rebel in many matters. I do not think that there is time to pursue that argument, an argument which has been pursued here over and over again.
  He referred to the 10s. widow in, I think, these terms "Some people argue

  1901
  she should never have had a right to this 10s. pension". I should like to deal with that more fully, but in fact 1 think that it is still questionable whether the right action was taken in 1948.
  The hon. Member for Sowerby also said that we should do all we can to encourage widows to go out to work. I find myself in agreement with that view. I think that any woman who has the ability and the will to go out to work —and who can make proper arrangements for her children—should be encouraged to live in the wider world outside. I am quite sure that life is much more interesting when she can shut the front door of her house behind her and make contact with other people. She has lost much by losing her husband, but there are compensations if she can take a job outside— again, provided that her children are cared for.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan) came back to the question of work, and I hope that I have answered that question. He also very sensibly made the point that one cannot generalise. The position of every woman will be different— whether she is able to work, whether work is available, etc. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West raised again the question of why the 2s. should not be payable for the second child.
  Dame Irene Ward: Before my hon. Friend finishes her observations on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate, can she say what she has in mind about his proposal for a general survey, which all of us think very important, to get full information on certain points?
  Miss Pitt: I have had a word with my right hon. Friend, and we are prepared to look at that.
  The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West said that we were getting further away from insurance principles with the new recommendations to give widows a flying start for sickness and unemployment benefit. I would remind him, however, that a necessary preliminary to the flying start is that the husband should have been an insured person and that contributions should have been paid for him. The link with the contributory insurance principle is still there.
  1902
  The hon. Gentleman also referred— and here I should like to correct him if he will allow me— to Appendix VI of the N. I. A. C. Report, and drew our attention to the difference between the proportion of widows and the proportion of single women employed and unemployed—as he said. In fact, what the table shows is the number of women occupied and unoccupied. I can conceive that there must be a variety of reasons why women, single, widowed or married, should be occupied in their homes or looking after families and not necessarily unemployed. I hope that I have made that clear.
  The main purpose of this Bill is quite clear and has been dealt with at some length, so I do not want to take up further time on it. We are about to effect improvements in family allowances, especially for those families with a large number of children. This Measure will improve the position of widows, especially of widowed mothers, and the opportunity has been taken to close certain gaps which experience has shown to exist in National Insurance. The increase in family allowances is the biggest item because it is obviously the most widespread and, as my right hon. Friend has already reminded us, it is the most expensive.
  I want to stress that family allowance is a family benefit, as the name implies, and is intended to assist all families, irrespective of income. Earnings are not related to the number of children in the family. We are all well aware, that the greatest expense is when children are young, and usually there is only one wage packet coming in. That surely— if need arises— confirms the merit of family allowances.
  I am sometimes surprised that the comment should be made to me— and it has been made again, arising out of these proposals— that family allowances are not warranted. The same comment must have been made to all hon. Members at times. There are always those who say that the parents should be able to manage. There are, I am sorry to say, the older people who comment "We managed without them." There are always those prepared to say that the money is wasted on drink, or smoking, cosmetics, or things like that. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the pools."] Yes, and the pools.
  I can only say that I believe that family allowances make a very valuable contribu-

  1903
  tion to the maintenance of family life in this country. For every case we hear of where an abuse takes place—and, of course, we all hear of the occasional one —there are the thousands more who never attract the Press headlines, families where the money is used wisely and where the children benefit. I have one brief answer myself— but there are thousands of people like me throughout the country who could make the same answer— when anyone questions the merit of family allowances. I reply "My mother had six children and very little to manage on. I wish she had had the benefit of family allowances."
  The benefits of family allowances can be seen in the improved physique and increased height of the children. I have no wish to elaborate that or I might be thought to be making a political point. In fact, both parties have claimed "Look at the bonny children ", and it is true. Something which pleases me very much, and which has not been referred to in this debate, is the fact that when boys and girls leave school now at the age of 15 they are no longer boys and girls. They are not quite so adult as they think they are, but they are young men and women.
  They are not children— and sometimes frightened children— going out to earn their living for the first time. They are sufficiently mature and strong in body to be able to face the tremendous change in their lives from being school children to being workers in factories or in shops. I am not pretending for one moment that family allowances deserve the whole credit for that. They do not. In part the reason lies in the increased school age, increased social services and in scientific advances. Nevertheless, it is a very big improvement, and one which I am particularly happy to note.
  The increase will also help parents who are prepared, very often at great sacrifice, to maintain their children at school or to apprentice their boy—not very often their girl, I am sorry to say—to a good trade, knowing full well that these benefits will help their children later in life. The extension of the family allowance to the age of 18 is a modest measure of practical assistance to such parents but, much more important, it is a measure of encouragement.
  1904
  The increase to the sixteenth birthday for the physically and mentally handicapped child closes one of the gaps to which I have referred. I am glad that that has been done. Most hon. Members will be aware that after the age of 16, now that the gap is about to be closed, the handicapped child qualifies for National Assistance at the rate of 23s. 6d. a week.
  In respect of widows, the most important recommendation is the 5s. increase in benefit for each child. Since the point has been made several times today that this is not thought to be adequate, I would refer to the article in The Times which the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East mentioned in his speech. In fact, he commended it. That article, referring to the 5s. increase, says:
  "These new rates really reach subsistence standard" —
  That is for children. I will be fair and quote the remainder of the sentence —
  " though the widow's own pension still falls short."
  Here, from an article which has been commended to us, is confirmation that the 5s. increase is a generous improvement in the position of the widowed mother with children to care for.
  The Government are in agreement with the Advisory Committee on the social importance of providing for mothers with adolescent children. All of us have sympathy and respect for the widowed mother in the job that she is doing in caring for her children, although I am sure that the women concerned would like a little more tangible expression than our sympathy and respect. We are now giving it in this practical way.
  I should like also to point out, on the question whether 5s. is a sufficient increase or not, that it is a considerable improvement on what has been done before. My right hon. Friend, in his opening speech, reminded us of part of that. I should like to give the whole of the comparison with 1948. The 5s. increased benefit for the first child is more than double the amount paid for the first child in 1948, and for the second child the total payment in benefit and family allowance is over three times the 1948 allowance. For other children, with increased family allowance, the benefit now is nearly four times

  1905
  the 1948 figure. I think that is the answer to the criticism that has been made.
  Mr. Steele: These are very interesting comparisons, but the hon. Lady will recall that a certain right hon. Gentleman who was then in opposition said that we ought not to have brought in family allowances at all.
  Miss Pitt: Perhaps I might remind the hon. Gentleman that the Family Allowances Act became law in June, 1945, under the Caretaker Government. I know that the allowances were not paid until the following August, but in fact the Caretaker Government passed that Measure.
  Mr. Steele: I am not taking any credit for our party for the passing of that Act. The hon. Lady was saying how much better off these people are now compared with 1948. I was only saying that when the order was given for the family allowances to be paid, it was criticised by the Opposition of that day.
  Miss Pitt: I think we are both entitled to feel that we have made our points.
  I want to comment on an item in Clause 2 which curiously has not so far called forth any comment today. That is the reduction in the period of marriage necessary before widow's benefit can be paid. When this Bill becomes law, widows will be able to qualify for pensions, subject to the other conditions, if their marriage has lasted for three years or longer, instead of ten years, as now. I think that that is an important step forward in caring for the widow, and I should like to make quite clear that it will apply retrospectively to the widow who has not been entitled to benefit on that count up to now — although, of course, I do not mean a retrospective cash payment. I think it necessary to make that clear. The payment will, in fact, be made from the appointed day.
  I have already dealt with Clause 5. which refers to the child committed to the care of the local authority, and who may be returned to the parents for a trial period. I am very glad that that provision has been introduced, for the reasons that I gave earlier.
  May I refer to the 10s. widow, since she has intruded upon our debate today. I think it necessary to attempt to answer
  1906
  some of the points which have been made. The 10s. widow, so called—and I think it is an awful title—has rights preserved from the pre-1948 Acts. Many of the widows who were incapacitated or had children were transferred at once, and those over 50 could qualify for the retirement pension at 60 on specially easy terms. Of the original 450,000, only about 80,000 still remain under 60 and are drawing 10s. But in addition, 65,000 of the 10s. widows' pensions have been awarded since July, 1948, because the pensions were continued.
  Mrs. Jean Mann: Can the hon. Lady say how many widows verging on 60—between 55 and 60—are getting only 10s.?
  Miss Pitt: I do not think I can answer that question offhand, but I promise that I will let the hon. Lady have that information before we reach the Committee stage. In fact, I have just given part of the answer when I said that about 80,000 from the pre-1948 days are still under 60. There are, however, a number under 60 who have come in since because of their reserved rights under the pre-1948 contributory pension schemes.

  I want to refer to various points which have been made on the subject of the 10s. widow. In the Committee stage on the National Insurance Bill in 1954, the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) said:
  "I do not think we could take away from the widow any money she is receiving; but it would be reasonable to say that in future we are not going to pay the 10s. pension to young widows"
  Similarly, the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West said, on the subject
  of the 10s. widow:
  "At that time "—
  that is, in 1948—
  "we thought that we were conferring a benefit on that widow, but it seems to me that we did the very opposite."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 1535 and 1532]
  The result of continuing the benefit means that we still have widows receiving the 10s. pension —childless widows in their twenties and thirties.
  Mrs. Mann: We also have them between 55 and 60, and on both sides of the House that is regarded as a standing disgrace.
  Miss Pitt: But surely the hon. Lady will agree that it is not necessary that the childless widow still in her twenties and thirties should enjoy the 10s. benefit when her opposite number, who has been widowed since 1948 and whose husband was not in the old contributory pensions scheme, gets nothing.
  We ought to limit the amount of money which is available to those widows most in need. The 10s. widow is privileged compared with those whose husbands were not in the 1948 scheme because, for instance, they were too old or were not married before July, 1948, and got no pensions under the National Insurance Scheme. In the Government's opinion, it would be wrong further to increase this differentiation at the expense of the Insurance Fund. I would remind hon. Members that no contributions have been paid towards the 10s. pension since 1948.
  The Advisory Committee Report shows no general hardship amongst these widows. About three-quarters of them are in regular employment. The proportion drawing Assistance is lower than in any class of beneficiary under National Insurance. It is only 12½ per cent., compared with 28 per cent. of widowed mothers and 23½ per cent. of retirement pensioners. When a number of them have been re-established in Insurance, as will be the case when this Bill goes through, and with the reduction in the marriage period from ten to three years for those over 50, we shall have dealt with the hardest cases amongst the 10s. widows.
  I always think of the social services as a net to help people who fall by the wayside or fall into trouble. This Bill endeavours to strengthen the net in certain respects where it has been shown to be weak, or where, in certain respects, it did not provide any cover for a minority of people in the population who needed it. I am very glad that we are today giving a Second Reading to a Bill which, I am quite sure, will add to something which is the strength of our country, namely our family life.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

  FAMILY ALLOWANCES AND NATIONAL INSURANCE [MONEY]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees) — [Queen's Recommendation signified.]
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
  Motion made, and Question proposed.
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the rate of certain allowances under the Family Allowances Acts, 1945 and 1952, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament"—

  A. of any increase in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under section one of the Family Allowances Act, 1945, which is attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session—

  (a) increasing by two shillings the weekly rate of the allowance payable in respect of each child of a family other than the two eldest;

  (b) providing that a person shall be treated as a child for the purposes of the said Act of 1945 during any period before he or she attains the age of eighteen years whilst he or she is undergoing full-time instruction in a school or is an apprentice or during any period whilst he or she is under the age of sixteen years and is incapacitated by illness or disability of mind or body both for attendance at a school and for employment;

  (c) validating certain marriages for the purposes of family allowances;

  (d) making provision with respect to reciprocal arrangements with other countries in connection with family allowances;

  (e) authorising a person who has been committed by an order of any court under the Children and Young Persons Act. 1933, or the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937, to the care of a local authority to be treated in certain circumstances as included in a family for the purposes of family allowances;

  B. of any increase attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under section twenty of the Family Allowances Act, 1945, subsection (1) of section sixty of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946, or subsection (1) of section thirty-eight —of the National Insurance Act, 1946.—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

  7.33 p. m.
  Mr. H. A. Marquand: I do not wish to delay the Committee, but I would like to make a remark or two about one passage in the Money

  1909
  Resolution now before us, where provision is made for
  "increasing by two shillings the weekly rate of the allowance payable in respect of each child of a family other than the two eldest"
  Being so very narrowly drawn, that provision confines us entirely within the ambit of the Bill; we could not, under this Resolution, move to increase the 2s. or to pay the allowance, as we would like to do, for the second child as well as the third.
  I do not think the Minister will disagree with that interpretation. I only want to make it clear, because it is sometimes misunderstood outside this Committee. We maintain the attitude we expressed on Second Reading, but it will unfortunately not be possible for us to move appropriate Amendments in Committee.
  Dr. Horace King: Can the Minister give us any assurance that we shall, under the terms of this Money Resolution, have an opportunity of discussing in Committee some of the points we raised during the Second Reading debate.
  The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): It is not, of course, for me to give any ruling as to what may or may not be in order at various stages of the Bill. So far as the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middles-
  1910
  brough, East (Mr. Marquand) is concerned, my first impression leads me to agree with him, though I say that with due respect to the Chair, which must make the rulings on these subjects.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Itchen (Dr. King) raises a more general question, and I am not myself clear which particular provisions he has in mind. This Money Resolution operates mainly in respect of that part of the Bill which deals with the charge on the Exchequer, in respect of which, of course, a Money Resolution is necessary, otherwise, under the Standing Orders, the Standing Committee would not be able to take those Clauses which impose a charge on the Exchequer. It is necessary, therefore, for those Clauses to be covered. As one can see from the framing of it, the Money Resolution is not designed, except in respect of certain limiting matters, to deal with what I might call the National Insurance side, though it has to deal with the charge in the first place, even where the Exchequer will be reimbursed from the Fund, and with the administrative expenses.
  Certainly, so far as the generality of the matter is concerned, I should have thought—subject again to the fact that it is not for me—that we should not be involved in any difficulties.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported upon Thursday.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION 15 MAY 1956 AND BENEFIT (SUPPLEMENTATION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7.38 p. m.
  The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The object of this small but, I am afraid, inevitably rather complicated Bill is to give a certain degree of relief to—so far as can be calculated—about 13,000 or 14,000 recipients of workmen's compensation payments, and to provide for that relief by imposing a charge upon the Industrial Injuries Fund.
  I am afraid the appearance of this Bill confirms the truth of the old Scriptural reference to the difficulty of putting new wine into old bottles— an analogy which at this hour is perhaps not inappropriate. The difficulty is, of course, that we are dealing with two totally different systems, and we are seeking to supplement payments under the one by imposing a charge on the other. The difficulty which arises from a technical point of view and accounts for the Bill's shape is that, after all, workmen's compensation ended, so far as new cases are concerned, with the coming into force of the Industrial Injuries Act on 5th July, 1948, and that the scheme introduced under the Industrial Injuries Act was completely different in its whole scope and basis from that previously existing under workmen's compensation.
  If I may put it like this, workmen's compensation was, in essence, a claim by a workman against an employer— in practice, often against the insurance company, but in form against the employer— and it was assessed very largely on the basis of loss of earnings which resulted from the injury. Industrial injuries are now dealt with under the schemes of social security out of the Industrial Injuries Fund, and they are assessed on the totally different basis of loss of faculty and amenity, with only comparatively secondary provisions taking into account the loss of earnings.
  The task of dealing with this matter and providing for the supplementation of
  1912
  what are sometimes called the old workmen's compensation cases out of the Industrial Injuries Fund has been a considerable one. I would suggest that there is no doubt that we ought to take action in this matter. After all, the date of the accident has, in general, determined whether a man receives his compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Acts or his benefit under the Industrial Injuries Act.
  As time has gone on, the amounts payable under the one scheme, certainly in cases of total incapacity, have diverged substantially from those payable under the other. There has been felt to be therefore— I think the feeling has been pretty general— some considerable element of hardship, at any rate in the case of certain of these old workmen's compensation cases, because the payment these men receive is now out of line with what would be received by a man similarly injured since the Industrial Injuries Act came into effect.
  I stress that, because I will probably carry the House with me in saying that we ought not to put on the Industrial Injuries Fund— that is to say the contributors to that Fund— a charge in respect of an injury not within the scope of that Fund, except where we are really satisfied that some real hardship or real injustice arises. In other words, we ought not to do this merely to obtain exact symmetry or equality, but only where there is a point of substance
  It seemed to the Government in respect of the 13,000 or 14,000 cases of total incapacity that the figures have' now diverged so widely as to amount to some such degree of hardship or injustice. It is, however, true that when we get to the wider sphere of partial disability there are cases where the man is better off under the old scheme than under the new. That is true in the case of the partially disabled on the below-maximum rate. It is also possible within the scheme itself to secure some review of the arrangements, but neither of those arises in the case of total incapacity.
  The figures are important. Under the present rates payable to the old workmen's compensation cases the maximum or total rate is 40s. for a single man, 50s. for a married man with pre-accident wife, and 55s. for a married man with

  1913
  pre-accident wife and child. Even when allowance is made for the fact that under earlier legislation in appropriate cases unemployability supplement and constant attendance allowances under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946, can be paid in these workmen's compensation cases, there is still an unfavourable contrast with the full rate of industrial injury benefit at 67s. 6d. a week.
  The Bill proposes to pay out of the Industrial Injuries Fund a supplement at the rate of 17s. 6d. per week to these total incapacity cases. This will have the effect, as hon. Members will appreciate, of raising the total receipt— supplement plus workmen's compensation— to 57s. 6d. per week for a single man, to 67s. 6d. for a married man with a pre-accident wife, and to 72s. 6d. for a married man with pre-accident wife and child.
  In the course of discussions which I have undertaken in connection with the Bill, I carefully considered the possibility of doing this in another way and simply bringing up the three workmen's compensation rates, 40s., 50s., 55s., to the current industrial injuries rate of 67s. 6d., but after looking at it, I felt that that was the wrong way to proceed. I am bound to admit that I was influenced by the principle, which I have just indicated, that we should not put this charge on the Industrial Injuries Fund, except on a basis of real need and real injustice. If we did it that way, we would put the biggest charge on the Industrial Injuries Fund in the direction where the need is least, that of the single man, and the smallest supplement where the need is greatest, the case of the married man with a child.
  It is perfectly true that doing it this way, with a flat supplement of 17s. 6d., we provide that the workmen's compensation case where there is a wife and child will receive in all 5s. more than the Industrial Injuries maximum rate— 72s. 6d. as against 67s. 6d. On the other hand, in the course of nature there are comparatively few of these cases, since such a case must have arisen before July, 1948. It seemed to us that the apparent anomaly was preferable to using the Industrial Injuries Fund to give a bigger supplement where the need was least and a smaller supplement where the need was clearly greater.
  1914
  The object of the Bill, as I have indicated, is to deal with cases of total incapacity. Clause is designed to give a definition appropriate to the different scheme under which the workmen's compensation is paid. Clause 1 (1) (a) deals with what I may call the ordinary workmen's compensation case, that is of an injury or disease other than pneumoconiosis or byssinosis. It has not proved possible on examination simply to take the classification under the old workmen's compensation Acts. The reason, as the House will appreciate, is that in many of these cases, cases of partial incapacity were in fact paid at the maximum rate, because the loss of earnings was sufficient to enable that to be done.
  In most cases, there was no reason for the man or his employer to go through the procedure of the Workmen's Compensation Acts in order to change his category to that of total incapacity. If, therefore, we were to take only the classification of total incapacity under the old Acts, we should in fact be ruling out a certain number of cases classified as partially disabled under the old Acts and never amended, because there was no reason for either party in those days to seek an amended classification, but which would now be deprived of the supplement.
  We have therefore sought to introduce the test which we suggest in Clause
  1 (1) (a), that is:

  ".…incapable of work and likely to remain so incapable for a prolonged period."
  Perhaps I should say a word about that phrase, which will be familiar to some hon. Members opposite. It is already familiar to the industrial injuries world and has been ruled by the Commissioner to mean approximately six months. It is probably better to use some such expression as that than to name a precise period. If one names a precise period, the adjudicating authorities will be compelled to rule out any case which comes perhaps one day below the precise period. If one provides the sort of period one has in mind indirectly by the use of an expression such as "for a prolonged period," one gets a little more flexibility, but this is just the kind of matter on which it will be very interesting to hear the views of hon. Members, and I know that several hon. Members have a great deal of experience in this subject.

  1915
  No such difficulty arises in pneumoconiosis and byssinosis cases. Pneumoconiosis cases have a classification, which one can accept, of total incapacity, and at the time of the Workmen's Compensation Acts compensation was awarded for byssinosis only in cases of total incapacity. Finally, in Clause 1 (3) we have made some provision to deal with the case where total incapacity results from two or more industrial accidents, where neither of them has by itself caused the total incapacity but the two together have.
  Clause 2 provides for the supplement of 17s. 6d. for cases defined by Clause 1, and the rest of the Bill largely amounts to machinery. As the House will see, we are seeking to use for the administration of the Bill the machinery of the Industrial Injuries system as far as we can. That is a system which is now familiar, not only to my Department and most of the beneficiaries concerned, but also to the trade union movement. It probably provides the best available machinery for administering the supplement. For example, in that way we can use the medical advice which is available under the Industrial Injuries system, although I very much hope that in the large majority of cases it will not be necessary to resort to it. Broadly speaking, these cases will be able to be handled, as under the Industrial Injuries scheme, by the decision of the insurance officer, with appeal, if necessary, to a tribunal and the Commissioner.
  As some hon. Members will know, this matter has been discussed for some length of time. The discussions were initiated by my noble Friend, Lord Ingleby, to whom reference was properly made on the Family Allowances and National Insurance Bill. I can tell the House that I know from my own experience how much attention and care the noble Lord gave to this matter. It was, it so happens, the first matter which he and I discussed when I took over from him in my present office shortly before Christmas. I would express gratitude, too, to the Members of this House who have experience of this matter and have given us considerable assistance, and also to the Trades Union Congress, which has given us excellent and helpful advice on what, though comparatively small, is, as the scope of my speech may already perhaps have proved
  1916
  only too clearly, a somewhat complex matter.
  However, the broad purpose is, I think, clear, and will I hope prove acceptable; it is that we should use the Industrial Injuries Fund in order to provide a supplement to those 13,000 or 14,000 men who because, and only because, they draw their support from a workmen's compensation system which was superseded in 1948 have found that the money that they draw from that is not only insufficient for their needs but is out of line with what is drawn by their friends and colleagues who may have suffered an industrial accident a year or two later and, therefore, receive benefit under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act. Some of those men, I think, have suffered and are suffering a considerable degree of hardship which we are anxious to relieve.
  I cannot, of course, say precisely when it will be possible to do that, because that must depend on the Parliamentary progress of the Bill. I should be rash at this stage, on Second Reading, to give any date for bringing it into effect, but I can assure the House that as soon as reasonably practical after the Bill becomes law I shall take the necessary steps to name the appointed day, as provided in the Bill, to bring it into law, because I am aware—I will repeat this—I am aware, of the very real feeling that exists in many quarters that it is full time something was done to help those men. It is because I believe that this Bill does that, that I move its Second Reading.
  7.52 p.m.
  Mr. Bernard Taylor: I would first express my sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in having two Bills on their hands in one day; and I know from experience that they must have been giving much thought to the two Measures for some time before today. The right hon. Gentleman was quite right in what he said about the differences between the systems of the workmen's compensation and the new Industrial Injuries benefit and the difference between the pre-accident and post-accident earnings in the one case and of loss of faculty and so on under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act. We are not going into that question tonight or the right or the wrong of either system, but my

  1917
  views about that have been expressed in the House before, as have those of other hon. Members.
  The right hon. Gentleman said, in dealing with the old workmen's compensation cases, that this putting of the financial onus on to the Industrial Injuries Fund does not itself constitute a precedent. I think that that should be borne in mind. Pre-1924 cases were dealt with in that way, and the pneumoconiotic cases were dealt with in that way. No other way has been found to bring additional benefit to these old cases, as they are called, and I have some regrets for this reason, that the employers, whose liability it was before 1948 to carry the burden for the payment of compensation, have up to now completely escaped their liability. The right hon. Gentleman made mention of his predecessor, now Lord Ingleby, and I am glad to know from the statement which he made as recently as 1952 that there has been a change of heart in him, and that something is to be done, as the existence of the Bill indicates, for the old workmen's compensation cases.
  We on this side of the House welcome the Bill very much. We are exceedingly pleased that the results of the discussions which the right hon. Gentleman has had with the Trades Union Congress are now embodied in legislative form. Moreover, I and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends appreciate very much indeed that the Minister has made it possible for the Bill to come before us for Second Reading not only in this Session but on this day. I would assure him that we are indeed very anxious to co-operate in giving a speedy passage to this Measure so that the appointed day for the payment of this benefit shall not he long delayed
  Since 1948 the old cases, as they are called, have constituted a thorny and very pressing problem. Not only has the right hon. Gentleman had representations made to him but all his predecessors had representations made to them by the Trades Union Congress. Many attempts have been made during the past eight years to find a satisfactory solution of the problem of the old cases, not only the totally disabled but the partially disabled cases as well.
  It is proper to place on record that this matter has been very much in the minds of my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side of the House. In 1953 my hon.
  1918
  Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies) introduced a Private Member's Bill to deal with them, and in 1955 so did my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), and in this Session my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Deer) introduced another. The aim and purpose of those three Private Members' Bills was to increase the workmen's compensation benefit not only of the totally disabled but of the partially disabled as well.
  The right hon. Gentleman will be aware, I know, of what has taken place, but in discussing a Bill like this it is as well to remind ourselves. All the benefits, with one exception, under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act have, I am pleased to say, been considerably increased— except the benefit to the industrial widow under the age of 50. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider that matter in his quieter moments.
  What is the position today? As the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, the difference between the 100 per cent. totally disabled under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act and the single man under workmen's compensation is 27s. 6d. a week; between him and the married man it is 17s. 6d; and between him and the married man with one child it is 12s. 6d. The proposal in this Bill will go most of the way—leaving out the single man for the moment—to bridge the gap of difference between the Industrial Injury benefit and the workmen's compensation benefit.
  Surely, however, it is not surprising, that difference having existed, that the men who were disabled in the pre-war years and during the war have been referred to in this House and outside this House as the forgotten men of the industrial world? The last increase they had was in 1943, when the maximum compensation was raised from 30s. to 40s. for the single man, to 50s. for the married and to 55s. for the married man with one child.
  I should be guilty if I concealed my true feelings about the Bill. They are mixed feelings. I sincerely welcome the Bill. I am very pleased about what it does. I frankly confess that at the same time I am disappointed that it is not more comprehensive so as to include the partially injured. I had hoped that even

  1919
  if the complicated problem of the partially disabled had not been finally resolved— and I hope that we are very much further on the road to a solution than we were eight years ago when my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) introduced the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act— the proposal put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark would have been incorporated, if only to ensure a token payment.
  Let us consider the size of the problem. It is true that 45,000 cases are in receipt of weekly compensation payments, but the numbers of the old cases were made up of three types, the totally disabled, the partially disabled and what we called the latent cases. Whilst we have fairly accurate figures for the totally disabled and partially disabled, namely 45,000. my estimate is that if the latent cases are included there must be about 70,000 altogether. The Minister said that the Bill would affect 13,000 or 14,000. Therefore, in relation to the global total the Bill touches only the fringe of the problem.
  Those of us who come from the mining areas feel this problem very keenly, because out of the 13,000 totally disabled to whom the Minister referred, 6,000 are to be found in the coal mining areas. I have mentioned the size of the problem to indicate that the Bill deals with only one in every five or six cases.
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not think that the proposals in the Bill are the final solution and that he has reached the end of the road. I trust that he will continue his negotiations with that very helpful and responsible body in this sphere, the Trades Union Congress, so that a solution can be found to the whole of the problem and the sense of injustice under which the partially disabled are suffering be removed.

  I want to refer to the very words to which the Minister referred. We seem to have mutual feelings on the point. They are the words of Clause 1 (1, a) —
  "… incapable of work and likely to remain so incapable for a prolonged period."
  I give as an illustration of the problem to which I should like to refer a case which I know personally and which I believe to be typical of many.
  1920
  Twenty years ago a man lost his leg in an accident in one of our local pits. He received compensation and then resumed work for a time. He had partial compensation and eventually his post-accident earnings began to increase and he finally became a latent case. A few months ago he had to go into hospital for treatment of the stump. He immediately became entitled to total disablement benefit under the Workmen's Compensation Acts. He is still in hospital. If he goes to work again in three months' time will he, having been totally disabled for three months as a result of an accident twenty years ago, nevertheless be deprived of supplement under this Bill?
  As I see the position, three conditions must be fulfilled, namely, entitlement to weekly payments, being incapable of work, and the likelihood of remaining incapable of work for a long period. I submit that the third condition is unnecessary and could prove very difficult in a case of the type that I have just quoted. I hope that the Minister will think about this point between now and the Committee stage. I suggest that these words might be excluded, otherwise hardship might be inflicted in certain types of cases.
  I suggest further to the Minister that Clause 3 (1, c) relating to medical examination is unnecessary. Certification by the employer's doctor or by a medical referee under the Workmen's Compensation Acts or by both entitles a man to payment of compensation under the Acts. I suggest that that certification is really all that is necessary for the payment of supplementation under the Bill.
  The employer has certain rights under the Workmen's Compensation Acts. He can ask a man to undergo examination. If the employer's doctor says that the man is unfit the man is paid, but if the employer's doctor disagrees a ten days' statutory notice is served and the man can apply to go before a medical referee, with whom the decision rests. In the light of those circumstances, it would be a mistake to make a further medical examination a condition of the payment of supplementation. I hope that the Minister will look at that point again.
  It would be rather anomalous if the employer's doctor or the medical referee said that the man was totally disabled and he received weekly compensation

  1921
  payments under the Workmen's Compensation Acts while, for the purposes of this Bill, he would not be regarded as totally disabled and would not receive the supplementation. If, however, the principle of medical examination is retained, who will conduct the medical examination? Will the medical boards under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act be responsible—for in that case there must be more than one doctor—or will it be the responsibility of doctors now employed for National Insurance purposes? Examination for those purposes requires only one doctor.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It may save time if I remind the hon. Gentleman that in these matters we are intending to use the Industrial Injuries machinery.
  Mr. Taylor: So there will be two doctors and not one, as constituted under the Industrial Injuries Act. I hope that the Minister will look at this point in this type of case in view of the fact that total disablement payment to the workman's compensation is only paid on the basis of medical certification.
  Mr. J. T. Price: 1 know that my hon. Friend is trying to deal with a very complex question in the shortest possible time, but title to benefit derives also from an award by a county court judge where medical evidence is in dispute, or from a recorded agreement under Section 12 of the Workmen's Compensation Acts.
  Mr. Taylor: I fully accept that, but I was trying to take the general run of cases in which it is for the medical referee to decide if there is a dispute between the parties.
  Finally, on administration, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman where this benefit wil be paid? The present position, of course, is that it is paid at the employer's premises. Will it be paid there with the total disablement payment or will it be paid through the Post Office by postal draft, as is disablement benefit for industrial injuries?
  With the reservations which I have mentioned, I am hoping that the Minister will be able to give us reassuring words on the two main points which I have made, We on this side of the House
  1922
  very heartily support the Bill for what it contains, but we are disappointed because of its omissions concerning the partially disabled, and we hope that the question of the appointed day will receive very early and serious consideration.
  8.12 p. m.
  Mr. E. Partridge: I approach this matter in a mood rather different from that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor). I am probably like him in one respect, in that when I have something given to me, like Oliver Twist, I want more. There is no harm in that. Nevertheless, I think one should take a broad view of the whole situation, and I imagine that it is a truism that, since the beginning of time, man has found his greatest happiness in the task that lies to his hands and the greatest contentment in the task well done. Naturally that is not his only reward, because although we cannot live by bread alone, we do need the bread and the wherewithal with which to buy it.
  Unfortunately, there may come a period in our lives— indeed it happens to most of us— when by accident or disease we cannot pursue our occupation, and then we suffer a double blow. In the first place, we lose the joy of working, which 1 honestly believe is a real joy to the majority of the people of this country, and there is also the anxiety of loss of income. Although it is not possible to ward off the former, we can do and have done a great deal to remedy the latter.
  In the days of long ago, much was achieved by charitable efforts and voluntary institutions, but under those circumstances there were many more deserving cases which did not get the help they needed, so it was obviously right that assistance should come in a more methodical way and on a more permanent basis. I think that I can speak for hon. Members on this side of the House when I say that we are happy to see that measures have been taken from time to time, particularly in the field of workmen's compensation, which have had the effect of ensuring that, when people are injured or struck down by disease in the course of their employment, a sum of money is provided which to an extent ensures their freedom from want.

  1923
  We have seen a succession of Workmen's Compensation Acts brought before this House, each one of which, I think it will be agreed, has been better than the one which preceded it. I am quite sure that I carry the House with me when I say that the greatest step forward was the Industrial Injuries, Act, 1948—
  Mr. James Griffiths: The 1946 Act.
  Mr. Taylor: In a way the hon. Member is right.
  Mr. Partridge: I am sorry, I mixed the dates. It was by that Act that the responsibility for the care of the injured was assumed by the State and was based on an insurance scheme. This is where I come to the point which I think the hon. Member for Mansfield overlooked, because if we say that it is an insurance scheme, it presupposes, and indeed it is stated in the Act, that there is a self-supporting insurance fund. This Fund up to March, 1955, had, I think, accumulated £ 123 million. I have not the figures since that date, but they have been growing steadily since then.
  Mr. Taylor: The point I was trying to make was that the proposals in this Bill, as under other legislation, transfer the liability of the employers to the Insurance Fund.
  Mr. Partridge: I was coming to that point, which I had hoped my right hon. Friend would deal with, and with which hon. Members opposite have not dealt. It is a matter which causes me some little perplexity, although not anxiety, because I am not quite sure how this is to happen.
  The Government Actuary in the quinquennial review, after five years of the operation of the Act, which was in 1948, said that the Fund would not grow at a sufficient rate on the then contributions from employers and workmen with the Exchequer grant and interest on the investments of the Insurance Fund to ensure that the then rates of benefit would be covered, and would certainly not take care of the full charge in respect of disablement pensioners and the widows' benefits which is bound to develop and which has been envisaged. The Government Actuary stated then that the Fund would, by those recommendations— and I think that it was 1 d. extra on the contributions and an additional
  1924
  Exchequer grant amounting in all to £ 10 million a year— permit the Fund to grow to a level of £ 435 million.
  In that way the Fund would be stabilised and would be able to take care of all the calls upon it. According to my information, however, those recommendations have not yet been implemented so that, although the Fund is still increasing, according to the Government Actuary in 10 years' time it will begin to fail and eventually will be extinguished unless some such action as he recommended is taken.
  So the Fund, on the rates then in operation, was not building up to the figure that it should have reached, and now we are making an inroad into that Fund to the extent of the amount as prescribed in Clause 2 of the Bill. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would not have brought a Bill before this House which made a charge on the Industrial Injuries Fund unless he was sure that the Fund could stand it and that in due time the recommendations of the Government Actuary would be implemented. So it is with confidence that we can consider, as the Minister obviously has done, that the time has arrived when we can begin to deal more generously with those injured prior to 5th July, 1948, and who, because they continue to draw compensation under the old Act, do not come under the new system of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act.
  I consider that to be a great step forward. The hon. Gentleman said that this is not the end of the road. I hope that we shall never get to the end of the road but that, as time goes on, we shall be able to find means of improving these social services which are a real benefit to the people who suffer in industry.
  When we are considering the progress of our social legislation, we should remember that in 1953 it was firmly established that the full sickness benefit or the unemployability benefit should be payable to the so-called old cases, which was a new and good departure. This supplementary benefit of 17s. 6d. is in addition to the full sickness benefit and the unemployability supplement —
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is right about it being in addition to sickness benefit, but not sickness benefit and unemployability supplement.
  Mr. Partridge: I thought I said "and/or". I meant sickness benefit or the unemployability supplement. It is in addition to the maximum workmen's compensation which will continue to be paid.
  I do not want to go into the various points which will be discussed in Committee when we try to make this a better Bill. We can always do that because no Bill is perfect on Second Reading; so I have no doubt that we shall improve this one. I regard the Bill as a great step forward —
  Mr. Taylor: So do we.
  Mr. Partridge: Yes, but I wanted to make that point. It is another great step forward in the efforts of the community to bring such comfort as we can to those of our less fortunate brethren, even though they number only between 13,000 and 14,000. It is because this Bill does so, and because we can continue to be Oliver Twists, looking forward to more to come, that I honestly congratulate the Minister on the care and attention which he has given to bringing this Measure before us. I commend it to the House and hope, with the hon. Member for Mansfield, that it will have a fairly quick passage through. the House so that the benefits, admittedly limited, will become payable at the earliest moment.
  8.25 p.m.
  Miss Margaret Herbison: Like the hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Partridge) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor), I welcome this Bill, but only as far as it goes. I should have been much happier this evening if the Bill had covered not only those totally disabled but also those who are partially disabled. In a constituency such as mine, in which there are thousands of miners and others working in heavy industry, I have a number of those 13,000 or 14,000 cases covered by this Bill.
  Each time there was an increase in the Industrial Injuries benefit I received letters from those who were receiving payment under the Workmen's Compensation Acts. Those letters always asked me why was it that an increase was given to men who already received a greater weekly income than those receiving com-
  1926
  pensation. Because of those many representations, when I was fortunate in the Ballot last year for a Private Member's Bill, I introduced a Bill to cover not only the totally disabled but also the partially disabled. I had experience of a previous Private Member's Bill for which I had received the greatest support from a Minister.
  Because of that, I decided that I would try to get the support of the previous Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. I have a letter in which he tells me that he could not undertake to facilitate a Measure of this sort. I congratulate the new Minister. When he was appointed to his office he gave a great deal of consideration to the matter, and he has now introduced a Measure which will bring help to the 13,000–14.000 men, upon which I congratulate him. I hope that before the Bill reaches the Statute Book—we want it to do that Its quickly as possible—the Minister, who has shown that he has a more open mind than his predecessor, will be able to do something for the partially disabled also
  Both the Minister and the hon. Member for Battersea, South have spoken about the money coming from the Industrial Injuries Fund. It is right that that should be stressed. It is of the greatest importance that we should safeguard the future of the Fund for people who will perhaps live very much longer than we shall. It is right that we in the House of Commons should show ourselves to be responsible people.
  If some other way could be found of financing the provisions in the Bill, and further provisions which I hope will be incorporated in this Bill or a subsquent Measure, I am certain that it would be approved by my hon. Friends. I should like to find some way of putting the liability fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the people who ought to carry it, the former employers of the disabled workmen, or if we look to those who provide the money, the insurance companies to whom the employers paid premiums to cover their workmen. My hon. Friends and I would rather that happened than that we had to use money from the Industrial Injuries Fund which was never meant for this purpose.
  Mr. Partridge: If the insurance companies were called upon to shoulder a liability for which they had not budgeted,

  1927
  it would mean that this would be at the expense of the benefits anticipated by other policy holders. The insurance companies could not provide the extra money from their own funds; it would have to come from the insurance funds which they are administering on behalf of their policy holders.
  Miss Herbison: I would answer that with two points. First, these workmen are really the liability of the insurance companies.
  Mr. Tom Brown: That is perfectly true.
  Miss Herbison: Secondly, I understand that there are very huge profits in some forms of insurance. I still feel that the insurance companies could carry the liability without interfering with the benefits rightly anticipated by people who are making provision for themselves privately through insurance. What I cannot see is how the House can make the insurance companies carry the liability.
  Perhaps there is another way whereby the Fund could be safeguarded. I have alway felt that it is the responsibility of Governments to cut away from our life as much suffering as possible. If we accept that, the Government might, instead of turning to the Industrial Injuries Fund, have decided that this was a liability which should be financed by the Treasury. My purpose in making these remarks has been to show that the Opposition are just as concerned about the Industrial Injuries Fund and its future as are hon. Gentlemen opposite, which I think is accepted.
  Under the Bill, a man who is totally disabled and is married will be given the same weekly amount as the married man under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, but that will not happen to the single man. At present, the single man receives £ 2 if he has full compensation. With the flat increase of 17s. 6d. he will receive £ 2 17s. 6d. The single man who has been disabled since 1928 today receives £ 3 7s. 6d. In other words, even after the passing of the Bill, the single man about whom I am talking will still be 10s. per week worse off than the single man receiving benefit under the Industrial Injuries Scheme.
  I am sorry that when he was dealing with the totally disabled, whether married
  1928
  or single, the Minister did not decide to iron out all the injustices and to give them all exactly the same, no matter when their accident happened or whether their industrial disease was contracted before 5th July, 1948, or afterwards. I hope that in Committee we will put down an Amendment to deal with this. I know about the Money Resolution, but we remember the other recent Bill on which the Minister came forward with two further Money Resolutions because the justice of the case had been made so clear.
  Mr. Partridge: I might remind the hon. Lady that my right hon. Friend was roundly condemned for it.
  Miss Herbison: I am certain that in this case we would never dream of condemning a Minister who had the courage to come forward and say, "I have made a mistake and I shall give to all the totally disabled the same weekly benefit, no matter when their accident occurred."
  There is another provision which 1 welcome in the Bill. There are what we term the "time-barred pneumoconiotics". Those who are totally disabled now receive 40s. a week. They are to receive the additional 17s. 6d. Even so, they will still be getting less than the person who receives industrial injury benefit. Many of the partially disabled are really badly off, and I am very worried indeed that nothing has been done for them in the Bill.
  I realise the great difficulties of dealing with this category of disabled people. When trying to work out the provisions for my Private Member's Bill, we came up against many of the difficulties that the Minister must have faced. We thought that rough justice might be done if 10s. a week was paid to the partially disabled. I hope that the Minister has not quite closed his mind and that he will give further consideration to those who are partially disabled.
  There are pre-1948 cases in my constituency to whom even a 10s. a week increase would be a great help. Those who are partially disabled by pneumoconiosis— the time-barred cases— today receive only 20s. a week. Under the Bill, there is not a penny increase for them. We who represent mining constituencies in particular and who meet these people every weekend in our constituencies feel that if anything at all can

  1929
  be done to help them, in spite of all the difficulties that might present themselves in the process, we must try to overcome the difficulties. Those are a few of the things which I criticise in the Bill.
  There is only one further point I want to make about the partially disabled. Most of those covered by the Bill, and certainly most of the partially disabled, are living in mining villages or industrial areas. Very often light work simply is not available for them. There is no question, therefore, of anyone who is partially disabled and in receipt of partial compensation being able to do a job of work. Many of those who are partially disabled— certainly those whom I know bestx2014; are receiving their low figure of compensation and can find no work whatever. If matters go on as they are in my area, these people will have no hope fo finding a job for the rest of their lives.
  These problems are very serious. I do not wish the Minister to think that I am criticising him. I consider that he has made an excellent beginning, and I hope that during our discussions in Committee we shall be able to make the improvements which I feel sure all hon. Members on this side of the House desire.
  8.40 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Finch: Any Measure which seeks to improve the lot of the disabled is always welcomed in this House and in the country. From the speeches which have already been delivered, I feel sure that this Bill, which provides for increases in the rates of compensation for the totally disabled, will receive general approval. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), I congratulate the Minister on his expedition in bringing forward this Bill. We are not completely satisfied with it, but in so far as it provides for the worst type of cases, we welcome it; and I am glad that, in producing this Measure, the right hon. Gentleman has demonstrated that these totally disabled men have not been forgotten.
  We have been reminded that the men who will be affected by the provisions of this Bill have received no increase in their rates of compensation since 1943. Hon. Members on this side of the House, by attempting to introduce Private
  1930
  Member's Bills and in other ways, have raised the question on a number of occasions. But not until now, after all these years, have we had recognition for what have been described as the "forgotten men." The Minister will have discovered already that, while we support the Bill, we are not over enthusiastic about it. We have misgivings. The right hon. Gentleman said that he is dealing with 13,000 totally disabled men, but there are at least another 35,000 men who are receiving compensation on the basis of partial incapacity.
  Many of these men are seriously disabled. While they are not in the category which can be described as totally incapacitated, many are suffering from serious disablement. They include skilled engineers and craftsmen who, as a result of injury or disease, have been robbed of the fruits of their skill. Some are fortunate if they can obtain a job in Remploy, or work of a lower category than that to which their skill would entitle them. All their skill and apprenticeship has gone by the board. When these men examine the provisions of this Bill, they will say, "There is nothing for me. This Bill is confined strictly to the worst type of case, the man who cannot work at all. But I have been robbed of earning capacity which is the basis of the workmen's compensation legislation."
  Among those men are piecework colliers who now find themselves picking slag on the screes, or doing a light job. They may have lost a weekly wage of £ 8 or £ 10. Or it may be that a skilled engine driver is obliged to take on the job of a porter or a ticket collector. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of such men who could be classified as seriously disabled. There are the miners suffering from pneumoconiosis. Many of them may have not received a certificate of total incapacity, but are declared to be in the moderately advanced stage of pneumoconiosis.
  I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman or any hon. Member opposite has seen some of these men in a moderately advanced stage of pneumoconiosis. They puff and blow and can hardly walk, but they are regarded as being fit to do some small light work, a sitting-down job, if they can get it. 1 can tell the right hon. Gentleman that in South Wales there are at least 2,000 or 3,000 of those men unemployed and

  1931
  receiving this partially disabled rate. There is nothing in this Bill for them at all. By Ieaving them out a great sence of injustice will be created.
  My hon. Friend referred to the fact that the Private Member's Bill she introduced did at least provide for the 10s. a week increase as a flat rate. I cannot understand the attitude of the Government to social insurance. These improvements are always made in a piecemeal sort of way. There is no comprehensive review and no attempt to deal with all the aspects of the problem but to deal with it stage by stage. In all probability we shall have another Bill after this one. We shall have another Bill in six or 12 months' time, and perhaps another after that. We shall get a series of Acts of Parliament which are difficult to administer, causing confusion to trade union officials who have to deal with the problem and despair among the men affected because they will not fully understand the implications of all those various Acts.
  It would have been far better if the right hon. Gentleman had brought forward a Measure dealing with the whole aspect of men receiving workmen's compensation. By reason of the fact that he has not done so, I venture to predict that at every trade union meeting this question of the partially disabled will be debated. The Minister will get resolutions sent to him and he will be asked to meet the Trades Union Congress again to go into the question. I join with my hon. Friends who have asked the right hon. Gentleman to see that when we reach Committee stage he will reconsider this question and at least give some thought to the proposals which have been made in the House this evening and in the Bills introduced as Private Members' Bills to increase the 10s. a week as a flat rate for the partially disabled.
  Another aspect of the problem rather disturbs me. The 17s. 6d. increase in the rate is to apply to the totally disabled. It will increase the ceiling from £ 2 10s. to £3 7s. 6d. a week, which will bring the recipients on to a similar basis to those receiving benefit under the industrial injuries legislation. From the year 1897, Compensation Acts have provided that if the maximum rate is increased that is also to apply to the partially disabled.
  1932
  Under the present Workmen's Compensation Acts a totally disabled man receives the maximum rate of £ 2 10s., and the man who is partially disabled, if the difference in earnings warrants it, can also receive £2 10s. a week. There are many whose pre-accident earnings were £ 10, £ 12 or £ 14 a week who now earn only £ 7 or £ 8 a week. The two-thirds of the difference will entitle them to a maximum of £ 2 10s. a week—in other words, such a man would receive the same amount as the man who is totally disabled. That paragraph applied also under the Act of 1906, where the amount for the partially disabled could rise to 35s. if there were a sufficient difference between the post and pre-accident earnings. The right hon. Gentleman is creating an anomaly by increasing the ceiling to £3 7s. 6d. but, in the case of the partially incapacitated, restricting the amount to a maximum of £ 2 10s
  Apart from this injustice, it is going to create confusion. We shall have one man whose compensation for total disablement amounts to £ 3 7s. 6d. a week while the seriously disabled man finds that his maximum is £ 2 10s, a week. A different principle is now being applied as far as the Workmen's Compensation Acts are concerned. I know it will be said, "What about those not entitled to the maximum partial disablement rate who are only receiving 5s. or 10s. a week?" The Bill in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North and of my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Deer) provided for a payment of 10s. a week to the partially disabled which would have been some compensation for men deprived of their full earning capacity.
  I do not think there is anything worse than to see men who have lost a limb and who are suffering a serious incapacity being deprived of skilful employment. They may be skilled engineers, skilled miners or skilled technicians who acquired their skill over the years and who lost it and who are now without any recompense under this Bill.
  Apart from those in receipt of partial compensation, I wish to refer to another class of individual whose case we on this side of the House have raised on several occasions, but for whom no provision is made in the Bill. I refer to those who under the Workmen's Compensation

  1933
  Acts have been compelled to commute their claim for weekly compensation. I am not referring to those who came to a mutual arrangement with their employers or insurance company to commute their weekly compensation, although many a story could be told of insurance companies persuading men, as a result of negotiation, to accept small sums in total settlement.
  I am concerned with the men who have been compelled to commute their claim for a weekly payment because the colliery company or the other employers for whom they were working had gone into liquidation. The compensation paid in such cases was not commensurate with the weekly payment, but it was the best that many of these men could obtain. I have several such men in my constituency, some of them blinded by explosions. The company for which they worked went into liquidation and they were paid off with £ 50, £ 60, £ 70 or £ 100 at most, which represented anything from 3d. to 6d. in the £ when compared with the weekly compensation to which they were entitled. These men did not commute their weekly payments by any mutual arrangement; they were compelled to commute them. The liquidator was called in and the assets available represented only 3d. or 6d. in the £.
  I ask the Minister to give consideration to cases where men have been compelled to settle for a lump sum as a result of the employer going into liquidation. Fortunately, their number is limited because many of them have since died, but some cases still exist. As I say, I have men in my constituency who were blinded as a result of explosions and who had to settle for a small lump sum as a result of liquidation.
  I fully recognise the difficulty of the Minister in trying to bring these old compensation cases into line with industrial injuries cases. We are here dealing with two Acts of Parliament and with two classes of disabled men, but I should have thought that it would have been Government policy to try to marry those two Acts. There would be great satisfaction if, as far as possible, that were done. That should be the policy
  There are these various rates of compensation decided on different bases. I have already referred to the fact that, under the Workmen's Compensation Acts,
  1934
  the man is compensated on the basis of earning capacity, which has little regard for the nature of his disability. The basis is what he has lost financially and he gets two-thirds of the difference between the pre-and post-accident rates. Under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946, the basis is loss of faculty, which is a very excellent premise or foundation on which men are compensated. That basis has regard not to their financial position but to their medical condition. In addition, of course, they get hardship allowance.
  There are many men today who are partially incapacitated and who, under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, do not get an amount equiyalent to that which those others receive under the Industrial Injuries Act. However difficult the task, I feel that it should be the right hon. Gentleman's policy to bring the payments to those partially-disabled men nearer to the level of payments made under the Industrial Injuries Act. We are here dealing with an Act, the financial effect of which grows less and less. We know the extent of the liability. This is not like the Industrial Accidents Act where new cases are being thrown upon the Fund all the time. The number of compensation men is known, and as a certain number are dying year by year this liability grows less and less. That very important factor may help the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the position.
  As I have already intimated, we are very pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has brought forward this Measure. It will assist the worst cases, but it certainly leaves out 35,000 partially-disabled men. Those men are not covered by this Bill and, as a result, there will be 35,000 very disgruntled and dissatisfied workers. I want to make a special plea to the Minister to reconsider the position of these men. For the life of me I cannot understand why they are left out.
  What is the difficulty of paying 10s. a week as a flat rate to these men? Is it a financial difficulty? On this side we have calculated that the amount involved would be £ ½ million for the first year. No one would grudge that. We feel that that is a responsibility of the Exchequer. The men of whom I am speaking made their contribution to industry— and here

  1935
  I refer particularly to the mining industry. The men who worked in the mines years ago helped this nation. Surely it is not much to ask £ ½ million from the Exchequer to help them.
  If the Exchequer cannot deal with it, then representations can be made to the employers. Reference has already been made to the employers, whose liability this really is. They are the people who are responsible, but I hope that the Government will confess that they failed to get the employers or the insurance companies to meet one penny of this liability. That is a shame and a scandal. Having failed to get the employers to deal with it, the Government should meet these claims out of the Industrial Injuries Fund. The present provisions would not be possible had it not been for that Fund. It is because we have that Fund that the right hon. Gentleman is today able to do what he is doing by this Bill
  I plead with him to look again at this problem of the partially disabled, and at least to remove the anomaly of the position whereby this 17s. 6d. is not added to the maximum payment to the partially-disabled where the earnings warrant it. I hope that the Minister will at least do what was done under the 1897, the 1906 and the 1925 Acts. I hope that he will make the £ 3 7s. 6d. the basis for all payments under the Workmen's Compensation Acts.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Cyril Osborne: I observe that a number of hon. Members opposite who are experts on this subject have for the last five minutes been looking most anxiously at their colleague the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch), who has taken so long to make his speech. I promise that I shall speak for only two or three minutes.
  I was brought up in a mining area, and I remember how important workmen's compensation was fifty years ago to people who had the misfortune to lose the breadwinner through an accident in the pits. Anything that my right hon. Friend can do to help remove injustices, even in a small number of cases, will be very welcome on both sides of the House. Therefore, I welcome the Bill and congratulate the Minister on it.
  The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. B Taylor) said that while he was glad
  1936
  that these 14,000 men were covered by the Bill, he calculated that there were 70,000 cases in all which ought to be dealt with. I want to ask my right hon. Friend if he accepts that figure. If so, what would it cost to bring the other 56,000 into benefit? Can it be done? I was taught to be grateful for small mercies, and therefore I will thank him for what he is doing already for those who have suffered, but I should like to know whether it is possible to do something for those who feel they have been left out.
  I am sorry that the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) has left the Chamber. She made a point to which 1 should like to refer. She said that she felt that the liability ought to be put upon the shoulders of those who are really responsible, and in this connection she referred to former employers and insurance companies. I think I agree with her in a way; but that is only half the story. That is a matter only of national bookkeeping. Hon. Members must face the fact that if we are, as I think we ought as a nation, to look after more generously those who are unfortunate, we shall not do it merely by bookkeeping.
  As I have said on many occasions before, we shall only do it out of the increased wealth that we create by greater productivity. Whether the burden is put on the Treasury, which will lead to greater taxation; whether the liability is put on the previous employers— although how that can be done with companies which have gone bankrupt I do not know; or whether it is put on to the insurance companies, that would merely be a little bit of national bookkeeping, transferring from one account to another.
  If we are going to do what we should for the unfortunate— and this is only one small aspect of a great national problem — we can only do it, as my right hon Friend is so well aware, out of the increased wealth that we create. We shall not do it merely by legislation. We should get into the minds of both sides of industry that if we are to look after our people as we would like to, we have got to put our heads and our muscles into the task, as well as our hearts.
  I welcome the Bill. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the step he has taken. I hope that he will be able to do

  1937
  something for the 56,000 who, it is claimed, are not covered by this Bill, and I hope that before we part with the Bill my right hon. Friend will tell us what it will cost to deal with these people and, if it is not too much. I hope he will deal with them.
  9.5 p.m.
  Mr. Tom Brown: I cannot follow the philosophy of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), but there is one thing I did appreciate in the course of his speech—that he had sympathy for injured workmen. As to the liability, I believe— whether the hon. Gentleman believes it or not— that the liability for these men whose cases we are discussing under this Measure ought to rest upon the people who are liable.
  Let it not go forth from this House that no attempt was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) to place that responsibility where it belonged. He made an attempt, after the passing of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, to establish with the insurance companies and the indemnity companies a global figure which would redeem the liability resting upon them. We ought, therefore, to say that an attempt was made during that period. My right hon. Friend had the patience of Job, and he manifested the wisdom of Solomon in trying to get a figure fixed so that the liability for injured workmen should rest where it ought to rest.
  Before I turn to deal with the matter of compensation under the Bill, I should like to put one or two questions. Like my hon. Friends the Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor), the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), and the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch), I too must express profound regret that this Bill does not contain any reference to the partial compensation case. I want to add my plea to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North, that the Minister should at a very early date bring forward a Bill to deal with those partial compensation cases.
  What are we to understand by the expression "prolonged period" in Clause 1, page 1, line 12? I am not quite sure that we can accept that wording; a "prolonged period" may mean six months in one person's estimation and may mean twelve months in someone else's estima-
  1938
  tion. We should have not a fixed date but a clear definition of what is meant by "incapable of work" for a prolonged period.'
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) was in the Chamber when I moved the Second Reading. If he was, he will recall that I did indicate that there had been a number of decisions by the Commissioner construing these words in other legislation as meaning about six months.
  Mr. T. Brown: Six months is rather a long period, as we understand it in what I may call pit language. If it is six months, then six months it will be; but I should like a much clearer definition in the Bill itself.
  My other question relates to the pre-1924 cases, and I wish to know whether all those men who are now in receipt of full compensation for total incapacity will receive this 17s. 6d. increase. That is very important. I do not know whether the Minister realises that many of them are now in receipt of ld. a week. Many of them have established and kept their claims green— speaking now in ordinary language, as we understand it in the mining areas— and in some cases they have a declaration of liability which carries nothing. In other cases a penny a week is paid every four weeks in order to keep the memory of the accident green. Will such cases be entitled to receive compensation?
  I want next to deal with cases which are designated "odd lots" The Minister and those who come from mining areas will know what I mean by "odd lot" It is regrettable that a man who has sustained an accident which renders him totally incapacitated should be designated an "odd lot". These "odd lots" are forgotten men. Will the increases in the Bill be applicable to them?
  The Minister referred to medical boards now operating under the Industrial Injuries Scheme. I suggest that medical boards which have to determine many of the questions arising from the operation of the Bill should consist of medical men from industrial areas. That would be a step in the right direction. We are now finding— and I say this with the greatest respect for the medical profession

  1939
  —that some of the medical boards which have to assess the loss of faculty of an injured workman come from seaport towns and have no knowledge of industry, and cannot be expected to have. That is something which I hope the Minister will consider.
  With certain reservations, we support the Bill. As it proceeds through Committee, we shall attempt to improve it, and I hope that a degree of amiability and reasonableness will be manifested by the Minister and his Department when we put forward Amendments. This is the 64th compensation Bill to be introduced since Lord Campbell's Fatal Accident Act reached the Statute Book in 1846. That was the first Act of Parliament to declare that compensation should be paid for fatal accidents.
  My experience of dealing with compensation cases is that not one of the 63 Acts of Parliament which deal with compensation has ever faced up to the realities of compensation in industry. I challenge anyone to say that compensation legislation in the past has given the injured workman or workwoman the compensation to which he or she has been entitled. It has always fallen far short. When I went to school we used to gather in the playground and sing the song:
  "Here we are again, happy as can be."
  Tonight we are here trying to bring some little happiness in the social and economic conditions of injured men and women in industry.
  I have said before and I now repeat with greater emphasis that so long as we have wars, we shall have sick and wounded men: so long as we have industries we shall have men and women broken and bruised upon the wheels of industry, some incapacitated for the rest of their lives, as are those men who will benefit by the Bill. Others are incapacitated for long periods, "prolonged" periods as the Bill says; others for shorter periods; but whether the incapacity is for a long or short period it is the task of this House and of the responsible Minister to see to it that those who have the misfortune to meet with accidents shall be protected against the social, economic, physical and mental consequences which follow accidents—and many there are, as figures prove.
  1940
  I may be departing into idealism when I say that for a long number of years, having the experience I have been fortunate to have in this matter of compensation, I have been possessed by the hope that one day there would come into our midst, a statesman, a Minister, who would tackle the question as it should be tackled, a man possessing a high degree of courage and profound humanitarianism, with a lofty and noble conception of the value of human life and limb.
  I have said many times, and I repeat, that no man, however clever he may be as a mathematician, can determine in terms of £s. d. the value of human life or human limb. I challenge any man to do so. I have myself tried to do so. How difficult I have found it. We have travelled a long, hard road, and we have failed to find such a man. I am not saying that the present Minister is lacking in the spirit of humanitarianism: but I have longed for the time when there would come into our midst such an individual.
  In my long experience of this kind of social service I have not been, and I am not, unmindful of the great work and of the success which has attended the efforts of men who, ever since 1897 until the present time, have struggled in so many ways to secure adequate payments for compensation for industrially injured workmen. I do not want to be misunderstood, but I must say that we have not yet done all we could have done.
  History records the fact, as has been indicated by previous speakers, that every now and again the question of some improvement in the rates of compensation paid to injured workmen is brought up. It is brought before us in Government Measures such as the one now before the House. Private Members, when fortunate in the Ballot, have chosen to bring forward Bills specifying improvements and figures for workmen's compensation rates.
  Now here we are again seeking tonight, through the medium of this Bill, to bring about further improvements. We all welcome them. The Bill, with all its shortcomings, we welcome because it will bring some little relief to those who have been waiting patiently and long for that relief. People in non-mining areas from

  1941
  time to time ask the question which has been put to me many times—why is it that miners' M. P. s are always trying to improve compensation rates? The reason why we are so enthusiatic about it is obvious, because of the high incidence of accidents in the mining industry.
  The Bill will deal with men injured not only in two decades but in three. I would mention the number of men injured and killed in the decade before the First World War. These figures will indicate the magnitude of the problem that confronts us. In the ten years, 1928 to 1937, following the First World War, 1,602,496 men and boys were killed, injured or disabled by accident or industrial disease in British mining.
  It may be easier to realise the terrible consequences of the sorrow, physical pain and mental agony if I say that in the ten years preceding the First World War 18 miners were killed and 3,000 injured every working week. As we are directing our minds to what we ought to do, let us try and visualise the 1½ million who have been injured and have suffered. They are a vast concourse of people who would take a long time to pass us if they marched in procession. Many of them would be in grievous pain, and the sound of their passing would equal that of the moaning wind.
  During the ten years following the Second World War, the total number of miners killed was 4,802, and there were 2,089,935 reported accidents. I speak from the depths of my heart, and I want the House to try to visualise the great human tragedy that these figures represent— to picture the physical suffering and mental agony which have been the lot of these men and their families. And not one of them has received adequate compensation. Like so many of my colleagues who have spent many years in dealing with compensation cases, I am looking forward again with the strong hope that one day compensation will be paid not only for the loss of faculty but for physical suffering and mental agony. I know that that is a far-reaching idea but, let the House mark my words, it will come.
  I hope that the House will permit me to quote one of the many cases that have come to my notice. It is that of a man who over a period of six years had 22
  1942
  amputations arising from one accident. Every finger of both hands was amputated, and then he had to have both hands taken off, and the big toes on both feet amputated. What physical pain and mental agony must have been endured by that unfortunate man.
  I have in my hand a photograph of eight brothers who are all mine workers. Seven of them have suffered accidents and misfortunes in the pits, and not one of them has received adequate compensation. As the Act was drawn, they were denied that right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty said, when the colliery closed down on 3rd February, 1937, these men failed to obtain the compensation to which they were entitled. What a tragedy in human life. I have in my constituency unfortunate men who were injured before 1934 and who today are receiving £1 0s. 10d. full compensation. They have had to go to the National Assistance Board to eke out a livelihood.
  What a tragedy in a civilised country if men who, after being injured in producing the products which the nation needs, should be compelled to have recourse to National Assistance because of the inadequacy of the compensation paid to them. Therefore, I express the hope that in the very near future a realistic view will be taken of the subject of compensation and all its implications. Never let it be said that this honourable House failed to do its duty to those who toil and who give to the nation the products which are so essential to the maintenance of our economic life.
  Whether a man or a woman works in the mines or the mills or the engineering shops or the steel works, our task as a legislative assembly is to afford protection to that man or woman. I will not go into the question of the size of the problem. Cases have been mentioned, and 1 could mention many more. I say that in the very near future, if we do that which is right— and we are expected to do that which is right— we shall have to rewrite the values of our people engaged in industry. The values have been fixed too low, and they are too low now. Whatever the wages may be, whatever the conditions may be for the men and women in industry, those conditions will have to include adequate compensation if they are unfortunately overtaken by accidents.

  1943
  Therefore, 1 welcome the Bill for the small provision that it makes for these unfortunate men, and so far as we on this side of the House can do so, we shall give it a speedy passage through its Committee and remaining stages.
  9.28 p.m.
  Mr. E. Fernyhough: I am sure that no one could listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) in a debate such as this without being very moved and very touched. Those of us who, like him, have spent our lives in the mining areas know that all the sentiments he has uttered are perfectly true. It is a substantial reflection upon our modern society and our social consciousness, which is supposed to be so well-developed, that in the year 1956 we should have to try to get a greater measure of justice for people who have been denied justice in some cases for well over thirty years.
  This Bill is naturally welcome because it gives some redress to 15,000 people, but, as has been indicated, there are some 30,000 or 40,000 people who will obtain no benefit and will be still suffering substantial and grave injustice.
  I had staying with me last week a man who had to leave the mines in 1931. He had not been away from home for over thirty years. He had not been able to go away from home because he was a victim of pneumoconiosis. Everyone who has seen these cases knows that a man is constantly coughing, hacking and spitting, and this man told me that it would be disturbing and embarrassing to him to go through that ordeal in front of my family. However, I told him that I had two brothers in a similar state who coughed and spat and spluttered, who never knew what it was to get a full night's rest, and who, if they had two hours' sleep, felt very fortunate.
  This man, who came out of the pits in 1931, was judged to have pneumoconiosis in the year 1955. For 25 years he has been gasping for breath, for 25 years he has been unable to follow any normal occupation. It was not until he had his third board, twenty-five years later, that it was agreed that he had partial pneumoconiosis and, as my hon. Friend has indicated, he gets the princely sum of £1
  1944
  a week. He was denied anything for all those years, and this Bill will give him nothing.
  I make no bones about it, 1 get sick to death in this House about these things. Whenever we estimate the cost of something that will bring relief to those who are injured, sick or poor, every penny is counted, every penny is weighed and measured. To give justice to the 35,000 left outside the Bill would cost hardly more than one bomber. If we wanted another thousand bombers, the money would be found.
  Why cannot we get Ministers of Pensions and National Insurance who are prepared to stand up in their Department with the same courage and tenacity and determination with which air commodores and generals and admirals stand up in their Departments? They never go short. Their demands are always met. Some day, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ince said, we shall have a Minister who will stand up in the Cabinet for the maimed and the injured and the sick and the aged with the same determination with which the Service Ministers obviously stand up in their Departments.
  The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), who has departed from the Chamber, wanted to know where the money was to come from. He was very concerned about the cost. Half the men on partial compensation are victims of the mining industry, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ince said. The hon. Member for Louth, with whose presence we are no longer graced, said we could not juggle with the figures in the balance sheet, and that if we were to do anything for these people we must increase production.
  I think we could juggle with the figures in the balance sheet. I do not think that there would be anything wrong in taking £ 2 million off the compensation for the coal owners. That would give these people adequate compensation and justice. This is the moral obligation of the coal owners, because those men are suffering from disability today because they hewed coal at too cheap a price for the old coal owners. So, if the hon. Member for Louth wants these people to have the measure of justice to which they are entitled, I hope that he will join with us on the Committee stage in trying to bring these people within the scope of the Bill.

  1945
  There is no doubt that there have been substantial improvements. For example, a fortnight ago my nephew, who had had his finger badly smashed in the mine, returned to work after six or eight weeks and received £45 for disfigurement. One of my brothers said to me, holding out his hand, "Look at this. I shall never get anything for this disfigurement" That happened before the present scheme came into operation, so there is a vast difference.
  Because the numbers of the men we are talking about tonight are limited, because their numbers are growing less every year and because, therefore, the money involved will become less every year, 1 hope that during the Committee stage the Minister will consider whether it is not possible to bring in the partially disabled in order to go some way towards giving them the measure of justice to which they are entitled.
  The Minister ought to pay very great regard to the matter. If there is one industry in the country in which we need manpower, it is the mining industry, and if there is one thing more than anything else keeping young men out of the mines it is a miner saying "Look what has happened to me. For goodness sake, do not go near the mines or what has happened to me may happen to you and you may not get adequate compensation" If the Minister can improve the Bill by providing justice for the whole of the 70,000 men, he will probably be doing indirectly one of the best things he could do to aid the recruitment of much-needed manpower to the mining industry.
  9.36 p. m.
  Mr. F. H. Hayman: I should like to add my voice to those who have asked for more generous treatment for those who have suffered in the mining industry. I am thinking not specially of the coal mining industry but of a mining industry which once flourished in my constituency, the tin mining industry.
  Although tin mining is small in extent compared with the past, it still carries a high incidence of silicosis, as we call it. I have heard the disease described by different terms. When my grandfather coughed his life away it was known as miners' complaint, a very good description. Then it became known as miners' phthisis. Then it was called
  1946
  silicosis, and now it is known as pneumoconiosis. Whatever it is, it is miners' complaint, a complaint terrible to behold, and a great burden to those who suffer from it, and to their families.
  We cannot be too generous to the men in our vital industries who are stricken. I am shocked at the treatment accorded by the country to two classes of compensation cases. The right hon. Gentleman, when Minister of Transport, was responsible for safety on the roads. Those who are injured on the roads get very generous compensation compared with those who sustain injuries in industry. Now that he is Minister of Pensions and National Insurance I hope he will try to ensure that industrial compensation payments are raised more closely to the levels of compensation paid in the case of injury and death on the roads. I see the Minister smiling. I agree that the payments come from different sources, but they still arise from the one national income.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Anyone suffering personal injury on the road can obtain compensation only if he succeeds in establishing negligence on the part of the other party. In the case of road casualties there are none of the advantages of workmen's compensation or the Industrial Injuries Scheme.
  Mr. Hayman: I am speaking about the rate of compensation. A person cannot receive compensation for industrial injuries unless he can establish his claim. The compensation for injuries on the roads, while it is true that it does not come from the State, is far more generous than the compensation for industrial injuries.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is still a fact that, if negligence can be proved, a person injured in industry can sue his employer. Over and above that, there are all the provisions that we are discussing which are absent in the case of casualties on the roads. Far more provision is made for the industrial casualty than for the road casualty.
  Mr. Hayman: We can take the two categories broadly, I suggest, and without the legal niceties which the right hon. Gentleman naturally brings to the subject.
  Speaking as a layman, I think that medical boards— and here again I am on

  1947
  contentious ground— are so technical in their assessment of injury that very often it appears extraordinarily difficult for anybody to establish a claim at all. I hope, therefore, that the time will come when the gentlemen on those boards will make a far more human assessment of injury of this kind.
  9.41 p. m.
  Mr. George Deer: I am exceedingly pleased to have the opportunity tonight to welcome the Bill, primarily because it succeeds an infant which I tried to bring into the world. I even offered it to the Minister and asked him to adopt it. He preferred, however, to bring in this Bill. Nevertheless, for this small mercy I give thanks, because it admits a principle and it goes some way towards what I was striving to do when I brought forward my Bill to deal not only with the totally disabled, but also with the partially disabled.
  I regard this opportunity tonight as some compensation for the wearisome Fridays I have spent in the House trying to move a Bill, colloquially speaking, "on the nod" and receiving a harsh "Object" from hon. Members opposite, who tonight, I am glad to say, are waiving their objection and supporting their own Minister in his Bill.
  Before I had the privilege of representing my constituency, 1 was for 40 years a trade union official. Since 1915, I have been dealing with the effects of workmen's injuries and compensation, and I know something of the difficulties that many workpeople have had in trying to prove employers' liability and in trying to get redress for their wrongs. To go back a little further, in my late 'teens I had the misfortune to have a crushed foot arising out of my employment. The employer and the insurance company, which was a mutual company of employers, both treated me as if I was trying to steal pennies from a blind man's can in asking for workmen's compensation. We were gently told, "If you want compensation and are not too careful in your demands, we might remember it later" Consequently, people who obtained workmen's compensation usually found that they were the first to go when redundancy or unemployment arrived. That was my personal experi-
  1948
  ence and, therefore, I have some right to talk on this subject.
  My second purpose is to thank the Minister, and I do so sincerely. Although he would not father my Bill, I bear him no malice. It is a pleasant step forward that, after negotiations with the Trades Union Congress and the National Union of Mineworkers, he has come to the conclusion that something must be done for at least some of the people who are suffering from the disadvantages of being under workmen's compensation.
  I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has made this change, although we should like to see something done for the partially disabled. Anyone who listened to the speeches from my hon. Friends will realise that there is no ambiguity about our feelings on that matter. But I speak for my hon. Friends when I say that under no circumstances shall we delay the passage of this Bill, which does justice to some, because we are not getting what we want for everyone, and I hope that the discussions in Committee will be reasonably short. The Committee stage of the last Bill with which I was associated lasted for twelve minutes. I cannot promise such acceleration, for this Measure, but while we may try to improve the Bill in ways we think acceptable to the Government, we do not intend to obstruct this Bill because it does not give the "partials" all we think they deserve.
  We are here dealing with 13,000 out of a total of 45,000 people, and if we include the latent cases, the number is brought up to about 70,000. We must remember that those who were injured prior to 1948 represent many old compensation cases. Some of them sustained the injuries which totally disabled them long before there were the reasonable wages which were paid at the beginning of the last war period. Those who were injured in the 1930's often received small compensation grants. Because of their loss of earning capacity, due to short time and intermittent work and, in some cases, low wages, they received a rather rough deal compared with— I nearly said those who were more fortunate to sustain their injuries later. Of course, no one who sustains an accident is fortunate, but comparatively speaking those who were injured later received better compensation terms.

  1949
  In many cases the people with whom we are dealing have seen the advent of improved working conditions and pay for the jobs which they used to do. They have had to stand aside, the victims of a struggle which my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) described so graphically. Although in the 1946 Bill, which reached the Statute Book in 1948, we did something for the new cases, for varying reasons we did not include those people who had been injured earlier. We did not do so because, as most hon. Members who were in the House at that time will recall, there were difficulties about wedding the two schemes. The old scheme was based on the loss of earning capacity and was dealt with by insurance companies under mutual contracts and so on. The new scheme made the State responsible, and a fund was created to deal with the injuries as such rather than the loss of earning capacity. It was difficult to classify these particular cases. It would have meant the whole of them coming under critical examination when the new scheme was being introduced.
  We had to wait our time, and gradually from 1948 onwards improvements have been made to those Acts, all of which have had some justification in showing that the scheme needed tidying up. This is the next step. I am glad that we are to deal with this one section. I wish the Minister, who has agreed to this rough and ready calculation of 17s. 6d. for the three categories of totally disabled persons, could have gone that little step further and said that he would have a rough and ready calculation of 10s. for the partially disabled. That would have made all the difference between us receiving the Bill with acclamation and receiving it with the reservations which have been shown tonight. On the other hand, if he cannot do that, it may be that as the number diminishes— as diminish it must— we shall have a second opportunity of looking at the case of the people who this time are missed out.
  I promised to be reasonably brief in my remarks in order to give the Minister a chance to wind up the debate. So much has been said by my right hon. Friends that they have left me very little to say. I could summarise all that has been said. I expected that some hon. Members would have had greater reservations than we had, but the only hon. Members who
  1950
  have been rather critical were the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), who was bothered about production and where the money was to come from, and the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Partridge) about inroads into the Fund.
  I meet many people in my constituency, which is partly industrial and partly mining. I have never met a person engaged in industry who would make any complaint whatever about inroads which have been made into the Fund to help those worse off than himself. There are ways and means, of course, of assisting the Fund if we so desired.
  Much has been said about the significance of this Bill to the mining industry. In my constituency there are seven pits. I was talking to an official of the miners' union yesterday, and he gave me these significant figures. Whilst the mining industry employs only 4 per cent. of the industrial population, it accounts for 40 per cent. of the casualties dealt with under workmen's compensation. People who never know when they leave home to go to work whether they will come back again as they went— who may come back in an ambulance, or worse still, not at all— are bound to take a real interest in this question of the improvement of workmen's compensation.
  On behalf of my hon. Friends, I say we shall do all we can to hasten the passage of the Bill through Committee stage. We shall remind the Minister, kindly but severely, that the sooner he fixes a date the better we shall like him. It must be a very pleasant change for a Minister in this present Government in one day to bring in two Bills, both of which have been received with acclamation and promise of support. I say more power to his elbow. I hope and trust that in the not far distant future we shall get the remaining Bill which will improve the position of those left out of this Measure. We pledge ourselves to give this Bill every support we can.
  9.55 p. m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Edith Pitt): It has become almost a convention, when winding up a Second Reading debate to comment on the measure of agreement between the two sides of the House, the eloquent speeches that have been made, and the

  1951
  sincerity of all hon. Members in wanting the proposed benefit to be paid. I think I can say that with truth tonight. Hon. Members who have spoken from both sides of the House have been very anxious to do all they can for those men who before 1948 qualified for workmen's compensation.
  I shall try, briefly, to reply to some of the points raised. The one thing that has been common to every speech delivered from the benches opposite is, of course, the question of the partially disabled— "partials" as we call them— and on that matter I shall have something to say later. In opening the debate for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor) referred to these men as "the forgotten men," a phrase which we have heard before. He stated that their benefit was last increased in 1943. That is not wholly correct, as I shall show later. The hon. Gentleman also said that out of a total of 70,000— I think that his figure may be on the high side, but I am not proposing to question it at the moment— we were only touching the fringe of the problem. I think he would agree that in dealing with the 13,000 to 14,000 whom this Bill affects we are helping those most in need.
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to the necessity for medical examination. I should like to try to make it clear that we hope that in many cases that will not arise, though we must reserve our position in certain instances when it may be necessary to ask a man to undergo a medical examination. In any case, this provision in the Bill gives the Minister power—it is a permissive provision—to act in most instances where that is thought to be necessary.
  The hon. Member for Mansfield also asked how the benefit would be paid. The answer is that we hope it can be forwarded for substantial periods in advance. It will be paid by books of orders. That is a point to bear in mind when I later return to the subject of the partially disabled, because it would disturb the system of payments in advance for long periods if partials were included who might have to undergo examination, perhaps even weekly to know whether they would still enjoy the benefit.
  Mr. J. T. Price: Before the hon. Lady leaves the general question of entitlement
  1952
  to benefit, is she in a position to say anything about the considerable number of injured persons who are now receiving compensation under the Government's scheme— Government servants— in respect of whose injuries the Government contracted out of the Workmen's Compensation Acts and who are covered by a special scheme to which no reference whatsoever is made in this Bill?
  Miss Pitt: They are covered under Clause 1 (2, a) of the Bill.
  Mr. Finch: The hon. Lady referred to the necessity of the partially-disabled having a week-to-week examination. I do not quite understand why that should be so. Did she say a weekly examination?
  Miss Pitt: I referred to the possibility of an examination of someone who was partially incapacited having to take place week by week.
  Mr. Finch: A medical examination?
  Miss Pitt: No, not a medical examination, but an examination as to their need still to enjoy this benefit.
  The hon. Member for Mansfield also referred to the specific case of a man only likely to be off work for three months, and asked whether that man would satisfy the terms of Clause 1 (1, a) on the "prolonged period". The answer is that as the Bill is now drafted he probably would not, because "prolonged period" has been taken, on existing case law, to mean about six months. But I will return to that point later.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) congratulated my right hon. Friend on the introduction of the Bill, and on his behalf I should like to acknowledge that. She made the point very vigorously that the cost of these proposals should really fall on the insurance companies and not on the Industrial Injuries Fund. It is no part of my task tonight to deal with the position either of the pre-1948 employer or of the insurance company which, in many cases, took the risk of workmen's compensation, but I think that I ought to ask the hon. Lady to consider this analogy. If she herself bought an annuity from an insurance company in the days before 1948 for a specific sum of money which she had invested, and that annuity now brought in £1 a week, I think that she would have little claim, and would

  1953
  be little likely to approach the insurance company and say "The value of the £ has fallen; I think that you ought to pay me more" That is one of the difficulties of trying to help men —
  Mr. J. T. Price: Absolutely invalid.
  Miss Pitt: I think that it is a perfectly logical argument.
  Mr. Price: If the hon. Lady will give way, I will tell her why it is invalid.
  Miss Pitt: I think that if I give way on this point we shall get into an unnecessary digression. As I said before, it is no part of my duty to defend the insurance company, but it is part of my duty to try to make what is, I think, a logical comparison.
  Mr. Price: Quite wrong.
  Miss Pitt: The hon. Lady said that, failing the insurance company, the benefit should be paid by the Treasury but, again endeavouring to think logically, I believe that if this were to be paid by the Treasury, it, in turn, would have to collect the money from the taxpayer. I see no difference between asking that this money should be paid through the medium of Income Tax collected by the Inland Revenue and paid out by the Treasury and asking that it should be paid by the same man through his contribution towards the Industrial Injuries Fund. I do not regard these arguments as being the main basis of this discussion, but since the points were made, I think that I should try to reply to them.
  Miss Herbison: In dealing with both those matters I was taking up a point which I felt had rightly been made by the Minister when he suggested that we should take from the Industrial Injuries Fund only that amount which we felt would do away with grave injustices. It was in dealing with that point, trying to say that we on this side of the House were as much concerned as was the Minister with the future of the Fund, that I made these suggestions. I would have to make another speech to show how illogical was the hon. Lady in drawing an analogy between the annuity and what we are now asking, and also how wrong it is to suggest that the Treasury should not have some responsibility for these people who have had injustices heaped on them for so long.
  Miss Pitt: I appreciate that the hon. Lady is as concerned as we are with the proper use of the money in the Industrial Injuries Fund. As I remarked a moment or two ago, I do not want to get these matters out of proportion, but since she raised the points, I thought that it was only proper to comment on them.
  The hon. Lady mentioned, in addition to the partially disabled, another point which I feel I must answer. It is that a single totally disabled man under these proposals will receive less than a single man on 100 per cent. disablement pension now receives under the Industrial Injuries Act. But does not the hon. Lady agree that a flat rate of 17s. 6d., giving the same measure of improvement to the single man, the married man or the married man with a child, is the fairest way of doing it? If we were to accept her implied suggestion, we would give the single man 27s. 6d. a week and bring him up to the same rate as the 100 per cent. disablement pensioner. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is right to give the greater increase to the single man than to the married man, or the married man with a child?
  Miss Herbison: The hon. Lady has asked me a direct question. Of course I think it would be absolutely right to give to the single man the £1 7s. 6d., because it would bring him up to what the single man under the Industrial Injuries Act gets. I take it that when increases were made in Industrial Injuries benefit they were made because of the increased cost of living. It seems to me that whether a man had an accident before 1948 or after, even though he is a single man, the cost of living is exactly the same. What I have said is absolutely logical. namely, that all those beneficiaries should receive the same as is given under Industrial Injuries.
  Miss Pitt: The hon. Lady is now suggesting that we should use the Industrial Injuries Fund to give more help to those suffering least hardship. A single man is better able to look after himself. In fact, the differential is already established under the workmen's compensation rates.
  Mr. B. Taylor: How is the single man better able to look after himself if he is totally disabled?
  Miss Pitt: I do not mean that the totally disabled man is physically better able to look after himself; I mean in the material sense of buying things and of having sufficient finance with which to carry on.
  The hon. Member for Bedwelty (Mr. Finch) referred to the subject of the partially disabled and complained that there was no provision in the Bill for those whose compensation has been commuted. Here I think the answer is that no provision is made in the previous Acts passed by his own Government, namely, the main Act of 1946 and the Act of 1951, so we are following precedent.
  The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) referred to the partially disabled and asked about the pre-1924 cases. The answer is this. If the pre-1924 cases are totally disabled, they will qualify in the same way as the post-1924 cases.
  The hon. Member for Ince concluded with a very eloquent peroration, which is in keeping with the whole of this debate, and said that we should give the utmost sympathy and practical help that we can to men drawing workmen's compensation. The purpose of this Bill is quite straightforward, as my right hon. Friend made clear in his opening speech. It is to provide a supplement of 17s. 6d. a week to the totally disabled, and that I wish to underline—the totally disabled still receiving workmen's compensation.
  Mr. J. T. Price: Would the hon. Lady allow me just to raise this one point? The question of total and partial disablement, in general terms, has been fully discussed this evening, and I do not wish to waste the time of the House; but there is a considerable segment of old cases where partial disablement under the Workmen's Compensation Acts was accepted as total disablement for the purpose of benefit because the continuing effect of the injury prevented the workman from getting employment suitable to his condition. Those are cases under Section 9 (4) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925. I should like to know how the Minister proposes to deal with them.
  Miss Pitt: The hon. Gentleman is anticipating my speech. I promise I shall come to that.
  1956
  The supplement will also apply to the totally disabled who come within the terms of the Industrial Diseases (Benefit) Act, which provides benefit from the Industrial Injuries Fund to people disabled by certain industrial diseases in cases which would be time-barred, to use the expression which has already been used tonight about workmen's compensation. I think the point has been made very clearly that it was impracticable to absorb the old cases, as the workmen's compensation cases were so frequently called, into the Industrial Injuries Scheme, because of their different bases.
  In fact, it is still true that some men are better off under the workmen's compensation scheme, but increases in Industrial Injuries rates have now resulted in a marked disparity between the maximum rates for workmen's compensation and the rate for 100 per cent. disablement pension under the Industrial Injuries Scheme. The 100 per cent. disablement pension was increased to 65s. 6d. last year. The maximum rates of workmen's compensation were last increased in 1943, as the hon. Member for Mansfield said; but there has been some improvement since that date, because the Industrial Injuries Act made unemployability supplement and constant attendance allowance available to the old workmen's compensation cases, and since 1948 sickness benefit has gradually been made available to them until in 1953 they came into full benefit. They are, therefore, better off to that extent.
  Mr. B. Taylor: I am sure that the hon. Lady would not wish to misconstrue what I said. I purposely intimated to the House that the compensation payments had not been increased since 1943, which is true.
  Miss Pitt: If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mansfield used the words "compensation payments ", then I did misunderstand him. I inferred from his comment that he was suggesting nothing had been done for the pre-1948 cases. In fact, I am concerned to show that to some extent they are better off than they were before the passing of the 1946 Act. A married man, totally disabled and on compensation, can get £5 15s., the 50s. compensation under the old Workmen's Compensation Act, plus 65s.—and more if he is receiving constant attendance allowance. That compares with 50s. before 1948.

  1957
  The fact remains that the man on 100 per cent. disablement pension resulting from an industrial accident since July, 1948. is now better off than the man receiving compensation for total incapacity before that date. The disparity justifies some improvement, and that is the purpose of the Bill. It is accepted generally, I think, that that cannot be done at the expense of the employers or insurance companies.
  Mr. J. T. Price: I do not accept that.
  Miss Pitt: If we are to do anything to benefit these men, then it must be a charge on the Industrial Injuries Fund. If hon. Members had a practical alternative to that, I should have thought that we would have heard about it this evening.
  Mr. Price: Every year the insurance companies carrying these liabilities have to make a return to the Board of Trade showing the amount of capital reserved in that year's account to cover liabilities still current. I suggest that the hon. Lady and her right hon. Friend should look at those returns, because that is where the money is to be found.
  Miss Pitt: That is quite irrelevant to the debate. To pursue that particular argument, we should have another debate on confiscation. We cannot alter the fact that the premiums paid in the old days are relevant to the benefits provided.
  As I was saying before that interruption, the supplement will have to be charged on the Industrial Injuries Fund, and the rate of 17s. 6d. now proposed will bring married men, who form the majority of cases, up to the level of 100 per cent. disablement pension. No provision is made for the partially disabled, because a supplement for these men from the Industrial Injuries Fund is not justified.
  The partials are in two groups. The first is those on less than maximum compensation, who form the larger part of the number comprising partials, and the second is those partials on maximum benefit. In the first group— those who have not yet reached maximum compensation— there is provision for a review of the compensation within the maximum to take account of changes in wage rates, so that they are able to benefit
  1958
  from increases in pay for the particular job they are doing. The second group—those already up to maximum benefit—is the one group where workmen's compensation compares favourably even now with Industrial Injuries.
  For example, a 30 per cent. assessment under the Industrial Injuries Scheme gives a pension of 20s. 3d. a week. That can be increased by special hardship allowance at the maximum rate of 27s. 6d. a week, which brings the total up to 47s. 9d. a week. That should be compared with 50s. to which the married man is entitled on maximum workmen's compensation for partial disability. It will be seen, as I have said, that the man on workmen's compensation is better off than the man on a 30 per cent. assessment under the Industrial Injuries Scheme. In fact, about three-quarters of the disablement pensioners under industrial injuries have assessments of 30 per cent. or less.
  One further point is the fact that the partials are able to benefit from increased wages. In fact, they still have capacity to work, and the benefits they are entitled to from under the National Insurance Scheme are increased from time to time.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Miss Pitt: I cannot answer all three Members at once.
  Mr. Finch: I do not like to interrupt all the time, but the hon. Lady has given some answers which are not correct. She mentioned rates of compensation for partially disabled men rising as a result of increases in wages. That may be true in some cases, but it very often operates the other way round. There are men in the mining industry who are getting an increase in wages in light work, but there are thousands of men who are getting no compensation at all. Let us have the right setting and not an exaggeration.
  Miss Pitt: The hon. Member has misunderstood me. I just said that these men are able to benefit from the increased rates of pay, which are being paid in every industry in the country.
  Mr. Finch: Partially disabled men may get a slight increase in light work wages, but suppose they do? That results in the reduction of compensation. The hon. Lady is making a lot of the increase in light work wages, but those are still far

  1959
  behind what the men could have been earning. Do let us have the facts in the right perspective.
  Miss Pitt: The point I am making is that they can share in the generally increased level of prosperity in the country.
  I come to the question of the prolonged period.
  Miss Herbison rose—
  Miss Pitt: I would rather not give way again because the debate has already gone on for a considerable time and I have already given way frequently.
  The supplement is to be paid if a man is incapable of work as the result of injury or disease and is likely to remain so for "a prolonged period ". The Industrial Injuries Commissioner will be the final authority to decide what is meant by "prolonged period" but as my right hon. Friend endeavoured to make clear in his speech we think it wise to keep this definition of "prolonged period" as flexible as possible so that we should not be tied down to three months or six months or whatever period may be decided upon. That would make for difficult cases and difficult decisions. If there is a certain amount of discretion in the interpretation of the words "prolonged period" we think that it will benefit the men concerned.
  Claims will be decided by the usual machinery. That is the insurance officer in the first place; on appeal the case would go to the local tribunal; the final appeal would in certain circumstances be to the Industrial Injuries Commissioner. It is not possible to give an accurate estimate of the numbers who will benefit, but we think probably between 10,000 and 11,000 on workmen's compensation and about 3,000 under the benefit schemes; perhaps more than three-fifths of the beneficiaries will be from the coal mining industry.' I understand the interest which hon. Members opposite who represent mining constituencies have in that matter. The cost will be £ 650,000 a year at first, to be met out of the Industrial Injuries Fund, and it will be a diminishing figure.
  May I conclude with a comment on something said by the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Deer). He referred, in what I thought was a rather telling
  1960
  phrase, to the men who have had to "stand aside". We are trying in this Bill to help the men who have had to stand aside, those who do not share in the general level of increased prosperity, the men who are not able to help themselves, the men in need. We hope to do something for them through this Bill.
  Miss Herbison: There was one category of men whose position was mentioned in speeches from this side of the House, but not mentioned by the hon. Lady in her reply to the debate, and that is the category of those who are receiving 20s. a week as men suffering from pneumoconiosis and considered partially disabled. All that has been said in the hon. Lady's reply about those who are partially disabled cannot apply to these people. What is the attitude of the Government to them?
  Miss Pitt: The Bill applies only to people who are totally disabled.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT (SUPPLEMENTATION) [MONEY]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
  Resolved.
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the payment of allowances out of the Industrial Injuries Fund with a view to supplementing workmen's compensation and benefit, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorize—"

  (a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance or any other Government Department in carrying the Act into effect;

  (b) if the Act applies subsection (1) of section thirteen of the National Assistance Act. 1948. so as to reduce the liabilities under the Act of the Industrial Injuries Fund by reference to the amount of any assistance grants. the payment out of the Fund into the Exchequer of an amount equal to any such reduction.—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

  Resolution to be reported upon Thursday.

  SUEZ CANAL
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Wills.]
  10.25 p. m.
  Mr. John Peyton: I have realised very clearly since I learned that I had the opportunity of raising the question of the Suez Canal that it is a very large problem to raise at such a time as this. I remind the House, however, that the reason for my doing so is my acute disappointment with the Answers which were given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs a few days ago in the House.
  It is, of course, clear that no one can attempt to deal with the question of the Suez Canal and present any future problems divorced from the background of the Middle East. I want to start by saying to my noble Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that, while we all respect and admire a certain amount of caution on the part of the Foreign Office, we believe that that can be greatly overdone. One of the really urgent things to which the present Government must give their attention is the state of public opinion in the country. It manifestly needs leadership and instruction from those who are responsible for formulating policy.
  In relation to such spheres as the Middle East, the public is now looking very anxiously for something much more definite in the way of guidance than the assurance that difficult problems are being looked into, borne in mind, considered and the rest. We definitely need a clear formulation of policy which people are able to understand.
  We have the situation in relation to the Suez Canal that a resolution of the Security Council is being flouted. Can we really put up with that? How strong do we intend the United Nations to be? Is our loyalty to that organisation merely one of lip-sevice or not? One accepts, of course, and must accept, that the problems of the Suez Canal are affected by Arab-Israeli politics. It should be observed here that, quite contrary to the hopes that some of us may have cherished, agreement on the Suez base has not been followed in any way by improvement in Anglo-Egyptian relations.
  1962
  I do not wish to waste my time on abusing somebody who may, after all, be only a very temporary leader of his country, but I would say that Colonel Nasser has seen fit to subjugate his people's interests and subordinate his own promise to the very dubious prestige that might be gained by being the possessor of a certain quantity of modern arms which one can say clearly and dogmatically will never be of any benefit to Egypt or anyone in the Middle East.
  Perhaps I should say—I do not want to enlarge on this—that even sadder is the fact that in this dangerous part of the world Anglo-American co-operation has been conspicuous far too often by its absence. Mr. Dulles has given the appearance of being very much more easily influenced by anti-imperialist gibes and propaganda than by the desire to be helpful to his principal Ally.
  It is also the unfortunate fact that there has been in that part of the world a series of Anglophobe American ambassadors who have really done nothing to manifest either a willingness to co-operate or to understand this country. They have gone further than that; they have been a constant source of embarrassment. If evidence is required, I would instance Mr. Cannon's statement the other day on the rather different question of the banishment of Archbishop Makarios.
  To deal with the Canal itself, the present restrictions on navigation emanate, we know, from the present hostilities between Egypt and Israel, and I suppose that it is unrealistic to expect a complete cessation of those restrictions while the hostilities continue. Therefore, one is forced back to the general question whether we are really doing enough. whether we are playing a sufficiently effective part in bringing this highly explosive situation in the Middle East under effective control.
  Look as one may for some sign of encouragement, it is not easy to find. The Tripartite Declaration, which in itself is a dangerously vague paper commitment, in fact really offers but a flimsy promise of stability. Indeed, it has not secured stability in the Middle East, and certainly it has not secured any friends for this country. But I think it would be most ungenerous if one did not pay tribute to the work which General Burns has attempted to do, though, at the same

  1963
  time, we must admit that we have asked him to do what in the long run is impossible. To ask General Burns, with a limited staff, to carry out his great task of pacification without greater force at his disposal is something which I cannot understand.
  I think it is true to say that, so long as this dangerous situation is allowed to drift, the principal problems will be neglected, and one of those problems is certainly and incontrovertibly that of the Suez Canal. At the present moment certain arbitrary restrictions on navigation are being imposed, and I suggest that it is intolerable that such arbitrary restrictions should be imposed upon the use of an international waterway.
  It is no use giving mere lip-service to a Resolution of the Security Council. It is no use merely stating in this House that it is on the whole rather undesirable, or something of that kind, that restriction should be placed on navigation. In my opinion, it must be stated clearly, beyond a peradventure, that restrictions placed upon the use of an international waterway of the kind of the Suez Canal are absolutely intolerable. It is true, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary will remind the House, that the Canal is now being used by more ships than ever before, but I say that this fact in itself merely underlines the need for effective international control of the waterway of the Suez Canal.
  It may be, and I am not prepared to deny it, that Egypt may have a strong claim to some share in the revenue of the Canal. But I do say to my hon. Friend that the present Egyptian Government have not yet given those who believe in freedom of commerce between nations any justification for thinking that their word can be relied upon or that their word is of any value.
  It may well be that someone else far worse will shortly follow Colonel Nasser, but even as things are at present we have little justification for relying upon the word of the Egyptian Government. It is an intolerable situation that either now or in the future the body in control of the Suez Canal should fall entirely under the hand of Egypt.
  A second point which I should like to make is that the problem of the future use of the Suez Canal is not one, surely,
  1964
  which should be postponed until 1968. It is something that we must deal with now. What does my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary anticipate will be the future traffic through the Suez Canal? Does he anticipate that the physical limitations of the Canal are such as will gradually tend to diminish its usefulness, or does he think that the physical limitations can be overcome? If they can be overcome— and probably they can— to deal with an immensely increased volume of traffic, I suggest that that is something which we must face now, immediately.
  To do that, we must quite clearly go into consultation with all those other nations who are directly interested. Of course, I include Egypt as one of them. I think that a clear approach and a clear lead—I know that that is a painful word nowadays—with clear leadership from this country, is called for to lay down, in the name of international law, the conditions for the future use of the Suez Canal. It would, of course, be preferable that that should be done in the name of the United Nations.
  There is one question that I should like to ask my hon. Friend, in view of the need for finance for widening or other works on the Canal. What use is being made of the revenues of the Suez Canal? If my hon. Friend has not that information available tonight, I should be interested to hear it as soon as possible. I am sure that the House would be interested to know it also.
  I do not want to prolong my remarks, as I want to leave time for other hon. Members to take part in the debate and for my hon. Friend to reply, but I want to say this. There was a time when this country was not afraid to enunciate policies and was not unable to persuade others to support those policies in partnership with us. I find it difficult to believe that a few propaganda gibes have so sapped our courage and robbed us of our confidence that we are unable to face this problem boldly. I am quite certain that if we attempt now to run away from the hard facts of the situation in the Middle East, we shall indeed be released from the control of the civilised world— a situation fraught with danger, not only for those who use the Suez Canal and for all who live in the Middle East, but for the world as a whole.

  1965
  I make no apology for having raised in a very short time some of the points which bear closely upon this vital international waterway, and I hope that my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friends at the Foreign Office will realise that there is an increasing demand in this country for a clear formulation of policy on behalf of our people.
  10.40 p.m.
  Mr. Paul Williams: The House and the country should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) for raising this matter. It is perhaps significant that hon. Members opposite are not assembled in serried ranks in order to take part in this discussion. The fact that there is not a single member of the Labour Party in the Chamber shows to some degree the interest taken by hon. Members opposite in essential and vital British interests.
  I wish to stress two points to my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary. Without some further protest, influence or sanction, we can no longer tolerate the absence of freedom of navigation through this international waterway. I wish to remind my hon. Friend of the sanction which remains within our power, the sanction and influence which we hold and which we could use to bring home to the Egyptian Government the importance and the sanity of our point of view. I refer to the fact that we still hold sterling balances in this country.
  It may be that in the months ahead we are committed to payments under a previous agreement. But where the Egyptian Government is presently in default in respect of an international agreement, I think it perfectly reasonable to say that this country should be willing to review commitments to that Government with a view to saying that unless they are willing to allow freedom of navigation through the Canal, we shall block their sterling balances.
  10.41 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker): When this debate was arranged, referring to the Suez Canal, I did not anticipate that my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) would raise
  1966
  other issues affecting the Middle East, and I do not think that he expects me to discuss those controversial subjects on this occasion. I have to guide me not only his remarks tonight but the points which he raised in supplementary questions to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, who replied to Questions by my hon. Friend on 7th May.
  From those questions and the remarks which my hon. Friend has made this evening, I think that two points emerge. The first is the freedom of navigation of the Canal, which is impeded by the Egyptians against Israeli interests. The second is the future operation of the Canal, which as my hon. Friends have said, is of the greatest importance to us all and of the greatest interest to hon. Members of this House.
  I wish first to make clear the present position regarding the "blockade" or rather the freedom of navigation of the Canal. It has been made clear on many occasions by my right hon. and hon. Friends, both in this House and in the Security Council. Of course, the Arab countries take a view different from ours. They consider themselves to be still at war with Israel and therefore entitled to take measures of this sort. We differ in our view of the armistice, but I am trying to make clear the view taken by Egypt, as one of the Arab countries.
  Major H. Legge-Bourke: Surely my hon. Friend will agree that the original Suez Canal Convention, under which Egypt is bound, laid down categorically that the Canal must be kept open at all times, whether in peace or war, to all ships, whether ships of war or not?
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: I was coming to that point.
  We do not agree with the line taken by the Arab countries on this question. But I do not think that anyone would pretend that we can remove these restrictions by saying that we do not agree with them.
  In 1951 Israel referred this matter to the Security Council. Very briefly, the history of the matter is that from May, 1948, onwards the Arab States have imposed an economic blockade on Israel, and in particular the Egyptian Government have refused to grant passage

  1967
  through the Canal to Israeli shipping or to shipping of other nations bound for Israel. Those restrictions, together with the cutting of the oil pipelines from Iraq, had certain most unfortunate economic effects upon the important oil refinery at Haifa, and from that point of view, and others, the question was brought before the Security Council by Israel in July, 1951.
  On 1st September of that year the Council adopted an Anglo-French-United States Resolution calling upon Egypt
  " to terminate the restrictions on the passage of international commercial shipping through the Suez Canal, wherever bound, and to cease all interference with such shipping "
  That, as has often been made clear from this Box before, is how the matter stands at the moment. It is no longer a matter, therefore, for unilateral action by Her Majesty's Government, but for all countries represented at the United Nations. and particularly for all countries interested in maritime matters and free transit through the Canal.
  The point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) was raised again I think, in Questions yesterday when reference was made to the reaffirmation, in the 1954 Agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the Egyptian Government, of the principle of freedom of navigation. In Article 8 of that Agreement it is laid down that
  " The two Contracting Governments recognise that the Suez Maritime Canal which is an integral part of Egypt, is a waterway economically, commercially and strategically of great importance, and express the determination to uphold the Convention guaranteeing the freedom of navigation of the Canal signed at Constantinople on the 29th of October, 1888 "
  That referred particularly to Article I of the Convention of 1888, and was reaffirmed by the Egyptian Government and Her Majesty's Government in 1954. It is a matter of deep regret to Her Majesty's Government that restrictions imposed by Egypt on Israeli shipping and ships bound to and from Israel should have continued for so long after the armistice agreements between Israel and her neighbours.
  I might say, in passing, that we have welcomed, and I am glad that both sides of the House paid tribute to the efforts
  1968
  made by the Secretary-General of the United Nations in attempting to solve this problem, among others. We intend to give him and the United Nations our whole-hearted support in working for a general settlement of the dispute between Israel and her neighbours whereby so many problems, including that of Egypt impeding navigation of the Canal, can best be solved.
  Mr. Peyton: I am glad that we give support to the Secretary-General, but I ask my hon. Friend that we should take the initiative in the United Nations and, in very close consultation with the United States and others interested, really get the free nations to take some effective action.
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: If my hon. Friend had studied what has been going on in the last few years in the United Nations he would realise that a very great deal of initiative has been taken by this country. As the Minister of State made clear yesterday, it was the present Foreign Secretary who put forward a number of ideas which led to action taken by the Secretary-General of the United Nations in his trip. I can assure my hon. Friend, if he needs assurance, that we are taking a considerable amount of initiative in these matters—far more than he and others sometimes give us credit for.
  Now we have the matter within the United Nations, it is not one for unilateral action by Her Majesty's Government, and we shall continue, as I say, to give all support to the Secretary-General and to the United Nations in trying to bring this matter to a successful conclusion. It is, after all, a matter which is of great interest to other maritime nations and not only to the United Kingdom.
  So I come to the actual administration of the Canal. As I think the House realises, the Suez Canal is a major international waterway of vital importance to the world as a whole, and particularly to Western Europe and the maritime countries.
  I think it is sometimes not remembered what tremendous developments have taken place in the last few years in the transport of oil through pipelines which reach the Near East coast of the Mediterranean, and by reason of the air lines which carry so much passenger traffic between the Mediterranean and the

  1969
  East. Despite all this, however, the Suez Canal remains of vital importance to all of us. The tremendous growth of Middle East oil production has added to its importance. Today, half the oil consumed in Western Europe comes through the Suez Canal.
  Events in the Middle East and the evolution going on there bring up for consideration the future of the Canal, what we are doing, and what we can do, to ensure the operational efficiency of the Canal. Use of the Canal increases rapidly. In 1938, the last full year before the war, 34 million tons of shipping passed through the Canal; in 1945, the figure fell to 25 million tons; but five years later, in 1950, the figure was 81 million tons, and in 1955, 115 million tons.
  Britain remains the largest single user. In 1955 British shipping accounted for 28.3 per cent. of the tonnage passing through the Canal. It is clear that this expansion will continue, if only because of the rate at which the production and sale of Middle East oil is increasing. We cannot foretell what the position will be in ten years' time, or even five years from now. It is not just a question of the number of ships which wish to pass through the Canal; it is a question of the capacity of the Canal, the size of the ships, and so forth
  It is important to assess the nature of the problem which will arise in the next few years. The Suez Canal Company, with the support of the British directors, is making a constant study of all these problems. Those of us who were involved in this matter—however briefly—in the years before and during the war should pay tribute to the management of the Canal for what they have succeeded in doing, in view of developments in the
  1970
  last ten years—developments which were quite unexpected in 1945.
  This brings me to the management of the Canal, and to stress, which I am sure is not necessary in this House, that the Suez Canal Company is an Egyptian Company operating a concession which expires in 1968. The Canal is in Egyptian territory, and Egypt benefits considerably from taxes and dues paid by the company and by ships using the Canal. But the company's obligations are international. It has to meet an expanding volume of shipping. It has to maintain the waterway, and provide the hundred and one facilities that this demands.
  It must be free, we believe, to do this. It is not in the Egyptian Government's interest that the company should be restricted or impeded from providing the service which is required. I would stress again the commercial nature of this problem. We believe, from the experience of the past, that the Egyptian Government recognise this. Many subjects come up for discussion between the company and the Egyptian Government, and we believe that these questions affecting the administration of the Canal are best left to them to settle on the basis of cooperation and mutual interest.
  We have three Government directors on the Board of the Company, through whom Her Majesty's Government maintain close touch with the company's affairs—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour,Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at five minutes to Eleven o'clock.

MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Geological Survey (Accommodation)
  Geological Survey (Accommodation)
  Big Ben (Overhaul)
  Big Ben (Overhaul)
SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH
  National Science Centre
  National Science Centre
  Science and Invention Library (Capital Cost)
  Science and Invention Library (Capital Cost)
BRITISH ARMY
  Convoy (South Circular Road)
  Convoy (South Circular Road)
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  Jordan (British Officers)
  Jordan (British Officers)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Development Areas (Factory Building)
  Development Areas (Factory Building)
  Foreign-made Shirts ("Empire" Marking)
  Foreign-made Shirts ("Empire" Marking)
  Cotton Textile Trade (Representations)
  Cotton Textile Trade (Representations)
  Film Industry (Legislation)
  Film Industry (Legislation)
  Hire-purchase Agreements (Interest Charges)
  Hire-purchase Agreements (Interest Charges)
  Monopolies Commission (Rubber Footwear)
  Monopolies Commission (Rubber Footwear)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Public Service Vehicles (Fuel Oil Duties)
  Public Service Vehicles (Fuel Oil Duties)
  Clothes Lines (Tax)
  Clothes Lines (Tax)
  Entertainments Duty (Collection)
  Entertainments Duty (Collection)
  Cost of Living (Coal Prices)
  Cost of Living (Coal Prices)
  House of Commons (Telephone Calls)
  House of Commons (Telephone Calls)
HOUSING
  Rent Restrictions (Review)
  Rent Restrictions (Review)
  Property, Hackney (Purchase Grant)
  Property, Hackney (Purchase Grant)
  Differential Rent Schemes
  Differential Rent Schemes
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage, Leek
  Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage, Leek
  Refuse Extraction Machinery
  Refuse Extraction Machinery
EMPLOYMENT
  Austin Motor Company
  Austin Motor Company
  Automation
  Automation
GOLD COAST
  General Election
  General Election
  HOME DEPARTMENT Shops (Sunday Opening)
  HOME DEPARTMENT Shops (Sunday Opening)
  NATIONAL COAL BOARD (PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS)
  NATIONAL COAL BOARD (PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS)
TRANSPORT
  Public Service and Goods Vehicles
  Public Service and Goods Vehicles
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Commander Crabb
  Commander Crabb
  Unemployment Benefit (Short-time Working)
  Unemployment Benefit (Short-time Working)
  Medical Appeals Tribunal, Birmingham (Decisions)
  Medical Appeals Tribunal, Birmingham (Decisions)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
  LONDON NECROPOLIS BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

PROPOSED NEW OIL INSTALLATIONS
2.35 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: 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 that the Southampton Harbour Board have approved in principle the construction of oil jetties on the shore near Warsash for the use of a proposed new oil refinery, and whether they consider that in the interests of defence such installations should be spread rather than have two refineries in the same area; and further, if they are aware of the congestion of shipping in the deep water approaches to Southampton already caused by tankers awaiting discharge at the Fawley Refinery; and if they will state what steps have been taken to consult the large and important shipping interests in that area, and whether, and when, a public inquiry is to be held to enable the substantial opposition to these proposals to be heard.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THF EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, since the noble Lord's Question was tabled, my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation has been informed that the Southampton Harbour Board have agreed in principle to the establishment of a new oil jetty in Southampton Water, subject to the necessary consents being obtained. Any proposal for the erection of a new oil refinery requires an industrial development certificate and planning permission.
354
Up to date, neither has been applied for. If applications were made all the important matters which are raised in the noble Lord's Question would be taken into consideration.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for his reply, may I remind him of the large quantities of oil fuels which are already found on the beaches in the vicinity? Does he not think that an additional refinery would certainly increase them?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I think that that is a question which must ultimately be decided when an industrial development certificate and planning permission are applied for.

TOURIST ALLOWANCES FOR DOLLAR AREA
2.37 p.m.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have in mind any measures to redress the balance of cultural and tourist travel between the United Kingdom, on the one hand, and the United States and Canada; how many years have passed since a United Kingdom resident could, in normal circumstances, obtain a tourist allowance to the United States; and whether any statistics are available showing that such travel facilities, especially among young people, are almost entirely unilateral.]
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government attach great importance to the fostering of personal and cultural contacts between this country and Canada and the U.S.A. Unfortunately, our balance of payments difficulties compel us to restrict dollar expenditure to essential purposes only. For this reason there has been no basic travel allowance for the dollar area since this was withdrawn in August, 1947. But special allowances are available for businessmen, for persons wishing to attend conferences, for post-graduate education, and for certain compassionate cases. Finally, a small allowance is given for the incidental expenses of people visiting close relatives. Statistics of the

355
number of United Kingdom residents visiting the U.S.A. and Canada are not available. The Government do not at present contemplate making any change as regards private travel to North America, since the cost of doing so would be substantial. But the position will be reviewed as soon as our circumstances permit some relaxation.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, whilst I should not wish to press the noble Lord for a further extempore reply in detail, perhaps I can properly ask him this question. Would the Treasury take the views of the Board of Trade and the Commonwealth Relations Office on the subject matter of my Question, and thus acquaint themselves more fully with the strength of the case which I have ventured to bring to the notice of the House?
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I am answering on behalf of Her Majesty's Government and not merely of the Treasury. Before an Answer on these matters is given, the full views of the Departments of the Government are always taken into account.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, while no doubt the full views of the Departments are taken into account—and
I thank the noble Lord for clearing up that point—may I draw his attention to the fact that the statistical information upon which a decision should be based has evidently not been ascertained by the Treasury? Could he not at least give me an assurance that that information will be ascertained?
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I do not know on what grounds the noble Lord says that the Treasury lacked some statistical information. To the best of my knowledge, the Treasury have the most abundant and accurate statistics available to them.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I must have misunderstood the reply of the noble Lord. I thought he stated that figures were not available. If they are not available, they can easily be obtained. The number of visas granted can be obtained from the Embassy concerned, and similarly from the High Commissioner's Office.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, if the noble Lord is referring to the number of United
356
Kingdom residents visiting the United States of America, I admit that those figures are not available, but I do not see that they are relevant to the noble Lord's Question.

ROXBURGH COUNTY COUNCIL (ALE WATER) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
Order of the Day for the consideration of the Third Report from the Select Committee read.
The Committee reported as follows:
1.—LIBRARY
A Report from the Sub-Committee on the Library was laid before the Committee.
The Committee were informed that the Librarian was due for retirement in October next and invited the Library Sub-Committee to make a recommendation as to his successor and matters arising in connection with his retirement.
The Earl of Home and the Earl Attlee were added to the Sub-Committee.
2.—WAR MEMORIAL
A Report from the Sub-Committee on the War Memorial was laid before the Committee. The Committee recommended that the question of the site for the re-erection of the statue, which previously stood in the Royal Gallery as a memorial for the 1914–18 war, should be deferred for future consideration; that the War Memorial Sub-Committee should be dissolved and that the balance of the funds held by the Sub-Committee, after all outstanding accounts had been paid, should be transferred to a special account in the names of the Chairman of Committees, the Lord Great Chamberlain, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod and the Clerk of the Parliaments.
3.—HOUSE OF LORDS' CHAMBER.

(1) Ventilation. The Committee considered the question of the ventilation of the Chamber which had been referred to them by the House, and approved new arrangements for the use of the fans by which ventilation will be improved.

(2) The Committee were informed that further experiments were being made for the exterior floodlighting of the windows.

4.—PRINCE'S CHAMBER

(1) Statue of Queen Victoria. The Committee expressed general approval of the proposal to remove the two supporting figures, which would be stored with a view to subsequent re-erection if at any time the House desired to restore them to their existing position.

357

(2) Lighting. The Committee were informed that new lighting of the pictures in the Prince's Chamber had been installed.

5.—REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT
The Committee gave general approval to plans submitted by the Lord Great Chamberlain for improved accommodation for the Refreshment Department. The Lord Great Chamberlain was asked whether he could prepare a scheme for carrying out the work in stages according to its urgency.
6.—'REVISED ESTIMATE, 1956–57
The Committee authorised the increased cost of Police services for the year ending 31st March, 1957.
7.—D EPARTMENT OF THE LORD GREAT CHAMBERLAIN
The Committee were informed of the return of Mr. L. A. Ketcher from prolonged sick leave. As a temporary expedient, the employment of Mr. Ketcher on the establishment of the Custodian Staff (Subhead J) on his present scale of salary as an Office Assistant was approved. The continued employment of a shorthand typist in the Lord Great Chamberlain's Office, instead of Mr. Ketcher, was approved.
8.—RETIREMENT OF PRINCIPAL DOORKEEPER
The Committee sanctioned the payment of a pension and an additional allowance under the Superannuation Act, 1909, to Mr. Sydney Charles Pitt, who attains 65 years of age on 6th March, 1956.
9.——RETIREMENT OF A SENIOR CUSTODIAN
The Committee sanctioned the payment of a pension and an additional allowance under the Superannuation Acts to Mr. Robert Calvert, B.E.M., who attained 65 years of age on 10th February, 1956.
10.—CUSTODIAN—DUE FOR RETIREMENT
The Committee sanctioned the payment of a pension and an additional allowance under the Superannuation Acts to Mr. Frederick George Steele, who attained 65 years of age on 5th February, 1956.
The Committee were informed that Mr. Steele is being re-employed as an unestablished Custodian.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, in the absence of the noble Earl the Lord Chairman of Committees, who I am sorry to say is not well, it falls to me to move that this Report be now considered.
Moved, That the Report be now considered.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now agreed to, and in doing so I think perhaps I ought to say a few words on
358
one or two of the items. Your Lordships will have seen the Report and will know, therefore, that on most of the items little comment is necessary. However, as to item No. 2, the War Memorial, your Lordships will have noted that the three Memorial Books containing the names of those who lost their lives in the two wars have now been placed in the embrasure in the Royal Gallery, in accordance with the original intentions. That involves some further consideration of what is to be done with the statue, which was originally there, or, at any rate, has temporarily been there. As your Lordships know, the statue did not meet with universal approval in the position in which it was, and it has therefore been necessary to give that matter further consideration. I can only assure your Lordships that when some conclusions have been reached you will have a further opportunity of approving whatever is then proposed.
There is then the rather important question for us all of the ventilation of the House. That is a matter which has been the subject of comment, and indeed of complaint, during the whole time that we have been back in this Chamber since the war, and a great deal of thought has been given lo it. Eventually, as your Lordships know, the matter was referred by the House to the House of Lords Offices Committee. I am glad to be able to report that arrangements have now been, made by which the fans in the roof can be accelerated and operated from Black Rod's Box. The present arrangement is that the fans are kept working at full speed throughout the morning and reduced in speed for the afternoon's sittings. The reason for the reduction in the afternoon is that when they are working at full speed they are audible. The speed can, however, be increased during the afternoon's sittings if the atmosphere in the Chamber becomes oppressive. Your Lordships will be glad to hear that some efforts, at any rate, are being made to improve the atmosphere.
I am also glad to be able to report that the Lord Great Chamberlain is carrying out experiments in lighting the windows from the outside of the House. I do not know whether your Lordships noticed it, but one afternoon earlier in the year one of the windows was lit for that purpose. It certainly improved the

359
appearance, and should be of great use later on in the year when it is dark earlier.
Then I come to item 5, which deals with the accommodation in the refreshment department. There have been some projected plans for improving this, which consist of the conversion of some of the rooms on the Terrace front, underneath the Library, into additional dining rooms. This idea has been considered by the Committee and has been given general approval, subject, of course, to the approval of the House. But there are other authorities who have to be considered, and it is possible that these plans cannot be carried out for some time yet. Apart from everything else, I think the present economic situation will not make it a particularly appropriate moment for spending large sums of money on an object of this kind. But there is no doubt that if and when these improvements are made they will be of great value to noble Lords and their guests.
Finally, there is one item about which I think I ought to say just a little more, and that is item 4. It relates to the Prince's Chamber, and a proposal with regard to the statute of Queen Victoria there. As your Lordships know, that statue is flanked by two other figures which are large and have often been thought rather to dwarf the central figure. They, I understand, were not part of the original design, but were brought in rather as an afterthought—at the time, but as an afterthought. Further consideration of this question, in which noble Lords with great authority and experience in these subjects took part, led the Committee to the conclusion that there was at least a case for removing these supporting figures temporarily, so that noble Lords should have the opportunity of judging how the central figure looks alone, as was the original design of the sculptor. The Committee recommend that proposal to the House in their Report.
I would emphasise that there is no suggestion that these figures should be removed from the precincts of the House. They would be taken downstairs and kept over such period as was necessary to enable noble Lords to look at the central figure without the supporting ones, and see which they prefer. I hope very much, if I may say so, that the House
360
will agree to this proposal, which is put forward merely to give the House an opportunity of judging between the two alternatives. The House will notice one other improvement in the Prince's Chamber, and that is the illumination of the pictures on the wall by special lighting thrown from the chandelier. I think there is no doubt that that has greatly improved the appearance of the room.
These are the only comments which I wish to make upon the Report, and I should once more like to move that it be approved.
Moved, That the Report be now approved.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I am obliged to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House for the care he has taken in expounding the Report. I know all about the matters he has so carefully put before your Lordships, and I hope that the House will adopt the Report.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TRANSPORT (DISPOSAL OF ROAD HAULAGE PROPERTY) BILL
2.47 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair]
Clause 1:
Disposal of property to companies remaining under Commission's control
1. For subsection (1) of section four of the Transport Act, 1953 (which relates to transfers of property to companies under the control of the Commission, otherwise than with a view to the sale of their shares) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(1) Subject to the provisions of this subsection the Commission may make over to any company under their direct or indirect control any property held by them for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking and any of their rights and obligations, whether under contract or otherwise, being rights and obligations connected with the property transferred, and in that event subsections (4) and (5) of the last preceding section, section six of this Act, and the First Schedule to this Act shall have effect as if

361
the transaction had been a purchase resulting from an invitation under the last preceding section to tender for the purchase of that property on conditions providing for the purchaser taking over the connected rights and obligations, as if all such things had been done as would have fallen to be done if the transaction had been such a purchase and as if any vehicles specified by the Commission to the company as additional vehicles at the time when they are made over had been so specified under the said subsection (5), and, without prejudice to the generality of the preceding provisions of this subsection, references in the said provisions of this Act to transport units, to purchasers of transport units and to additional vehicles shall be construed accordingly.
Provided that—
(b) the total number and the total weight unladen of the vehicles made over to companies under this subsection which belong to each of the three following categories, that is to say—

(i) vehicles (whether motor vehicles or trailers) specially constructed to carry abnormal indivisible loads;

(ii) motor vehicles (of whatever character) which in the opinion of the Minister ought to be regarded as special vehicles constructed for special purposes other than the carriage of abnormal indivisible loads; and

(iii) other motor vehicles,

shall not exceed, in the case of the first category, three hundred and twenty-five vehicles and two thousand seven hundred and fifty tons, in the case of the second category nine hundred and eighty-nine vehicles and three thousand three hundred and thirty tons, and in the case of the third category seven thousand seven hundred and fifty vehicles and thirty-six thousand tons, and, of the vehicles so made over which belong to the third category, not less than three-fortieths, in number, shall be specified as additional vehicles;
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in paragraph (b) of the proposed new subsection (1), to leave out "thirty-six" and insert "forty" [thousand tons]. The noble Lord said; The first Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper is of an exploratory character. I wish to ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill if he will tell your Lordships the significance of the additional words in this clause which set out not only the number of vehicles which are to be made over to companies, but the tonnage of every one of the three categories. Perhaps I may say a word by way of explanation. This provision deals with the companies
362
under Section 4 of the Transport Act, 1953:
"Transfer of transport units to companies under control of the Commission."
As I read it—and I know the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will be kind enough to correct me if I am wrong—the figures in this clause have significance only upon the day that the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. There are three categories—I am now quoting from subsection (1) of Clause 1. Category 1 consists of the big vehicles which cumber up the roads of the country and which carry these abnormal loads. The second category is vehicles which carry special loads, and the third is the 7,750 general haulage vehicles which are to be transferred to the company—I suppose it will be called "British Road Services General Haulage, Limited," or something like that—which I understand is already in existence, on the day after this Bill becomes an Act.
I want to ask the noble Earl whether it is the number of vehicles or the weight of vehicles which will be transferred. What is the significance of putting these figures in all these three categories? If your Lordships will read from line 31, you will see the words:
"shall not exceed, in the case of the first category, three hundred and twenty-five vehicles and two thousand seven hundred and fifty tons, in the case of the second category nine hundred and eighty-nine vehicles and three thousand three hundred and thirty tons, and in the case of the third category seven thousand seven hundred and fifty vehicles and thirty-six thousand tons".
I have done some mental arithmetic and can understand the first category, because I have worked out the average weight of the 325 vehicles making up the 2,750 tons. I have clone the same with the second category, but when it comes to the third category—that is, 7,750 vehicles and 36,000 tons—my practical experience of this industry prompts me to say that there must be some mistake. Perhaps the noble Earl can give me a simple answer. Either it is a mistake or, if it is not a mistake, it is a very serious matter. I estimate that with these 7,750 vehicles which are to be transferred to the company which is formed to carry on the general long-distance haulage, the average vehicle will be more than four and a half tons unladen weight. If I divide 7,750 into 36,000, I get about four and a half. As these vehicles range from about three tons to

363
ten tons in weight, I would hazard a guess —it can be only a guess—that the average unladen weight throughout the whole fleet would be somewhere in the region of five tons. I want to ask the noble Earl this question. Does this Bill transfer 7,750 vehicles, or a number of vehicles aggregating 36,000 tons in weight? Because, if the latter is the case and the average weight is five tons per vehicle, it means that the company will have transferred to them not 7,750 vehicles but 7,200 vehicles, which will be 550 vehicles short. I am certain the Government do not mean that. I cannot understand the significance of putting in a tonnage figure at all. I work it out that, if the average is five tons per vehicle unladen weight and the number of vehicles is 7,750, the 36,000 becomes nearer 40,000. I am not seeking to increase the number of vehicles—the noble Earl understands that, does he not?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): Oh, yes.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am not seeking to do that, because, of course, the day after these vehicles are transferred these figures will have no significance. The noble Earl will appreciate that, because this is only the figure of vehicles to be transferred by British Road Services to the company formed under Section 4 of the 1953 Act. From that day onwards the number can be increased if the company are able to persuade the licensing authorities of the country to grant them licences, and can be decreased if commercial or any other considerations dictate that they shall sell the vehicles, because the vehicles then become the property not of British Road Services but of the company formed, as I say, in accordance with Section 4 of the 1953 Act. I hope I have made the point clear.
It should be a simple question to answer, because this fleet of 7,750 vehicles is in existence. It is not a "ghost" fleet: the vehicles are actually there. I feel that there has been a slip, a mistake, because I am sure the noble Earl does not want to see these vehicles transferred upon a tonnage basis. I want them transferred on a vehicle basis, as we have all along understood they would be. This is, in fact, the first time that tonnage has ever
364
entered into it. If I may just recall the history of this matter, this was the number which the Chairman of the Disposals Board recommended should be given to general road haulage. Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve said the figure was, as near as he could ascertain and guess, 7,750. He did not say 36,000 tons' weight of vehicles; he said 7.750 vehicles. I believe that, if the noble Earl could walk round the British Road Services depôts and add up all the unladen weights of those 7,750 vehicles which are there now, the aggregated unladen weight would come to more than 36,000 tons; it would come nearer to my figure of 40,000 tons. That is the reason why I have put down this Amendment. Perhaps the noble Earl can give me the answer. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 38, leave out ("thirty-six") and insert ("forty").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord is not quite right when he says that these figures have no significance except on the day on which the Bill is passed—because, of course, these are the vehicles which are retained and are licensed specially. He is, however, right in saying that subsequently additional licences can be granted under the 1933 Act in the ordinary way. The significance of this provision is that, in the first place, the 1953 Act was based entirely on tonnage; there was no mention at all of numbers. In the second place, I think the Report of Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve mentions specifically 7,750 vehicles. It also suggested that it is fairly clear that the weight factor would need to be included. So, if I may say so, it was clearly envisaged that some measure of tonnage would be put into that Bill. What it amounts to is this: that the Commission may not retain more than the number which is specified or a total greater weight than the tonnage mentioned. They could, of course, retain fewer numbers with a greater weight, but I do not believe they could get up to 40,000 tons if they wanted to.
I have some figures of various sizes and average weights of the fleets of the British Transport Commission. The original retention under category (iii)—that is, general haulage, which the noble Lord mentioned—was 2,341 vehicles. Their average weight was 4·1 tons. The noble Lord will remember that the question arose as to disposal of the trunk

365
services and they were, in fact, more or less put up for sale in a body in two substantial lists, S. 4 and S.C. (iii). If I take the 6,115 vehicles put up under S. 4, I find that the average weight is 4·4 tons. Taking the 691 vehicles under S.C. (iii), the average weight is 4·3 tons. I think it is fair to say that these two lists substantially represent the trunk services. What we have done here is to take the figure of 7,750 and we have given an average weight of 4·64 tons, which is higher than any of the figures that we have given now. I think that is broadly reasonable and, as the noble Lord has said, in certain circumstances the member can be increased. That is really the basis of it. I think it is necessary to have some weight figure, and I think this weight figure will broadly represent what is required. I would make only this one further point. Of course, the trunk services are not entirely identifiable; had they been, it would not have been necessary to have Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve's Report. They are not the precise figure, and therefore this is a broad estimate of what we consider reasonable. I hope that that meets the noble Lord's point and that he will not press this Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Earl for explaining the matter, but I am afraid that he does not quite satisfy me. This is a very serious matter. The noble Earl has said that, on a basis of 4·6 tons unladen weight per vehicle, the tonnage of 7,750 vehicles amounts to 36,000.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I hope that my mathematics are correct.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes, they are; I have worked it out. One must look at the significance of this point. I have got no basis, except guesswork, but I say that the average weight of the vehicles is nearer five tons. If I am right, and the noble Earl is wrong, it means that on the transfer, the General Road Haulage Company will get 550 fewer vehicles. That is a serious matter. If your Lordships will do a simple calculation and will divide five into thirty-six, you will see just how many they get. Five tons into 36,000 tons means 7,200 vehicles, instead of 7,750 vehicles. That is a substantial difference. Fortunately, I think it can be, easily proved whether
366
I am or the noble Earl is right, because the 7,750 vehicles that are to be handed over on the day when this Bill becomes law are in existence—they are all being used on the general long-distance haulage services of British Road Services.
If it meets the convenience, of your Lordships, who I am sure will be impressed with the seriousness of this matter, I will withdraw this Amendment for the time being and will put down a starred Question for the first Sitting Day after the Recess, to ask whether Her Majesty's Government will tell your Lordships the exact unladen weight categories of the 7,750 vehicles and the number of vehicles in each category; and if it mounts up to an average of 4·6 tons and the number is 7,750 I will apologise to the noble Earl for causing all the trouble. If it does not—if it adds up to five tons unladen weight—I feel certain that he will then accept my Amendment. If I may use the vernacular, I do not want to "pull a fast one" over the Government—I should be clever if I succeeded—in getting more than 7,750 vehicles; but I want 7,750, not 7,200, vehicles. If your Lordships will give me permission to do as I have suggested, the facts can be ascertained. This is a question of fact it is not a question of guesswork. I am satisfied with category (i), I am satisfied with category (ii); but I am not satisfied with category (iii), and I want to make sure that 7,750 vehicles are handed over to the General Road Haulage Company and not 7,200, as I fear may be the case. With your Lordships' permission, I will now withdraw this Amendment, and will put down a Question on the first Sitting Day after the Whitsun Recess. Then on the Report stage, having had the benefit of the Answer, I can decide whether or not again to put down this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.5 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in paragraph (b) of the proposed new subsection (1), to leave out all words after "thirty-six thousand tons". The noble Lord said: This is a simple Amendment. I now return to the question of what I call the "mothball fleet". For some reason, when it was found that Her Majesty's Government, via the Disposals Boards, could not sell any more of these vehicles, they decided that the

367
British Road Services had better keep them, after all. The number which they thought British Road Services should have in order to carry out the splendid service which was being given to the industry of this country—and industry and chambers of commerce throughout this country were the principal agitators that no more disposals of the general haulage fleet should take place—was not arithmetically decidable, and outside opinion was asked. Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve, who was the chairman of the Disposals Board, stated
"to the best of my knowledge I would hazard the opinion that the correct number is 7,750 vehicles",
and, as the Committee will see in Clause 1 (1), 7,750 was the number of vehicles put into the Bill.
When the Bill was printed, the trouble started. I do not know where it started —it may have started in an outside organisation, or on the Back Benches in another place. But a way had to be found to placate the Opposition if 7,750, instead of 2,000-odd, vehicles were to be retained by British Road Services. This unruly section had to be placated and a way had to be found to reduce the number. Somebody thought of the excellent political expedient of saying, "In the average road haulage fleet in this country, 7½ per cent. of the vehicles are always under repair, and so 7½ per cent. of any fleet is sterilised. What we had better do is to sterilise 7½ per cent. of the 7,750,"—if my arithmetic is right, that comes to about 582—"and we will say that they cannot have A licences." That means that British Road Services will have 582 vehicles fewer than the number of 7,750. The Minister said on Committee stage, and I think also on Third Reading, in another place, that, in spite of the fact that the Chairman of the British Transport Commission, Sir Brian Robertson, had protested that he could utilise, in the national interest and the national economy, every one of the 7,750, he had, by force majeure, to agree to this, as I think, rather foolish bargain. I want to bring back that 7½ per cent. That is the sole object of this Amendment.
May I put it simply in this way? We are now talking about A licences, without which a vehicle cannot run on the roads for hire or reward. If the vehicle is under
368
repair, it is immobilised in any case, of course. If British Road Services, or the company which is now to be formed, are clever enough and are so efficient that they can reduce to 4 per cent. what is supposed to be the usual 7½ per cent. of vehicles under repair, why should not they have the benefit of their efficiency? If they can put 3½ per cent. of their vehicles back on the roads why should they not be encouraged to reduce to the smallest possible percentage their "mothball fleet" or the number of vehicles under repair? Let us make no bones about it; this is really political expediency and it is one of the most ridiculous things that a Government has put in any Bill, for it means only that British Road Services are to be put to a lot of trouble and will have to do a lot of paper work applying for these A licences when they want to use the vehicles. I hope that, in this last despairing effort of mine to get some sense into this matter, the noble Earl will concede my point and accept this Amendment. It purports to achieve only this: to provide that the 7,750 vehicles shall all have A licences; that they can be used at any time for the whole of the services of the British Road Services fleet, and that 7½ per cent. of the number shall not be immobilised under the guise of the suggestion that 7½ per cent. is the usual proportion for vehicles under repair and that that percentage should therefore be immobilised anyhow. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 38, leave out from ("tons") to end of line 41.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I believe your Lordships are generally familiar with the way in which this matter has arisen. Her Majesty's Government decided to permit the British Transport Commission to retain the trunk services. The question then arose: what were the trunk services? As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said on speaking on the first Amendment there was no specific answer. Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve was accordingly asked to examine the point, because as chairman of the Disposals Board he was in a peculiarly good position to do so. He did so with his customary skill, and he made a report. He was then asked whether these 7,750 were vehicles on the road or included those necessarily to some extent under repair.

369
Those of your Lord3hips who are familiar with the Royal Air Force organisation will know the difference between immediate reserves and immediate equipment—that is to say, aircraft. It is obvious that in that sphere one can never have al] the aircraft flying at one time, because there will always be some under repair. The same situation applies to road haulage.
Here Her Majesty's Government were fortunate in being able to take a wise course. Again through the medium of Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve, the chairman of the British Transport Commission and the chairman of the Road Haulage Association were brought together and were able to reach an agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has suggested that that agreement was reached by force majeure, but the argument applies just as much one way as the other. The two gentlemen who came together did not know what decision might be taken by Her Majesty's Government, should they be unable to come to a decision; and accordingly both had considerable interest in reaching an agreement which was, broadly speaking, reasonable to them both. That is what they have done and that is what we have incorporated in the Bill; and I suggest to the House that it would be a great pity to disturb that now.
The Commission are now able to retain up to 7,750 vehicles, and if they wish to put one of these additional vehicles into operation they can do so either by getting in touch with the licensing authority, or, alternatively, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, suggests, they have only to apply for an A licence under the 1933 Act. There is nothing unusual about the additional vehicles. A number of transport units were sold with additional vehicles, in exactly the same way as is provided here. I believe that every fleet has additional vehicles. I very much hope that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment. This agreement has been reached, and if Her Majesty's Government were to go back on it, whichever side it took, the other side would feel that it had been roughly treated. This matter has been thoroughly threshed out, and, while I do not feel that this is a strong reason, I would point out that there have already been two Divisions in
370
another place and I do not think the other place is likely to come to a different decision should we send the matter back to them again.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: The decision was a very stupid one, and while we will not go to a full Division on this we will certainly negative the decision by voice.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is really a piece of machinery which does two things. First, it ensures that the Transport Commission continue to retain Part II licences: that is to say, licences granted under the first Schedule of the 1953 Act, for companies formed for sale. Originally these Part II licences lasted only for five years. Now the period is extended until the company ceases to be under the direct or indirect control of the Commission. Secondly, it also ensures that a special A licence under Part 1 of the 1953 Act will be granted to the purchaser of any or all of these companies which have been formed for sale, and the Special A Licence will remain valid for five years from the date on which that control passes to the purchaser. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, lire 15, at end insert—
("(4) As respects any vehicles which, immediately before the expiration of the five year period mentioned in Part II of the First Schedule to the Transport Act, 1953, are—

(a) owned by a company to which vehicles have been transferred under the said section five; and

(b) authorised to be used under a licence granted to the Commission under the said Part II,

the said licence shall be deemed to have been granted for a period expiring with the end of the said five year period or with the date when the company ceases to be under the direct or indirect control of the Commission, whichever last occurs:
Provided that if, after the expiration of the said five year period and before the company ceases to be under the direct or indirect control of the Commission, a:1y of the vehicles authorised to be used under the licence are disposed of by the company to the Commission, the licence shall thereupon cease to have effect with respect to those vehicles.")— (The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.18 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to the clause:
"(7) Notwithstanding anything in this Act or in the Transport Act, 1953, if all or any of the securities of a company to which property has been made over under the said section five remain unsold on the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-six, the Commission shall be released from the duty of selling the said securities."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is put down in order to give Her Majesty's Government the opportunity of showing how sincere they are when they keep telling us that they really want to take politics out of the road haulage industry. In his Second Reading speech the noble Earl spoke of coming to the end of a chapter and said that he hoped this Bill would be the end of a chapter. We want to come to the end of the book, then shut it and lock it away. The drafting of this simple Amendment may be bad or loose for, as I am always confessing to your Lordships, I am no Parliamentary draftsman. But it seeks to provide that on December 31, 1956, we shall come to an end of disposals for good and all. We believe that that is the most sensible course.
This Amendment really affects the parcels company and the meat company. The parcels company, which conies under Section 5 of the 1953 Act, is a company whose shares and securities can be sold. The Minister has often stated in another place that he does not intend to sell the shares in this company until such times as this company has been put upon a real profit-earning basis. Is it not a marvellous thing? Here is a Minister of Transport who is the custodian for the shareholders, the taxpayers, in the British Transport Commission, as well as in the British Road Services and in the parcels company, and, on the one hand, he is denying the British Transport Commission the right to cover their costs. I would not saddle the Minister of Transport with the whole of the responsibility, but by not accepting the advice given him by the Transport Tribunal he has prevented the British Transport Commission on their railway side from reducing the deficit of £13 million. On the other hand he says: "I am going to sell the most profitable asset of the British Transport Commission"—that is, the parcels company,
372
which is now making, according to its directors, £1 million a year. "I am going to sell that at an opportunity which will present itself in the years to come. I am going to sell it to the public."
We say that that is wrong. It is fundamentally wrong. It is commercially wrong. I do not think it is too harsh an expression to use to say that it is playing ducks and drakes with the taxpayers' money. We on this side of the House are going to resist it right up to the last. We say: "Let us call a halt to this. Let us take politics out of the transport industry." This parcels company and the meat company will be the only two companies that were formed under Section 5 of the Transport Act, 1953, which do not come under control of the British Transport Commission. Here is a business that has been built up until now 100 million parcels a year are handled to the satisfaction of the whole business community of this country. I ask the Committee to remember Lord Hurcomb's plea to the Government. I hope that I am not doing the noble Lord any injustice when I say that he is certainly not moved by political ideology in this; he is moved by something which I would describe as "horse sense." He says it is a tragedy that this company should be sold when it is a profit-earning concern, one which is well run and which has built up a national network. And it can never be as profitable hived off from the operations of the British Transport Commission, because already there is integration between the parcels services and the railways, and a lot of the 100 million parcels are trunked on the railways. If we want integration for industry, here to hand we have the whole benefit of this valuable parcels service, which will go on making money for the taxpayer and go some way to alleviating the great difficulty with which the railways will be faced for years to come in meeting their costs and reducing their deficits.
Here in the Bill is a suggestion that this company shall be sold and that the Sword of Damocles shall be suspended over the heads of Major-General Russell and his colleagues (who have done such an outstanding job of work) for two or three years until someone has been conditioned to come along and buy the undertaking. I have argued this matter

373
at length before and I do not intend to waste your Lordships' time by going into more detail to-day. I conclude by saying that this Amendment offers a chance of doing the sensible thing, of acting in the national interest. Let us close the book of nationalisation. As Lord Hurcomb told your Lordships in the Second Reading debate, this big business has been built up on public money at public risk until it is earning profit at the rate of £1 million a year, and now it is going to be sold off to the private speculator and the private investor. So far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we feel that we must do what we can to resist this policy, and any sensible Government that comes into power must reverse this decision at some future date, because it is taking the guts out of an integrated organization, tearing them out, just for the sake of pandering to private profit-makers. The State has taken the risk; the taxpayer has money at stake right the way through in the British Transport Commission—and the money was guaranteed in principal and interest. We ought not to allow one of the most valuable assets to be taken out of this organisation. My Lords, I have explained the purpose of this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 39, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
3.26 p.m.
LORD GLYN: I rise to support the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for a very particular reason: that is that in another place, I think in 1933, it fell to my lot to invite the House to pass the permission for private enterprise—namely, British Railways at that time—to take over Carter Paterson & Co. That was done because, after considerable inquiry, it was found that the four railway companies, in those days of private industry, could greatly help the trading community if they were able to take over Carter Paterson & Co. and, almost simultaneously, Hay's Wharf, so as to provide a service which would cover the country. The noble Lord in moving this Amendment talked about nationalisation. The proposals that are under review at the moment were carried though by private enterprise, by the railway companies, before nationalisation. I hope noble Lords wilt forgive me for saying this, but
374
I personally feel that it is a great pity that the railway industry, which was a great industry, should be perpetually upset by political circumstances. It is obvious that if matters stand as they are now, then some day another Government will come into power and will reverse the whole thing.
I take it that it is possible to speak on this Amendment in rather general terms. I think it is worth remembering that one of the reasons why originally these proposals came into force in August, 1933, was that it was then possible to convey goods by trunking and so relieve the roads by putting such goods as could be accumulated for passage to the North, or any other pars of the country, on the rail. It seems to me that in these days the roads are already frightfully congested, and it is an extraordinary proposal that anything should be brought into force which would divorce that close association between rail parcel traffic and the delivery by road when the goods get near their destination.
Many people have no doubt studied the effect on the principal trading industries which utilise these services if the system is changed in any way, and I believe there is a feeling that it will do great damage to industry. With all respect to the individual road haulier, it seems to me rather foolish, as the nation is interested in the railways, that any action should be taken which would not only be to the detriment of the traders but remove valuable traffic from the railways. I fail to see how there can be any advantage in this to private enterprise, road hauliers or anyone else. It used to be the boast of the four railway companies in the old days that if any trader handed in a parcel it would be delivered at any destination within thirty-six hours. That is the ideal we ought to aim at and, if possible, we should try to reduce the time. I have not heard it said, in any argument for an alteration in the present system, which, as the noble Lord says, is making a profit of £1 million a year, that there are not some devoted people operating the parcels service, who have done a great deal to make it efficient.
There is another aspect which I do not think has been mentioned: that is, that traders are much more likely to insure their goods if they know who is going up handle them throughout the journey. It is a matter of great importance that that

375
should be recognised by the public. We had a system which was called "company's risk"—I suppose now it is called "Commission's risk". In the old days it meant that the companies took full risk for the safe arrival of articles sent, but the right to insure always remained to persons sending goods. I do not know whether it will be so easy to carry out insurance if the transit of goods is divorced from the control of one authority—namely, the Transport Commission. I beg noble Lords to realise that this is a matter far transcending Party politics. I think it is unfortunate that one service which under nationalisation is so successful should be left in a state of doubt about its future, because it is neither fair to the public nor to the men who are operating that service.
LORD HURCOMB: I am not going to repeat what I have already said on the Second Reading of this Bill, but I should like to reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord Glyn, has just said. On transport merits, surely there can be no argument against leaving this service with the Transport Commission; but that means going back on what was done some three or four years ago, and I realise fully all the difficulties of doing that. Apart from that, I do not yet understand—and no answer has been made on this point—why, if it was right and proper in the public interest and in the interests of their shareholders that the old railway companies should own Carter Paterson & Co. and Pickford's 100 per cent., it is not equally in the public interest and right and proper that those concerns should be owned by the nationalised transport system, including the railways. I realise the length to which the Government have already gone in the proposals contained in this Bill, though I feel that it would be more expedient and wise, in the interests of a permanent settlement, to put an end forthwith to the doubts about this particular service. Surely there is a great deal to be said for putting a time limit upon the period during which this undertaking is to be left lying about, for someone or other to accept or reject or be induced to make some offer colourful enough in appearance to enable it to be accepted. I admit that it would be too much to say: "Put an end to that period now." But,
376
surely, there is a great balance of advantage in putting a short time limit upon the period during which this service is to be left in doubt; and I hope it is not too late for the Government to consider the matter from this angle now.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am sure that we shall all weigh carefully what the noble Lords, Lord Glyn, and Lord Hurcomb, have said to us, but the Amendment is not the way of doing what they have in mind. Indeed, it is almost the worst possible way of trying to do it. The Amendment means that if this company is to be sold, it has to be sold before next December. Clearly, that means that it would be sold at a very bad time and, if I may repeat the term so graphically used by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, if we sold it then, we should be "playing ducks and drakes" with the taxpayers' money. For that reason I cannot commend this Amendment to the Committee. Moreover it is contrary to the Minister's intention. He intends to run the company for a term of years so that there will be some continuity in the future. If he attempted to sell the company before the end of the year, it is obvious that it would be sold below its true value. If the Minister does sell it, he wishes to get the full price.
The noble Lord talks about its being a profitable undertaking. No doubt it is, and so we may expect to get a very good price for it. By this Amendment the Minister would have only two choices: either to sell below price, or not to sell at all. What the Minister wishes, and what I think is a fair way of doing it, is to keep this company together: whether the shares are owned by the Commission or outside should not affect the continuity and structure of the company itself. We recognise the value of its work. The integration which has so far been attempted by the railways has not been entirely successful in itself. There may be other ways of doing it. In this Bill we are trying to get the balance on a difficult subject. We are trying to supply, in the first place, good public service, and secondly, an arrangement which is not regarded as fundamentally unfair by either side. Plainly, if that balance is overturned then one side or the other will consider that they are being treated unfairly. That is an important question if the future of this industry is

377
to be maintained and proper competition is to be maintained by the public service. This subject has been thoroughly ventilated already and there have been two Divisions in another place, and I would ask the noble Lord not to try to force us to send back something which I cannot believe the other place could possibly accept. Therefore I should be glad if he could withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Listening to the noble Earl, I must say I feel convinced that my noble friend is right in putting down this Amendment. It is perfectly clear that the Government are trying to keep a provision for selling a valuable part of what is owned by the nation, a part which pays a profitable return to the Transport Commission and helps the general work of the Commission. There
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
is no possible sense in it. We have listened to one of the members of the body which originated the linking up of the parcels service with the railways—the noble Lord, Lord Glyn—who ably stated the case. It only remains for us to say this: the Government plead with us not to send this question back to another place, because there will be no difference in the result. The warning must be repeated now, at this stage of the Bill in your Lordships' House. If this is put into the Statute Book, it will certainly be repealed when there is a Government of another kind, because this is merely carrying out a political dogma against the interests of the nation.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 56.

CONTENTS

Cork and Orrery, E.

Chorley, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Douglas of Kirtleside, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Faringdon, L.

Monkswell, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Glyn, L.

Ogmore, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Grantchester, L.

Pakenham, L.

Thurso, V.

Haden-Guest, L. [Teller.]

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Henderson, L.

Sherwood, L.

Archibald, L.

Lawson, L.

Sinha, L.

Winster, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Monsell, V.

Hacking, L.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

Hampton, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. President.)

Soulbury, V.

Harris, L.

Templewood, V.

Hawke, L. [Teller.]

Cholmondeley, M.

Hindlip, L.

Ferrers, E.

Abinger, L.

Leconfield, L.

Grey, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Luke, L.

Morley, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Lyle of Westbourne, L.

Munster, E.

Birdwood, L.

Mancroft, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Blackford, L.

Milverton, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Carrington, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Selkirk, E.

Cawley, L,

Monson, L.

Swinton, E.

Chesham, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Conesford, L.

Rochdale, L.

Cilcennin, V.

Congleton, L.

Sandys, L.

Crookshank, V.

Croft, L.

Teviot, L.

Goschen, V.

Dorchester, L

Teynham, L.

Hailsham, V.

Elton, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Leathers, V.

Gridley, L.

Waleran, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 3 [Special provisions as to vehicles used exclusively for particular contracts]:
3.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Clause 3 deals with contract A licences, and the Amendment which I am about to move is really introductory to a new clause that I shall be moving in a moment. Perhaps it would be convenient to your Lordships if I deal with that now. The purpose of the new clause is to leave with the Commission a reserve of vehicles which they can substitute for those they are retaining under Clause 3, which deals with the contract A licences. Under the Amendment the reserve vehicles will not be licensed. The Commission have two courses open to them if they want to bring these vehicles on the road. Either they can substitute vehicles by ad hoc arrangements, when required, with the licensing authority or, alternatively, they can apply for a general A licence. As a flatter of practice, for the 1,800 vehicles used for contract A work, about 99 were kept in reserve. It is expected that in future this will be roughly on the same basis. This will be a matter of adjustment between the Commission and the Disposals Board or, later on, with the Minister. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6 line 24, after ("section") insert ("or under the next following section").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
Extra vehicles for companies to which s. 3 applies
".—(1) In addition to any vehicles made over to a company under the last preceding section. the Commission may, notwithstanding anything in subsection (5) of section six of the Transport Act, 1953, make over to that company such further vehicles as they may determine, so, however, that the total number of vehicles made over to companies under this section shall not exceed such number as may be agreed between the Board and the Commission or in default of agreement determined by the Minister.
(2) Where any vehicles are made over to a company under this section, any A licence under which they were authorised to be used before they are so made over shall cease to have effect so far as it relates to them. And
380
the Commission shall give all such notices and make all such applications as are necessary to secure that the licences are revoked or that the vehicles are removed therefrom, as the case may require."—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH had given notice of an Amendment to the Amendment, to leave out all words after "section", in the new subsection (2), and to insert instead:
"the provisions of Part I of the First Schedule to the Transport Act, 1953, shall have effect for the purpose of giving to the company the rights referred to in those provisions of obtaining in respect of those vehicles authorisations under A licences as if the transaction had been the purchase of a transport unit, and as if all such things had been done as would have fallen to be done if the transaction had been such a purchase."
The noble Lord said: I tried to follow the noble Earl closely when he was moving Amendment No. 5, but I do not think I followed him accurately. There seemed to be other and more important matters to discuss in other parts of the House, and the noble Earl's voice did not reach as far as this. The object of the new clause—the noble Earl will tell me whether I am right—is to carry out an undertaking made by the Minister in another place. This deals with Contract A licence vehicles—vehicles that are under contract by British Road Services to firms such as Cadbury's, Lyons' and people like that, who have their own painted vans. These are Contract A vans which are let on contract to big contractors.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE): I regret to have to interrupt the noble Lord, but I put Amendment No. 6 and it was agreed to. I do not think we can take Amendment No. 7, because it should have been moved before I put No. 6.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: With great respect, I thought the Chair would have reminded me. I thought that before one could amend an Amendment, the Amendment had to be passed. If I am wrong, surely I may have available to me the expert and professional guidance of the Officers of the House. What am I to do?
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I regret the mistake which has been made, and I offer my

381
apologies to the noble Lord. What should have happened—and perhaps I should have explained this to him—is that after the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, had moved Amendment No. 6 formally, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, should have risen to move Amendment No. 7. I have not called Amendment No. 7.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Amendment No. 7 was called.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Yes, that is quite correct; I did call Amendment No. 7.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: The Chair called Amendment No. 7 after the new clause had been inserted. I cannot, for the life of me, see how the noble Lord can be prevented from bringing to your Lordships' notice a matter of this kind when he has been called upon by the Chair. If he cannot, he should have been called by the Chair before Amendment No. 6 was agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I do not know whether it is in order to go back on what we have done; but if it is possible to discuss this Amendment we shall be only too glad to do so. I do not know whether the House would consider it most improper to consider that Amendment No. 6 has not, in fact, been passed. I do not know whether the Lord Chairman will accept that.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: Ought we not to conform to the Rules of Order? As this is the Committee stage, it will be quite easy, if we have made some mistake, while conforming to the Rules of Order, to have the Amendment moved on the Report stage, when it can be fully discussed.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I very much regret this mistake, but perhaps it would be easier if the Amendment could be moved on the Report Stage. I am afraid I must take the blame for making this mistake.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I do not think it would be the first time in the history of Parliament if the House agreed, in the case of a genuine mistake, to reconsider the position and discuss what many people have come here this afternoon specially to discuss. It is not always possible for them
382
to be here on another occasion. I should have thought that where there was a genuine mistake it could be put right.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): With the permission of the House, might I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, should let us know what the points are, and then, if the matter is still of importance in his mind, he can put it down again on Report. If the House will agree to that, we shall then know the point the noble Lord has in mind. All I want to do is to help the noble Lord and to let the House know what he has in mind.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: May I make one suggestion? It is not in the least anything personal, of course, but it is rather important that we should keep to our Rules of Order in this House, particularly as we have no Speaker and no Chairman of Committees who has any authority. The House is therefore the master of its own procedure. There is a way of dealing with this matter, if I may suggest it. If the noble Lord wishes to deploy an argument upon this subject, it might well be done on the question that the clause stand part. Then if he, having deployed his argument, also desires to get a decision from the House in a constitutional manner, it would be quite in order for him to put down an Amendment on the Report Stage. He is such a regular and valuable attender in this House that I feel sure he would wish to do it in that way.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Earl. That was a suggestion I was going to make: that in fact I should pass the observations I would have passed when the Lord Chairman puts the Question that the clause stand part; and then perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will reply to the points I make. I can then consider between new and the Report stage whether I shall put the Amendment down.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a new clause; therefore, strictly speaking, it does not stand part. But I have an Amendment to Clause 4 which, in a sense, is consequential. If we could stretch the Rules of Procedure, perhaps the noble Lord could deal with it under Amendment No. 8.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I again offer my apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for not putting this in the right way. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to put his argument on the question whether the clause stand part. The question is that the new clause be agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Would the noble Earl be kind enough to tell me what this means, because it may cover the point? As I said, I was trying hard to follow what the noble Earl said, both on Amendments No. 5 and No. 6, but my attention was distracted by noises that should not have been made. As I understand it, what the noble Earl has done by the Amendment of Clause 3 and this new clause that he has moved, is to carry out an obligation which the Minister entered into quite voluntarily in another place. As I see it, this clause deals with contract A licence vehicles, and it is necessary, to carry out those contracts, that there shall be a float of vehicles. The float has to be there because these big firms who prefer to hire their vehicles, painted in their style and in their own colour, from British Road Services, have seasonal demands. They themselves do not run a fleet of vehicles, and the contractors who supply them with vehicles must have a float. The Minister said in another place on April 16 last [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 551 (No. 133), col. 734]:
"I give this undertaking. I think the point on retention is made"—
that is, the retention of a float.
"If I am satisfied that the Commission needs a certain float of vehicles to carry out properly its contract hire work and that the Bill bars it from keeping that float which is a proper commercial thing to do, I will introduce an appropriate Amendment in another place to deal with the point."
I understand that the noble Earl has now allowed the float but, if I read his Amendment correctly, he has then doubled back on his own traces and said "Yes, you can have the float but you cannot have any licences to operate the float." That appears to me to be even more nonsensical than the 7½ per cent. "mothball fleet" which will have to be a "mothball fleet" because it cannot have licences.
This is not a case of repair; this is a case of having spare vehicles ready for instantaneous operation. If you take
384
away all their contract A licences, it means that immediately Messrs. Cadbury or Lyons, or any firm of a like nature, have a sudden rush of business—perhaps before Easter, Whitsun or any holiday period—when they may want four, five or more vans or lorries, or whatever they may be, British Road Services will then have to go to one of the twelve licensing authorities throughout the country and get a contract A licence. That may mean days before they can fulfil that demand. The noble Earl mentioned the figure of ninety-nine. That, I take it, is going to be the number of the float?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: No. Perhaps I ought to make that clear. I must apologise to the Committee if I was a little brief. Ninety-nine is the number which the Commission have had on reserve of the 1,800 which they are using, and the number which we anticipate will be roughly in proportion to those figures, according to how many A contracts are taken.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: They will come in the float; it may be ninety-nine or it may vary?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Depending on the contract size.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: But they will not have any licences for them. That was the object of the Amendment which I put down and which, through circumstances, I cannot move. Really, what is the sense of giving them a float of ninety-nine vehicles and then immediately immobilising them by not giving them contract A licences? They can always go to the licensing authority and get a licence for a vehicle. Surely this float is for emergency operation. Why do you not say that the fire engines of all the local authorities cannot have a fire engine licence until there is a fire, and that they can then write and get a licence to operate a fire engine and go and put the fire out? It would be just as much sense. This is an emergency squad of vehicles to cope with industry's extraordinary demands at any particular time of its season: Now, for some ridiculous mania of ideology of some kind which passes my comprehension, it is said "Yes, we will give you the vehicles, but you cannot use them until you have applied to the licensing authority for a contract A licence for them."

385
Suppose the licensing authority say: "No, you cannot have a licence"—and, after all, every application for a contract A licence can be opposed. Suppose that an application is opposed by the gentleman who insists upon having the 7 per cent. "mothball fleet." I cannot go any further to-day, but I shall put down an Amendment unless the noble Earl likes to concede my point and himself put down an Amendment. But, so that he will not tell me that my Amendment is out of order, or badly drafted, I am going to him and will let him draft the Amendment for me. I will put it down on Report stage. I feel certain that your Lordships will agree with me.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Perhaps I may reply to that. The noble Lord is quite right. This is dealing with contract A licences. The arrangement is that the Commission keep all the contract A licences which they are able to obtain, and in cases where they do not obtain such licences, they will have to sell the vehicles which formerly they held. This is a float which they can retain against those licences. The noble Lord has shown more than his usual ingenuousness in pretending not to understand the licensing system of this country. He is well familiar with the nature of the licensing system here, but he now pretends that he does not understand it at all. He knows that the contract A licence is an entirely different thing from the A licence. He knows that the contract A licence is given with great facility and it is always for a precise number of vehicles. Every private contractor has to carry out the contract A licence procedure when he is doing this particular type of work. But, if he wants an ordinary A licence, as opposed to a contract A licence, that is an entirely different matter.
The Amendment which the noble Lord is suggesting here is directly intended to put the Commission in a privileged position as compared with the private operators in this country. He is saying that they may have a reserve of contract A licence vehicles against their contract licences. No private operator could do that. The noble Lord knows—or I think he is aware—that, if the Commission are unable to obtain any contracts, the vehicles which they might have used for that purpose will be sold without special A licences So, when the noble Lord
386
thinks it over, he will see that it is fairer not to have the Amendment which he has suggested, and that to accept the Amendment would put the Commission in a privileged position in respect of this matter. Therefore, I hope that on reflection he will not even put down an Amendment on Report stage.
Clause 4 [Reduction of number of trailers covered by licences under Part II of Schedule to Transport Act, 1953]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is consequential on the new clause which I moved. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 2, leave out ("the last preceding section,") and insert ("either of the two last preceding sections,").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Supervision and control of disposal of property, etc.
(2) The Minister may give such directions as he thinks fit to the Commission as to the exercise by them of their powers (whether conferred by this Act or not) as holders of any of the securities of any company to which property has been made over by them under section five of the Transport Act, 1953, and of any powers conferred on them by name under the articles of association of any such company, being directions designed to procure either—

(a) a reorganisation or alteration of the securities of the company; or

(b) the inclusion on the board of the company of directors named by the Minister, not being a majority of the directors thereof.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to delete subsection (2). The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to delete subsection (2) of Clause 5. This is about the worst piece of political—may I use the word without offence?—jiggerypokery that I have seen for a long time. This subsection gives the Minister power to direct a reorganisation or alteration of the securities of the company—I am now dealing with the parcels company. What exactly does that mean? It means that the Minister may cause a reorganisation of the finances of the company to the extent that if he wants to sell a profitable part he can do so. He can reorganise the finances so that the whole national network of the parcels company is split up into areas. He can do anything he likes

387
to alter or to reorganise the securities of the company—in other words, the share capital. When I was connected with the Ministry of Transport it was sacrosanct: the Minister could never give a direction to the British Transport Commission unless it was on a matter of the highest national importance. In this Bill the Minister can alter the financial constitution of the company.
The subsection then goes on to say that the Minister may:
"procure either—
(b) the inclusion on the board of the company of directors named by the Minister, not being a majority of the directors thereof."
He can come along and say, "I want you to appoint Mr. Jones, Mr. Brown and Mr. Robinson to be directors of the company." In defence of this almost infamous suggestion it was stated in another place, I think by the Parliamentary Secretary, that the directors would be interested in the purchase of the company because they would have been appointed to the board as persons likely to command the confidence of investors—contact men, I suppose, to rig and arrange the takeover bids. I always thought that the first and paramount duty of a director of any company was to watch the interests of the shareholders. The shareholders of this company at the time these directors may be appointed will be the taxpayers of this country. We are going to have planted in this company the nominees of the Minister who may be acceptable to the City—spies inside the camp—so as to facilitate, and I suppose get, the best bargain they possibly can for those people in the City who are going to invest money. I doubt whether anybody has heard a more infamous suggestion.
Why should they want to command the confidence of the City? If I take the Minister literally, I should imagine that he is not going to sell this company for something like four or five years, and that he is going to sell it only when it is such a success financially that the directors who have been responsible for making the financial success will command more support and more favour from potential investors than one or two "place men" from the City, who no doubt will be far more interested in arranging take-over bids and getting commission than in running the company in
388
the interests of the taxpayers, who are the shareholders.
Then, what is the new policy of Her Majesty's Government? I thought we had heard that the highest places in nationalised industries—in fact, in all industry—should be for those who have worked their way up from the ground floor. I am not for one moment going into this point in great detail, because it is something which is going to engage your Lordships at the conclusion of this stage of the Bill. What kind of incentive is there for the senior executives of British Road Services Parcels Limited to work themselves up to be members of the board when they know that "place men" from the City are coming in, appointed by the Minister? I hesitate to suggest that this is perhaps a loophole for retired, but not retiring, civil servants to find a job after they have finished their active life in the Civil Service, at about twice their pension. Is that what this is? That now seems to be rather a habit of Her Majesty's Government.
I should like some explanation from the Minister of why it is necessary in the case of a company whose whole share capital is owned by the State, by the taxpayer, for the Minister to seek to be able to juggle with the financial arrangements of the company and, in the words of the Bill, to reorganise or alter the securities of the company or procure:
"the inclusion on the board of the company of directors named by the Minister, not being a majority of the directors thereof."
I do not care whether or not it is a majority; they have no right to be there without some far better explanation than we have been given at the present time. I will not say any more. I will move this Amendment and perhaps the noble Earl can give us some far better reason for doing this than has been vouchsafed to us so far. I beg to move.
Amendment moved,
Page 7, line 15, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD TEYNHAM: In spite of what has been said in a most impressive way by the noble Lord opposite, I cannot see any infamous suggestion at all in this clause. Surely, as the clause is drawn, there are in fact a number of safeguards. In the first place, the Minister has no power to force policy on the board of the company, because he can appoint

389
only a minority of the directors—he cannot appoint all the directors. Nor can there be any question of packing the board of the company—it just cannot be done. The powers asked for by the Minister in this clause are, I understand, required for a specific purpose. It is really a reserve power to assist the Commission when necessary. As I understand it, that is the purpose of the clause.
LORD GLYN: May I intervene for a moment? I think that this is liable to create misunderstanding, because in another place there was rather a Contradiction between the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister. After all, one must take the Minister's words as meaning what he wants, and he said
"… persons likely to command the confidence of investors. They would have been put upon the board with a view to there being some degree of continuity between the administration of the parcels company while it was still owned by the British Road Services and when it had been taken over by private investment."
The position seems to be one that requires clarification, because it is difficult for the executive and senior people working in British Road Services Parcels Division to have confidence in the future of the company or in their own future if they find that people are going to be put on the board by way of a type of Trojan horse, with a distinct understanding, according to the Parliamentary Secretary, that they are there to attract investors from outside to take over the concern and alienate it from the railway. Whatever may be the political motive behind this—I quite see that the Minister may require expert opinion—if we are going to have this service run in the way that we want it run, for public service, and to help the trade of the country generally, one wants some assurance that this minority on the board of directors will not have an adverse effect upon the labour employed by the concern.
4.18 p.m.
LORD HURCOMB: May I ask for some further explanation of what is intended by the suggestion that there should be continuity between the old and the new boards? That seems to imply that the minority directors to be appointed by the Minister will in sonic way be connected with the new company after the sale. If that is intended, surely it puts these gentlemen into a most
390
ambiguous position. When I read the statement to which the noble Lord, Lord Glyn, has referred, I found it exceedingly difficult to be sure that I was understanding it aright, or to see the propriety of the interpretation which can be placed upon it, if by "continuity of management" is meant that the minority directors, or some of them, are also to be part of the management or directorate of the company after its sale. Surely, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has said, there must be some conflict of duty in such a position. That may not be the meaning or intention of what was said, but it would be in the public interest, and would avoid suspicions and misunderstadings that are floating about, if the noble Earl would make some clear and categorical statement on that particular point.
I hope I have made clear what is troubling my mind, but to make sure may I put it again. Here are gentlemen serving on the board of this company, formed under the Transport Commission and still wholly owned by it, appointed by the Minister. I should have thought that one of their first duties was to ensure that it is competently and efficiently managed; secondly, that it is properly organised, and thirdly, that sales, when the time comes, are at prices which are right and proper. But if they are also to be part of the prospective directorate of the company to which the sale is made how can they act in a completely impartial position? It places them in what I can describe only as an ambiguous position, and though it is being suggested in many quarters that that is the intention and effect of this provision, I cannot feel that such an interpretation is right.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I do not mind in the least what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, says about Her Majesty's Government, but I feel that it is a pity that he should bring in the Civil Service, whether retired or not.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Surely that can be brought in. If I cannot say that, what can I say? I am not attacking tile Civil Service; I am attacking policy.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord is bringing in comment, which I

391
think is a pity. I take no objection to the rest of what was said. I can quite understand that those who do not want these companies to be sold should take exception to this particular part of the Bill, but I would ask them to look at the matter in this way. If one wanted to sell the companies one must have powers of this kind to do so. These are really permissive powers which are to be put into use when the time comes for selling these companies. It is not intended that these powers should be used in connection with other companies remaining with the Commission. The difficulty about commanding the support of investors outside is that, in the ordinary way, the directors of this company would be officials of employees of the Commission. They would be quite likely to look to the Commission for their future and to be concerned with the Commission's work. In the ordinary way, in the event of the company being sold they would not pass, as directors, to the company in private hands. In those circumstances, obviously it would be difficult to get the best price such as could be ensured by providing a measure of continuity when the company passed from one side to the other. Their purpose is to ensure that when the company is sold the best possible price is obtained.
I can give the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb an assurance that there is no immediate intention of appointing anyone to these boards. This is run by the Commission, who will have every incentive to make it as great a success as they can. These powers will be used only when the time comes to sell. The noble Lord will recognise that, if the companies are to be sold, some powers of this kind are absolutely necessary and that it would be impossible to float a company in the City unless powers of this kind could be put in, providing for some continuity in the board of directors. There is here no sinister intention of interfering in the Commission's ordinary work. With that explanation, I hope this Amendment will not be pressed.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I usually accept wholeheartedly what the noble Earl says, but I have never heard a weaker reason for doing what I believe is an infamous thing. If the noble Earl will forgive me, he is not following what
392
the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary have said. He has taken an entirely different line. Every time a spokesman for Her Majesty's Government gets up in another place, or in Committee or in this House, he puts a different construction here. Take the wretched thing out altogether! What did the Parliamentary Secretary say. He does not speak unless he is instructed so to speak, for Parliamentary Secretaries do not dare to do so. He said during the Committee stage in another place:
"They would certainly be interested in the purchase because they would have been appointed to the board"—
they would not be officials: they would have been "appointed"—
"as being persons likely to command the confidence of investors."
What does that mean? Here we have the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, saying they would be put on the board to see that the organisation would be run efficiently after purchase. They cannot see that it is run efficiently before purchase. Surely the best persons to run things efficiently before purchase are those directors appointed by the Commission who have brought it to the state of competence and money-making which would attract the City.
I can assure the noble Earl, as he should know, that the only thing in which the City is interested, is the profits of the concern and what the shares will be worth. Pretty faces on the board, because they are officials of the Minister of the British Transport Commission, will not inspire any more confidence in the breast of the City than directors who remain and who have been there in the past to bring it to that state of efficiency which will warrant the Minister selling it. This question has to be debated at far greater length than we can do this afternoon. The noble Earl should take out this provision. It is the most objectionable thing I have ever seen put in a Bill by any Government. Nobody could get away with an action like this—putting such dictatorial powers into a nationalised concern owned by the taxpayer when he, above everybody else, should be the custodian of the taxpayers' interests. The directors ought to see that the best price is obtained in the best sale to those most likely to be interested in purchasing.

393
When the noble Earl says that these powers are only permissive I must say: What crimes have been committed by Ministers under that excuse in the past few years! If it is only permissive what is it put in for? If it is not intended to be used, then take it out. I will certainly withdraw this Amendment, but I assure the noble Earl that this matter must be argued at greater length at the Report stage. Has the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor ever seen anything quite as bad as this? To me it savours of the "bucket shop. "The Government are inviting the Minister to put on the board of a nationalised organisation, when it is ripe for sale, people who will have the confidence of the City to "rig" the sale in favour of those who arc going to purchase.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should not have interposed between the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and his withdrawal had he not appealed to me, but as he was good enough to do so, I would ask the noble Lord to face the facts of this situation. As my noble friend Lord Selkirk said, we are dealing here with a situation where the object of the exercise is to sell this company. That is a situation with which we are faced, and this Bill makes elaborate provisions for that to occur. The effect of the noble Lord's Amendment would be to deprive the Minister of the powers conferred upon him by this subsection, first, to give directions to the Commission as to the exercise of their powers in relation to companies formed for sale, and particularly to give directions as to the reorganisation of the securities of the companies; and, secondly, to appoint persons named by him to the board of directors.
The first point I put to the noble Lord is that to take these powers away from the Minister would destroy the flexibility which the Bill seeks to introduce into the sale of companies. There can be no doubt about that point. And with respect to the noble Lord, the view that he has put so strongly to your Lordships is based not only on the ignoring of the object—which is the sale of the company —but also on the noble Lord's strongly held view, which he has expressed with such force to the Committee, that the company should not be sold. If one approaches it from that point of view, from the point of view of putting any
394
possible difficulty in the way of the sale of the company, then the noble Lord's Amendment fits into that background. But if the company has got to be sold, then the Minister must have the flexibility that I mentioned. The first part of the subsection to which the noble Lord objects deals with the question of structure. Now he appreciates very well that if you are going to sell you may have to change the nature of the securities of the company from being merely shares in the company to partly shares and partly loan capital. And it may well be that a very good offer may depend on some of the securities being loan securities, and, in fact, on there being some time before the loan is paid off, however it is arranged. I cannot see, so far as that is concerned, how there can be any objection—and, in fairness, I must say that I do not think the noble Lord has deployed many objections to that part of the clause.
The second part of subsection (2) gives the Minister the right to appoint directors. Again I ask the noble Lord (I do not want to make any debating or Party point of this) to consider this as a business proposition, and to consider it for the moment from the point of view of the Government; that is, on the basis that a sale is desirable. At the moment, the company will be run by a board the members of which are all appointed by the Commission. If the board is limited to persons employed by the Commission, then it follows that, when the sale takes place, there must be an entirely new board—unless, of course, one envisages taking people away from the service of the Commission, which I am sure the noble Lord would be the last to desire. I am not going into any possibility of that. But that follows as a logical necessity. You cannot avoid that if it is to be an entirely "Commission board"—if I may put it that way. Then, after purchase, the board will either be entirely different or it will be necessary to tempt away some of the Commission's people, which is prima facie not desirable. That situation has to be dealt with.
The Minister appoints persons to the hoard. In that situation, their duties, of course, are perfectly clear, as the noble Lord has said. They are then clothed with the duties and responsibilities of directors. Their first duty is to carry on the company as successfully as possible,

395
in accordance with the objects of the company as set out, and they cannot divest themselves of that duty. But a time will come—and it has been said that there is no desire to rush that time—when the sale has to take place. That happens in companies, as the noble Lord is aware. I do not know, but I should think he has probably been in a position where that has happened. And it can happen, of course, without any arrière pensée of any kind, that there is a transfer of the share capital; and in that situation the directors will have to consider what is a proper price. Again, I do not want to go into details; I know the noble Lord is entirely familiar with the various methods by which that is done. There is earning capacity, and you may have to take into account the assets at break-up value. You may follow the system known as the Cutforth system, which was invented by that very distinguished accountant, and which gives a certain weightage to both.
All these are commonplace things which every director will have considered either if there was going to be a sale or if he was going to advise shareholders as to the proper price for the sale. They are in that position, and again I say they cannot divest themselves of their duties in that position. But so long as it is fully known, and everyone appreciates it, and so long as they do not divest themselves of those duties which I have mentioned, I cannot see that it would be improper, in those circumstances, if they were asked to continue on the new board, for them to do so. Impropriety usually comes, I think the noble Lord will agree (I am trying to argue this matter dispassionately and objectively), where there has been some concealment of the position, where someone who is apparently looking after the interests of the seller shareholders is implicated with the buyers, and that fact is not known. Here, persons are put in the position that they have to carry out these duties, and it may well be in the interest of the Commission, as shareholders of the original company and therefore desirous of getting the highest price, that there will be people who will give to the purchasers that continuity which will ensure that the purchasers have the chance of carrying on the company in the most effi-
396
cient way. I think the noble Lord will agree that that is the form. You do not look entirely at pre-sale matters; you look at post-sale matters, your ability to make profits which have been made before. That is the situation.
And I would remind the noble Lord of what Lord Teynham said: that it is only a minority of the board that can be appointed by the Minister. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that I cannot see, on the basis I have put forward, why men of honour should not take that position. I put it to the noble Lord that this is one of the difficulties in politics, of which he knows —I have had some "at the other end of the gun". I have had to lead the opposition to nationalisation measures when I have been defeated on the main principle, or on secondary principles, and I have tried—I am sure the noble Lord will believe me, however ineffective my trials may appear to have been—to produce after that a working piece of mechanism. I think it is the duty of a responsible politician, when beaten on a major point, not to take the position of trying to make it unworkable. All that we ask the noble Lord—and I know that he will do it, whether he agrees with me or not—is to consider this matter before Report stage from the point of view of someone accepting the policy that these companies should be sold, and sold for the best price that the Commission can get for them. I have tried to deploy the case to the noble Lord, and I should like him to think that I appreciate the difficulties, because I have been through it the other way. I want to put this final point to the noble Lord. He said that he would withdraw the Amendment to-day but if, after consideration of what I have said, he still finds other criticism, we shall be very willing to meet it on Report stage.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. I assure him that I am willing to use my best endeavours to make something I do not like work, but as my mind is working at the present time, the last thing I should do is to go about it by this method. To put buyers' representatives on the board before the companies are sold is as alien to getting the best price for the assets as any way of which I can think. I am not going to delay

397
your Lordships longer. I will study carefully what the noble and learned Viscount has said and perhaps return to this at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Abolition of transport levy and winding-up of Transport Fund.
(3) The payments falling to be made to the Commission under subsection (2) of this section shall be in lieu of any payments falling to be made to the Commission under sections thirteen to fifteen of the Transport Act, 1953, and—

(a) in subsection (1) of the said section thirteen the words from "and out of which there shall he made" to the end of that subsection; and

(b) subsections (2) to (4) of the said section thirteen, and the whole of sections fourteen and fifteen of the said Act and of the Third Schedule thereto,

are hereby repealed.
4.44 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to subsection (3):
"Provided that, if the payments falling to be made to the Commission under subsection (2) of this section fall short of the payments that, but for the provisions of this subsection, would have been made to the Commission under sections thirteen to fifteen of the Transport Act, 1953, a sum equal to the difference between the first mentioned payments and the second mentioned payments shall be paid by the Minister to the Commission out of moneys provided by Parliament."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to make certain that the levy shall end at the end of this year when the Transport Fund is closed. It is estimated that it will have £12¼ million in its coffers. It is also estimated, by some method that I do not know, that the capital loss on the Commission's sale of vehicles will amount to £12¼ million. It may be more, arid what I want to be assured of is, that if it is more, the Transport Commission will not be the losers. I am prepared to accept the 1953 valuation of goodwill, though the Commission are not: I do not think it is any good jobbing backwards to that. But there may be circumstances which go past the date when the Transport Fund is closed down, which may involve the Commission in loss. I agree that the Transport Fund has to be
398
I closed down and that the Government I have done their best to see that the revenue into that Fund is equated by the estimated loss. What I want is a safeguard so that, if something should go wrong, the Transport Commission are not the losers. That is the simple reason for this Amendment, which I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 9, insert the said proviso.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am grateful for the brief way in which the noble Lord has moved the Amendment. I think I can give him the assurance for which he is asking. The capital loss estimated has been agreed by the Commission's auditors, and both compensation and expenses of sale have been specifically agreed with the Commission. The noble Lord accepts the 1953 basis for estimation. I assure him that he need have no anxiety in that respect. The noble Lord has chosen a somewhat unusual way of meeting this point. I will not go into the details, but we did not think it was a good way of doing it in 1953, and I cannot commend it in 1956. What I can say—and I believe that it meets the point which the noble Lord has in mind—is that on the basis on which we are working there is no possibility of the Commission being out of pocket unless the parcels and meat companies are sold below the price assumed on sale, which is equal to the written-down value of assets. We think that that is highly improbable and that there is every possibility, if and when the sale takes place, that it will be at a better price. Moreover, the Minister has said that he will take the best advice on how he can sell the assets to the greatest advantage. In these circumstances, I think that the anxiety of the noble Lord on this matter need be nil. I do not think he need worry about it, and I am certain that he would not expect roe to accept the way he proposes to get out of this difficulty.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My apprehension arises from this fact: that though the Minister has said that he will take the best advice, he is not very good at taking advice. He goes around and does not accept the advice of the Transport. Tribunal; nor does he accept the advice of the chairman of the Disposals

399
Board or of other people. He does not want advice; he wants acquiescence. The only disturbing thing that the noble Earl has said was about the written-down value of the parcels companies. The parcels companies have been written down in value, but I do not know how that is done, because the companies are subject to company law and income tax, and if they are written down in value—
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I said, "the written-down value"—that is, the book value.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The book value is not the true value. The noble Earl says in the next breath that they are going to make a large profit on the sale.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: On the written-down value.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I do not want the noble Earl to come to the House and say that the profit we have made on the sale of the parcels companies is the difference between the written-down value and the realisation value and that that, added to the £12¼ million, will reimburse the British Transport Commission. That is just a paper transaction. I can see a lot of pitfalls here. I am prepared to accept the noble Lord's sincerity in this, and that he does not want the Commission to come off badly through any untoward happening but I do not want the parcels companies sold at a peak figure against a written-down value to make a profit to set against any losses that might be sustained in other directions. That is all I ask. This Amendment was put down only to get an explanation from the noble Earl. I do not intend to press it now, but will give the matter further thought, and it may help if I have a discussion with the noble Earl about it. It is an intricate point, but I do not think we should waste the time of your Lordships in arguing it now. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment deals with quite a small point. It is really for the convenience of the Commission. The Commission are to be regarded, from the point of view of the Companies Act, as a holding company. The advantage of that is that if they wish to transfer drivers from one company to another they can do so without further impediment; or, if I may put it in another way, they can employ drivers differently in one subsidiary organisation from another subsidiary organisation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 7 insert the following new clause:
Application to Commission of enactments relating to holding companies
" .—(1) For the purposes of the definition of the expression 'holding company' in subsection (3) of section twelve of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, the Commission shall be deemed to be a company, and the said section twelve (both as originally enacted and as applied by any subsequent enactment, whether passed before or after the passing of this Act) shall have effect accordingly.
(2) Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of subsection (7) of section five of the Transport Act, 1953 (which relates to the application of the said section twelve where property is made over to a company under that section)."—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining clause and Schedule agreed to.
The Title:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is an Amendment to cover the new clause after Clause 7 which I have already moved. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Line 6, after ("Fund") insert ("to extend certain enactments relating to holding companies to the British Transport Commission"). —(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

OCCASIONAL LICENCES AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL
4.53 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, Section 127 of the Licensing Act, 1953, prohibits the employment in bars of young persons under the age of 18, and Section 129 of the same Act prohibits the sale of liquor to those persons; and similar provisions, under different enactments, apply to Scotland. At this point an anomaly arises which has been noticed and which has so far escaped correction, and it is that anomaly which I seek to put right this afternoon. The two sections to which I have referred do not apply to occasional licences; that is to say, to dances and other small functions when an occasional licence is taken out at a special time, or at a special place, or on a special occasion. Not only is it a fact that under an occasional licence a person under 18 may be employed with impunity, but it is also a fact that that same person may order, receive and consume there alcoholic drinks of any kind; indeed, as one chief constable has pointed out in his report, if a toddler orders a double whisky the police can take no action whatsoever. This Bill seeks to remove that anomaly.
Subsection (1), of Clause 1, referring to England and Wales, and subsection (2), referring to Scotland, apply the existing law of licensed premises to the holders of occasional licences. I hope that little argument is necessary in order to persuade your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill. I might mention that it is not merely an attempt to correct a small anomaly, because complaints have actually been made of recent times throughout the country. An increase of drunkenness, and of criminal offences due to drink among young persons of both sexes, has been noticeable and this at a time when the general level of crime is, happily, decreasing. This is causing concern to magistrates, to police officers and to social workers alike. May I quote two sets of figures: in the City of Birmingham in 1954 eighteen youths were convicted of drunkenness; in 1955 the number had gone up to forty-six. Complaints have been heard from Scotland on exactly the same point. In a report issued by the Economic Research Council it is stated
402
that prosecutions of persons between the ages of 17 and 20 in the year 1946 amounted to 18·4 per 1,000 persons, whereas the figure for 1954 was 61·3. That is a noticeable increase in a period of eight years. I hope that what I have said is sufficient to put the case for this small Bill. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Merthyr.)
THE J0INT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, perhaps your Lordships might like a brief word from me as to the view of the Government on this small Bill. I hope I am not being in any way derogatory to my noble friend Lord Merthyr if I say that the Government do not feel strongly about it one way or the other. It is true that there is a loophole in the law, as the noble Lord has said, and that toddlers can go to a dance and order a double whisky. However, there is little evidence, on the whole, that they do. If this loophole exists, there is no reason why it should not be filled, and the noble Lord's Bill certainly fills it. Further, I feel that I must tell the noble Lord that there is no great evidence that the increase in drunkenness amongst young people, to which he has referred, is in any way attributable to this particular anomaly. Therefore, I must warn the House that if a Second Reading is accorded to this Bill—as I suspect it may be—there is no prospect of a great drop in the figures to which the noble Lord has referred. It does not seem that this is a branch of the law which has led to an increase in drunkenness among young people. Nevertheless, your Lordships may feel that this is a loophole in the law and that we can fill it. This Bill cannot do harm, and it may do good.
LORD REA: My Lords, I do not know whether speak for my noble friends on these Benches, but I should like personally to support the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, in the Second Reading of this Bill which is intended to put in order this small anomaly. His pathetic picture of tiny tots—in both senses—is most moving, and I am sure that your Lordships will be pleased to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SMALL LOTTERIES AND GAMING BILL
5.0 p.m.
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, that this Report be now received.—(Lord Chorley.)
LORD LAWSON: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say a word or two on this Bill and on this matter generally. I was extremely sorry that I could not be in my place when the Second Reading was debated. I do not wish to detain your Lordships for any length of time, but may I say that for many years nothing has pleased me more than the speech which was made by the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury against the Second Reading of this Bill and the extension of the principle by the Government as shown by the premium bonds proposal. Nothing has surprised me more than that proposal. One has no particular objection to regularising and equalising the law, but one knows very well that once one begins regularising certain actions of this kind, there is no telling where it will end.
As a matter of fact, I think that what has happened is that the Government have assumed that, because this Bill had a fairly quiet passage, therefore there was no great objection in the country to the principle of legalising gambling. Everyone knows what gambling is. It can be a personal matter that does not touch the law. But at a time when the Government are urging everybody to be serious and to increase output, a proposal is made which means getting something for nothing. That negatives the position taken up by the Government, and must leave room for thought for those who have serious consideration for the future of this country. I do not wish to launch into a speech about this matter, but few things have given me greater pleasure than the challenge to it by the most reverend Primate.
If this extension goes forward in the form in which it is proposed, I hope this country will rise to the situation. I believe that there never was a time in the
404
history of this country when citizens more needed to be serious about the future. At a time when great changes are taking place in the industrial organisation, changes which need serious consideration on the part of every citizen, I believe it is wrong that the mind should be directed to gambling. That is where we are going —there is no doubt about it. It is just a "try-on" for lotteries on an extensive scale. No one knows the full effect of gambling upon the human mind. I do not mind telling the House that I have had "a penn'orth". I know its disturbing influence. I know the passion that lays hold of men and women, and I know some of the effects upon the life of the people. I wish to take this opportunity of saying that I hope the Government, before they extend this principle, will take note of the fact that the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury spoke for great masses of people in this country, and that they will never do more ill-service to the land than by prosecuting and continuing with this proposal for premium bonds.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I think it would be discourteous to the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, whose views we all respect, if I were to allow his remarks to go absolutely unanswered, and also lest it be thought that the Government representative was not even in his place. On the Committee stage of this Bill, the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury succeeded in making what I then described as a Second Reading speech on the Finance Bill which has not yet been published. On the Report stage of this Bill the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, has succeeded in making a Second Reading speech on a new Betting Bill which has not yet been drafted. I should like him to know that we respect his views, whilst not agreeing with all of them, and when the time comes we shall look forward to listening to him in greater detail. In the meantime, I can assure him that his remarks have nothing whatever to do with the Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has had so much difficulty in getting through the House, and which your Lordships may still at this late stage be pleased to see upon its way.
On Question, Motion agreed to: Bill reported with Amendments.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (STREET WORKS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
5.7 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

HOTEL PROPRIETORS (LIABILITIES AND RIGHTS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a and to be printed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
SOLICITORS (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with an Amendment.
PENSIONS (INCREASE) BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

CHANGES IN B.O.A.C.
5.9 p.m.
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE rose to call attention to recent changes in the British Overseas Airways Corporation; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, we on this side of the House are disturbed at some of the recent happenings in B.O.A.C., and. I think I can say with justice that it is not only noble Lords on this side of the House who are proud of B.O.A.C.: that feeling of pride is shared by noble Lords on all sides of your Lordships' House. We are all eager for its prosperity, and we are all anxious that nothing whatsoever shall impair its success. But the recent changes—and, I think, even mere the events which preceded the changes—have disturbed the public mind. In our view, they make a Parliamentary debate essential.
What are the changes? In the first place, there are the resignations from the old Board in recent months of the Chairman, Sir Miles Thomas, the Deputy Chairman, Mr. Whitney Straight, the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, who resigned but has since been reappointed, and the noble Lord, Lord Burghley, the Chairman of the Board's Technical Committee, who has resigned or at any rate has not been reappointed. The new appointments have been the Chairman, Mr. Gerard d'Erlanger, the Deputy Chairman, Sir George Cribbett, and the Managing Director, Mr. Basil Smallpiece. The old team, if I may call it so—that is, the old Board of B.O.A.C. and the top officials—saw a steady advance in the progress of B.O.A.C., maintaining its traffic in the face of fierce international competition and turning a heavy deficit into a modest profit; and this in spite of the severe blow sustained by the withdrawal of the Comet aircraft from service early in April, 1954 This disaster meant a loss in carrying capacity and in profit and it also required a complete improvisation so as to provide for replacements in the near future. It was, moreover, a severe psychological blow to Sir Miles Thomas himself, who had done so much to make the Comet known throughout the world.
However, the team rallied swiftly and new plans were made and carried out. I think we should not allow this occasion to pass without puling on record the fact that, during Sir Miles Thomas's eight years as Chairman, the revenue increased from £14 million to £42 million a year, and during that period a loss of £8 million a year became a profit of £1¾ million. B.O.A.C. have now on order nineteen Comets and thirty-three Britannias, as well as American aircraft. The old team was a successful one, as these figures show, and the team gives a hint as to what is required in this industry. I would say that the top men in B.O.A.C. have a vital task to perform. They can make or they can break this great airline in which so many of our hopes are engaged and so much of our money is sunk. They can profoundly affect the future of British civil aviation and the British civil aircraft industry.
What qualities, then, should they have and what type of men should we engage to provide the necessary direction? I

407
would say that the men required—at all events, the top men—on the Board of B.O.A.C. must be men of vision, vision allied to a keen commercial sense founded on experience of airline work. Their eyes may be on the stars but their thoughts and hopes must also be on the ticket office. The job of B.O.A.C. is a highly competitive one. Its job is to carry the maximum number of passengers and goods swiftly, regularly, safely and punctually at competitive prices and at a profit. I constantly stress the word "competitive" because, although fares are not competitive—there are international agreements on most of the great services—yet the competition between the airlines themselves as to who shall carry passengers and goods over a particular area is keen. There are airlines all over the world, some of them subsidised by their Governments, all engaging in this particular market.
The team has to plan years ahead but also to see that to-day's paying customer is satisfied. When I first flew a great deal just after the war, it struck me then that the people who flew in air liners all had a somewhat sinister look. Maybe they thought the same about me. It was rather the "mink and champagne" customer in those days; but it is not so to-day. Today, one has to think the whole time of the ordinary passenger who wants and expects not only to get to the end of his journey but also to get there more or less at the time that he expects to. The men at the top, therefore, must have a keen business sense and a first-rate knowledge of air transportation. To fill this bill, Mr. Watkinson, the Minister, has appointed the gentlemen whom I have mentioned. May I say here and now that I do not want in any way to attack these gentlemen on personal grounds at all. Any comments or criticisms that I make are devoted simply to their capacity or their suitability for these particular posts, not to their suitability as businessmen, civil servants or accountants in some other line of business. The point I am making is that they are an odd team to choose to run a great airline such as B.O.A.C. in a highly competitive market.
First of all, let us take the Chairman, Mr. d'Erlanger. I have never had the pleasure, so far as I recall, of meeting Mr. d'Erlanger, but until 1949 he was
408
Chairman of British European Airways. Previous to that he had served at one time as a member of B.O.A.C. and he then rather made himself—shall I say? —remarked upon by being the only Director who did not resign as a protest in 1943 against the treatment of the Corporation by the Air Ministry. Under Mr. d'Erlanger's chairmanship, heavy losses were sustained by B.E.A. In fact, it was calculated—perhaps somewhat unfairly, but it was calculated—that B.E.A. lost £7 on every passenger they carried. In 1947 the then Minister, my noble friend Lord Pakenham, so his Parliamentary Secretary said in another place on March 1, 1949, decided not to reappoint Mr. d'Erlanger as he felt that a change would be to the benefit of the development of B.E.A. and of civil aviation generally. He was succeeded by my noble and gallant friend Lord Douglas of Kirtleside who, assisted by Mr. Peter Masefield, has made such a success of B.E.A.
Mr. d'Erlanger will be a part-time Chairman. He will receive no salary at all but he will receive, or does receive, an expense allowance. It has been said that this will be in the neighbourhood of £2,000.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I correct the noble Lord straight away? It is to be the same as before. From the official records, I understand that he receives £1,000.
LORD OGMORE: I am grateful to the noble Earl for that correction. I am always grateful to be corrected and to have one fact substantiated in this picture: that is, that Mr. d'Erlanger will receive an expense allowance of £1,000, but presumably still no salary. Mr. d'Erlanger is to concentrate on policy, long-range planning and overall financial control. The Deputy-Chairman, Sir George Cribbett, is a civil servant, a former Deputy-Secretary in the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation. I know Sir George very well. He served under me and I know him as a capable, far-sighted civil servant. In the Ministry he was a loyal civil servant; and for the way he served me, and I am sure for the way he served my noble friend, we have nothing but praise. Sir George will deputise for the Chairman in the latter's absence and advise him on policy, planning and financial control. He will

409
relieve the Chairman of detail duties. He will deputise for the Chairman in liaison with Government Departments, supervision of the Corporation's interests in associated companies, and liaison with British independent air companies. I understand that he is to receive £5,000 a year.
Mr. Basil Smallpiece, the Managing Director, is an accountant. He has been appointed by the Board to be, I suppose, General Manager; but he is also a Director, so presumably he must have been appointed by the Minister to the Board. He will be responsible to the Chairman and the Board for the efficiency, safety and economy of the Corporation's current operations. He will have complete executive authority over operating, engineering, commercial, traffic, personnel and accounting activities. I was abroad at the time when I read of these appointments, but I thought to myself that this was an odd set-up to run a great air corporation, and I rather wondered what the hatchet-faced business men, the Americans, the Dutch, the Swiss, the Belgian, the Scandinavian and other competitors of B.O.A.C., are thinking of it.
In my view, the objections can be summed up as follows. First of all, whatever may he the right answer in other nationalised industries—I make no comment on that to-day—I am sure that B.O.A.C. calls for a Chairman who will put in the major portion of his time on B.O.A.C. duties. I do not object to his having one or two other quite minor interests, as Sir Miles Thomas had—it is sometimes a mental change; but in my view his primary occupation should be the Corporation. As we know, in this case the Chairman is a part-time, unpaid Chairman who in these days, one presumes, obviously has to earn his living, and to put in a considerable amount of time in earning his living, in other walks of life. He is deputy chairman of a banking company and he is chairman or on the board of other activities which have nothing whatever to do with flying. I know that in another capacity he is interested in a company which deals in fibres in Tanganyika—which I should say was a far cry from flying. That is the sort of thing in which he is interested, and one presumes that he has to put into these other companies a good deal of his
410
time; one cannot blame him for that because, after all, they are paying him.
Secondly, the Government should never have appointed to be the Deputy Chairman of this Corporation a senior civil servant from the Ministry controlling the Corporation, and one who has himself been in constant daily touch with B.O.A.C., representing his Minister and, through his Minister, Parliament—one of our watch dogs, so to speak. When Sir Arnold Overton, the then Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, was appointed in 1953 to the Board of B.E.A. I protested on December 3, 1953, in your Lordships' House on the principle involved—that is to say, that in my view a senior civil servant should never be appointed to the board of one of the industries which he is controlling, or helping to control, as a civil servant. In reply, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said—I quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT (Vol. 184, col. 971):
"I recognise that if some such appointments became a common practice it would he open to objection. This appointment was locked at carefully at the time and was scrutinised with these particular points in view. It was, however, felt that there were special reasons why it was desirable that Sir Arnold Overton's experience in the field of civil aviation should be made available to the Corporation, and in particular his experience on the financial side. Therefore, without differing from the principle raised by the noble Lord, I recognise that this is a special case and that it is the particular qualifications of Sir Arnold Overton which are the justification of this action and which make it right and proper."
It is most odd that every time a top civil servant in the Ministry of Civil Aviation approaches retiring age under this Government, it is a special case and he has to be appointed to one of the air corporations. As for Mr. Smallpiece, although he is admirable as a financial expert and accountant, yet I would say that by training and by disposition he is riot the person for the exacting task of chief executive; and I also think it quite wrong that as chief executive he should have a seat on the Board.
Who should the Government have appointed as Chairman? I would say someone from out of the industry. I cannot believe that B.O.A.C., B.E.A., and, failing them, the independent companies, have no one who can fill the bill. Failing anyone experienced in air transport, I would have sought someone experienced in transport of another kind—

411
say, long-distance haulage. I should not have chosen a banker, a civil servant, an accountant, or anyone who had not had actual experience in the transport line, unless there were exceptional reasons for so doing of which in this case we have had no indication. In my view, there is already far too much stardust in civil aviation—
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK What!
LORD OGMORE: Too much looking at the dust coming from the stars—starryeyed, if you like. What is needed is a man who has run his business the hard way and, metaphorically speaking, has sold tickets on the floor.
Now we come to the curious incident of Lord Rennell. I am sorry to have to refer to the noble Lord in his presence, but I can assure him that I shall be as careful as I can and not embarrass him any more than I must. But he is a factor—indeed, almost the key figure—in this puzzle. It was a complete puzzle to me until I found that Lord Rennell was the key; then it did not remain very much a puzzle any longer. Lord Rennell is a member of the Board, and until recently was Deputy Chairman. Lord Rennell resigned because he considered it wrong to have a part-time Chairman and a full-time deputy. That is what he said in public. Drawing upon his military experience, he said that it was tantamount to having a colonel part-time commanding troops, with an adjutant in the orderly room all the time and in charge of troops. Most of us would agree with Lord Rennell. That is the criticism we on this side now make. We honoured him for resigning. Since then, however, he has rejoined the Board, in spite of the fact that the colonel is still part-time and the adjutant will run the orderly room and the troops. There has been no change in the top set-up; the only change has been in Lord Rennell.
The following, however, may explain it. I understand that the Minister stated that Sir George Cribbett had been appointed full-time Deputy Chairman and Managing Director of B.O.A.C.; and a Press statement was prepared which said that Sir George Cribbett was to be a full-time Deputy Chairman with responsibility for the administration of the Corporation. On this, the Board
412
threatened to resign, and in fact Lord Rennell did resign, although, so far as I am aware, his letter of resignation has never yet been published. When the Board, and particularly Lord Rennell, threatened to resign on this issue, the Minister withdrew from an untenable position—because of course he had no right whatever to appoint a chief executive—and he then appointed Sir George Cribbett as the Deputy Chairman and allowed the Board to make their own choice of chief executive, which they did in Mr. Basil Smallpiece. The Minister then, quite wrongly in my opinion, appointed Mr. Basil Smallpiece as a member of the Board.
The facts I have outlined above are disturbing; the rumours circulating are even more disturbing and, as we know from statements that have appeared in the Press, the pilots and ground staff have obviously been upset. The Minister, Mr. Watkinson, has stated that he intends to see that B.O.A.C. follows an all-out policy of "flying British"—that is his expression. On April 23, the News Chronicle published an exclusive interview with the Minister, and said this:
"Fly British! That will he the watchword for B.O.A.C. The Corporation will pin its faith and its future on the Britannia, the Comet and other airliners which Britain must produce. The Minister's insistence on it, and his complete confidence in its ultimate success, are two of the principal reasons for the top-level appointments which have created upheaval in B.O.A.C. administration.
Mr. Watkinson intends to pursue his objective vigorously, relentlessly—and without interference. Said he, There is a ready course open to anyone who disagrees with it.'
He talked of his 'very large and ambitious plans' in the 'highly competitive' days ahead. He declared: On the success that B.O.A.C. has with the Britannia and the Comet depends much of the future of the whole British aircraft industry. We just cannot live on one successful airliner the Viscount. Our future depends on the success of B.O.A.C. as a proving ground for these new British aircraft.'
Mr. Watkinson's summing-up of his policy: we must make another great attempt to pioneer some new British passenger aircraft.
'I have never been an advocate of British airlines flying American planes' he went on 'nor am I in favour of hybrid planes with British engines and American frames.'"
As your Lordships can imagine, this interview, exclusive or otherwise, was a bombshell to the Board of B.O.A.C. and caused the utmost consternation among them and I understand that they again threatened to resign. The Minister once

413
more beat a strategic retreat and showed them the gist of a speech he was proposing to make at (of all places) the Foreign Airlines Association. He toned down his previous ultimatum or Napoleonic declaration of policy to their liking, or at least to a lesser extreme.
To those of your Lordships who do not know much about aircraft—although, fortunately, there are very few in that category—this interview of Mr. Watkinson may seem highly laudable. But, of course, it is complete and absolute nonsense. The "Fly British" cry is quite an absurdity. It is no part of an airline's business to be a proving ground for any aircraft. Airlines should fly the most suitable aircraft, irrespective of nationality, as, in fact, they all do. It would be quite ridiculous to have a kind of "blood test" of nationality for aircraft that are to be used. It is a good thing for British aircraft that other airlines do not take this view, because, as we know, not only has the Viscount been very successful but some forty Britannias have already been ordered; and many more are on the way. There is also the new Conway bypass engine which is being put into aircraft and will continue in increasing numbers, in Canada, America and other parts of the world. No airline in the world could possibly be expected to carry on if it were ordered to use only the aircraft of a particular country. They could not do so and compete.
Let us take the "Fly British" statement and ignore for the moment its absurdity. Even on his own statement the Minister has let B.O.A.C. down. If the Sunday Times correspondent (a very well-informed man) is correct, in January last the noble Lord, Lord Burghley, and his technical committee recommended that a version of the Comet with Conway bypass engines should be prepared for production. The Conway is the engine now in the American airframe D.C. 8. No action whatever has been taken on that request, I understand, but in the meantime Trans-Canada Airlines, one of the competitors of B.O.A.C., have ordered four D.C. 8 air liners fitted with the Conway bypass, the Rolls-Royce engine.
In this unhappy state of affairs we on this side of the House require certain assurances from Her Majesty's Government. First, we should like an assurance that there is no intention to depart in any
414
way from the principle of nationalisation of the great air corporations, and that nothing will be done to limit their development, but that, on the contrary, everything will be done by this Government and the boards to ensure their increasing prosperity. Secondly, we want to know what were the reasons for the team appointed to B.O.A.C. and what ground Her Majesty's Government have for thinking it will be successful. Speaking in another place on Wednesday last, the Minister stressed the fact that the Corporation was facing a position of great financial difficulty and that he wished to strengthen the top management so that there might be plenty of opportunity for individuals to give attention to this matter. We do not know what that Delphic utterance means. So far as we can make out, it means that finance, in the narrow sense of the word, will reign supreme and that the proper running of a great airline such as B.O.A.C. may well take a secondary place.
Thirdly, if ask: does the Minister intend to give the Board any directions as to what aircraft they shall use? He has stated:
"One clear precedent I intend to maintain is that B.O.A.C. policy shall be a matter between me and the chairman."
Will the Minister, therefore, dictate to the Board which types of aircraft the Corporation shall fly, even if, from the operational point of view, those aircraft are not the most desirable? And what is the position of other members of the board when "me and the chairman" are deciding policy? I believe that a lot of the trouble has arisen through Mr. Watkinson's foolish and bombastic statements. If he wants to be the Napoleon of the Air he had better look round and find a less important instrument to experiment with than this great airways Corporation. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.38 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I feel that this debate is both useful and timely. It is rather an odd thing that in this House we always seem to be able to debate the nationalised industries whenever it is useful to do so. Perhaps in that respect we are more fortunate than they are in another place. We have more time,

415
of course—that I appreciate—but I believe we also have a more flexible procedure, which enables us to discuss all those things which it is in the public interest should be discussed, and at the same time to abstain from a number of petty matters which are much better kept out of discussion. I must not say more about that, otherwise I may be getting into trouble with another place.
Certainly this is a matter which ought to be discussed. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that B.O.A.C. is a very important entity. It is not only of national interest; it is a great national asset. It enjoys, and has for many years enjoyed, a high reputation, not only for safety—and, after all, safety still remains the most important element of all in civil aviation—but also (and I have recently been hearing about this in the United States of America and Canada as well as here) for good service both in the air and on the ground. Its prestige is important, and what is even more important than its prestige is that it is a valuable dollar earner. Therefore, it is certainly in the national interest that B.O.A.C. should prosper and should be efficiently managed; also—because the two things go together—that it should be a happy ship.
I think the important issue in this debate is this:—is what has been done sound and right? I think that is a much more important issue than whether it was done in the right or the most tactful way. I may say at once—I do not know what we may be hearing upon this point from my noble friend a little later—that there does, at first blush, appear to have been perhaps a slight ineptitude. I will not put it any higher than that. My noble friend may have something to say on it. I think the noble Lord who has spoken suggested that there may have been some ham-handedness in the handling of the matter. I should not like to say that. All I will say is that there was, perhaps, a slight ineptitude in some of the way in which it was handled. It may well be that there are some reasons which the Government spokesman will disclose to us which will clear up the point. As I say, I should not like to pronounce upon it now, but will only repeat that there seems to have been prima facie a very slight ineptitude.
416
However, I do not think that that matters very much.
I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, who is also a skilful advocate, concentrated a good deal more on the method which had been pursued than on the substance of what has been done. I should like, on the other hand, to concentrate for a moment or two on the substance of what has been done, because, after all, that is the thing which endures and the thing that matters. I suggest that we should be wise in this debate to concentrate most on whether the framework of organisation which has been established now in this Corporation is sound and whether the appointments are good appointments. It is true that one might say colloquially "This is anyone's guess," because the proof of the pudding will be in the eating and nobody can form a final judgment until we see how it works. But, at any rate, we can look at the principles now.
The main change which has been made is a change from a Chairman, a man of great ability and driving force, who combined the offices of Chairman and Chief Executive, to a separation of these two offices, so that there is now a Chairman who is a part-time Chairman and a Chief Executive who is a whole-time officer. I say at once that, as a general principle, I believe it is absolutely right to separate the functions of the Chairman and the Chief Executive, the General Manager. Particularly where large questions of policy come to the Board, I think there may be a good deal of embarrassment if the two functions are combined in one person. The Chairman of a company, like the Prime Minister, is primes inter pares; but he is, particularly if a man of strong personality, in a dominating position, and he has predominating influence. Therefore I would say that except in very exceptional circumstances it is not right to have a Chief Executive, as it were (and not only as it were, but in fact) reporting and recommending to himself as Chairman. I am delighted to see that in the other Corporation, British European Airways, after an inevitable interlude I have no doubt, there has been a reversion to this sound practice of having a separate Chairman and a separate Chief Executive. Therefore, upon the main decision and action which have been

417
taken here I would venture respectfully most strongly to commend to the House the action which has been taken in separating those two functions. There was criticism that the Chairman was a part-time Chairman.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I did not criticise the separation of the tasks. I am not against having a separation as between Chairman and Chief Executive. I hope that the noble Earl understands that. He will recognise that the Chief Executive is also a member of the Board, which I think is a mistake.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: Of course I recognise that. I am glad that the noble Lord has made it clear that he thinks it right, or at any rate not wrong (I appreciate the importance of sitting on the fence), to separate the two functions. I do not see any objection to a Chief Executive being a member of the Board. These things vary from company to company, but I have myself a good deal of experience of companies which have a managing director (he is called the managing director because he is both manager and director) and I do not see why the manager and chief executive should not be a director. I think that in the majority of companies both in this country and in America he is so, and in fact it works very well. If that is the only criticism which the noble Lord has to advance I do not think that the Government need be unduly worried. But I understood him to say (perhaps we can go along together in this exercise still further) that he did not like the Chairman to be a part-time Chairman.
LORD OGMORE: And unpaid.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I do not think I agree with him there, and I will tell the House why. Of course, the Chairman must give all the time that is necessary to the duties of his office. But I think that when you have a chairman and managing director, both quite properly separate in their functions, and you make the chairman a whole-time man, there is a risk of the chairman overlapping and even to some extent usurping the detailed executive functions of the chief executive or managing director. Therefore, I think it is not at all a bad thing to have a part-time chairman. It is certainly no bad thing—this is something which I know we shall differ about
418
—that a chairman should have some interest outside the particular company, not because it is going to distract his attention but because of the value of wider experience, particularly when a man is a chairman. It is rather a good thing when you come to be Prime Minister—I think the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, will agree with me in this—to have had a lot of experience in a number of other Departments. It is certainly a good thing to keep in much with a lot of Departments and with the outside world. Therefore, I hope that we shall not make a fetish of saying that a man must have only a single interest. The noble Lord said that the Chairman needed to have vision, to see the stars and all the rest of it. If you are going to circumscribe the man's activities, you are not likely to get that. I think that the framework of the new set-up is good.
Now I come to the question of the right selection of men. I think the noble Lord will agree with me—and I would certainly say this if he were Minister and I were criticising the appointments he had made—that we must credit the Minister with doing his best to find the best men for the job. After all, he will do it on the lowest ground; his own reputation is at stake.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, the noble Earl is putting; up Aunt Sallies and knocking them down; they are things I did not say. Can the noble Earl give us his considered view of the position of the third man—that is, of the full-time, paid Deputy Chairman?
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, if the noble Lord would allow me to make my speech as I and the whole House encouraged him to make his, he will find that I am not going to shirk any of these questions, and I shall do it more shortly if he allows me to do it in my own order. Tae Minister will try to make the best appointments, and any Minister has a great deal of confidential advice open to him. He can send for anybody and have confidential talks with him before he makes up his mind. Everybody he asks will advise him in strict confidence and give him the best advice he can. We all have had this experience.
Let us take these appointments. There is the Chief Executive. We agree that it is better that he should be separate from the Chairman. I am glad that the Chief

419
Executive has been appointed from within the Corporation: it is always a good thing to promote "within the regiment," if one can. I do not know the Chief Executive personally, or know him only very slightly, if I do, but I understand that he is a man with wide experience who has commanded the full confidence of all his associates in the work he has done. The noble Lord said it was an odd thing to pick a man who, among other things, is a skilful accountant. I know that in some of our nationalised industries accounts do not count for much, but I should have thought that to have a man who, in addition to his other qualifications, is a first-class accountant, was a good thing. After all, these accountants have not been so unsuccessful in business, judging by some of the accounts which noble Lords on the other side criticise for their excessive profits. A number of companies which have done very well have had accountants in predominating positions—for instance, there is Unilever, which has not altogether made a loss and which certainly owes a great deal to accountants. I think it is a good thing to have an accountant.
Then there is the Chairman. I must say the noble Lord was a little unfair. I barely know the Chairman—I know him slightly. The noble Lord said that we must have a man with vision, business sense and a knowledge of aviation. Certainly Mr. d'Erlanger has all three. I know that in the war—and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, will agree with me—Mr. d'Erlanger undertook a large creation in the running of a transport undertaking which brought planes from all over the country and ferried them everywhere. Of that I have some knowledge, and in that he did a first-class job. He knows a great deal about aviation and I understand that all those associated with him thought he did extremely good work when he was a Director. He did not agree with everybody—I am very glad that he did not. It is a good thing to be able to speak your mind. I gather that he disagreed with the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, or that the noble Lord disagreed with him.
LORD PAKENHAM: Not on any point of substance that I recollect.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: Not on any point of substance? If it was on any
420
delicate social matter, then I do not wish to try to penetrate it. If there was no difference on any matter of substance, then—the respect I have for the noble Lord is as great as that I have for Mr. d'Erlanger—obviously he did pretty well. He certainly has a good business sense.
Finally, there is Sir George Cribbett. Here I can speak with first-hand knowledge, because I owe a great deal to Sir George and I have a high respect for him. I was a little surprised to hear the noble Lord say that we should not appoint civil servants to these business positions. I seem to remember that the Labour Government frequently appointed civil servants to the nationalised industries. I am not blaming them for it. The only difference, apparently, was that they appointed civil servants into industries which they knew nothing about, and my right honourable friend has appointed a gentleman who knows a great deal about aviation to a position in aviation. I should not have thought that that was a mistake.
I was the first Minister of Civil Aviation and I was faced with the difficult job at a moment's notice of leading the British delegation at the international conference at Chicago. As my noble friend Lord Knollys knows, it was not an easy job or in easy circumstances. I cannot say how much I owe to Sir George Cribbett, who was one of my principal advisers during that long conference. Sir George was largely responsible for devising the plan of international arrangements, which commanded, not the support of the politicians of the American delegation, but the support of the people of America who really knew about aviation—men like Warner, Wright and Welsh Pogue. He was largely responsible for the plan which, with only minor modifications, was adopted at Bermuda. I can say this about Sir George Cribbett: I do not know anybody in the field of international civil aviation who has a wider knowledge, a surer judgment or, I may add, a more potent influence. I am sure that he will give valuable service.
I would add one caution on this point and here I agree with the noble Lord that it is probably unnecessary, but it is important. I gather from something the noble Lord said in his speech—I missed the announcement in another place: I was more agreeably, I can hardly say

421
more profitably, trying to fish the Tweed —that it would be wise, to define clearly, if that has not been done, the functions of the Chief Executive and the Deputy Chairman. I am sure there will be plenty of work for both of them.
I have ventured to address your Lordships on this matter, not only because I am deeply interested in the subject but because I have had a good deal of experience in it, as other noble Lords have had, and I hope I can speak without prejudice. I would only say, in conclusion, that I hope that as a result of this debate the message which will go out from this House will be a message of encouragement to all those who are called upon to undertake the management of this great national enterprise and to all those who serve in it.
6.0 p.m.
LORD ROCHDALE: My Lords, one thing that we can all be certain of and agree about is that we are very jealous of the reputation of B.O.A.C., and most of us who have had the privilege of flying in B.O.A.C. aircraft have determined that that privilege shall be repeated as often as possible. Whenever I fly, other things being equal, I endeavour to fly by that airline in preference to any other, and I believe there are others who feel the same. That being so, when, for instance, at the time of the Comet disasters one heard criticisms of shortage of the right type of aircraft and so on, one was obviously sorry, because it was quite evident that those who made those criticisms did pot appreciate what a terrific disaster it was to B.O.A.C., and what a tremendous effort would be needed to surmount the difficulties created. I feel so strongly about that particular point that when I saw this matter was clown to be discussed in your Lordships' House I took some trouble to look up one or two facts as to the history of B.O.A.C. I should like to take up a few moments of your Lordships' time to paint the background against which I think we should discuss the particular appointments which figure in the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore.
Looking back since the end of the war into some of the B.O.A.C. earlier reports, the thing that struck me was that immediately after the war the Corporation was
422
saddled with an immense variety of aircraft that had not been basically designed for commercial use. They were all converted military aircraft; they all had a very low pay-load arid their maintenance system was scattered over a wide and difficult area. Coming forward to March, 1952, which was the time when the Comets first came into service, I find that the number of aircraft had then been changed from 137 clown to 72, and in practically every case the pay-load and the number of seats had been doubled; the maintenance bases had been cut from 8 to 2; the operating revenue, which is the important fact, had been increased (I think the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, quoted these figures) from something over £14 million to over £33½ million; and the revenue per head of staff employed in B.O.A.C. had been raised from over £600 a year to over £2,000 a year. With all that, a deficit of £7½ million in 1947–48 had been converted in 1952 to a modest profit of £250,000, which the following year was to be raised to £1 million, and the year after, despite the Comet disasters, was still to be of the order of £250,000.
I suggest that these figures speak for themselves. They would not have been achieved without a tremendous amount of thought and effort on the part of all concerned; not merely thought on technical matters, but on such other matters as organisation, sales promotion, accounting, financial control; and, not least, the ability of the Board to be able to weld together a team that could not only run a public service throughout the world of a very high standard but was able to do so against tremendous competition, paying its way and showing a profit.
Such was the position in May, 1952, when the Comets were introduced, and it does not need me to remind your Lordships of the immense prestige the Corporation had durieig the following two years when the Comets were in service. The time was being, cut by half from this country to South Africa and to the Far East, and they were able to do that at a profit. When the Comets had to be withdrawn, as my noble friend Lord Swinton has just said, it was a major disaster, not only to the company who built them and to B.O.A.C., but to the country as a whole. Overnight the Corporation lost something like one-fifth of its carrying

423
capacity; and it was inevitable that some services had to be curtailed and others suspended. It speaks for the inherent soundness of the organisation as a whole that, by adaptation and improvisation of one kind and another, an organisation with long lines of communication the world over, of necessity a complex organisation, was built, first, to carry on and then to make a small profit in 1954–55, even if a reduced one on the previous year. Since then new aircraft of one kind and another have had to be purchased as stopgaps; further Constellations, further Stratocruisers and so on.
I am sure that many people do not realise that the purchase of an aircraft is only one aspect of its introduction into service. There is the training of crews, the training of the maintenance staff, the provision of servicing facilities, of spares and of the appropriate centres. There is no doubt that at the time of the Comet disasters there must have been an immense organisation planned in order that these new aircraft, the Comets, to be followed later by the Avon Comets and then the Britannias, could be brought into service. All these detailed and complex plans had, overnight, as it were, to be disrupted. That it was possible at all to improvise so speedily, and with so little loss of capacity, was, to my mind, an outstanding achievement which stands to the credit of the Board of B.O.A.C. and all the staff who work under them. New types of aircraft were ordered, and further orders for the most up-to-date American aircraft had to be placed if B.O.A.C. was to hold its own pending the introduction of the long-range Britannias and what one can now regard as the new race of Comets.
That brings us to 1956. It has been said recently that 1956 could be a critical year for the Corporation. That may or may not be so, but I would say, reading as a layman what one can about the Corporation and its activities, that it has reached a position when it can go ahead with its major problems behind it to renewed success. Again, I would say that this promising position is not fortuitous: it is, surely, the result of a tremendous amount of hard work, energy and imagination from top to bottom. Here I should like to join with other noble Lords who have paid tribute to the tremendously
424
energetic work of Sir Miles Thomas, the late Chairman. If renewed success is to be achieved, there is certainly not room anywhere for unfair comment from outside, or for unhappiness inside the organisation. There is no doubt that the present situation—which, though inevitable, I feel in some ways must be regarded as unfortunate—must be set against this background of real achievement.
It would be all too easy, reading some of the Press reports that have appeared over the last two weeks with regard to these appointments, for many people outside to get a false impression about the strength and soundness of the B.O.A.C. organisation. Certainly, I think this ought not to be allowed, because it could do a great deal of damage to the reputation of B.O.A.C. and would be totally unfair to all concerned who are in that Corporation. Piecing together, as I have tried to do, many of the Press reports—there have been a great number of them, some rather confusing and one, I think, a comparatively minor leakage —to my mind certain things stand out. That brings me to the particular points which are the subject of this Motion. I want to emphasise that I have worked up to this point because I wanted to try to paint your Lordships a picture of a very resilient, sound organisation, and not an organisation that was otherwise in any difficulty; an organisation that has achieved a great reputation and does not deserve to be unfairly treated.
The first point is, of course, the question of the appointment of the Chairman. One thing I am pleased about is that the appointment makes it quite clear that the Minister has accepted the view that the functions of the Chairman, on the one hand, and the Chief Executive—or, as he is now called, I am glad to see, Managing Director—on the other, are to be entirely divorced from one another. That, I am quite sure, is absolutely right. Of course, with different organisations one sometimes has to tailor the organisation to particular individuals, and it may have been that, with Sir Miles Thomas, it was best that he should undertake the two functions. There are similar cases that one could quote. I think it is generally admitted, however, that in business, these days at any rate, one sound way of running things is to divorce the executive responsibility from the chairman's responsibilities.

425
If your Lordships have not already done so, I would strongly recommend you to read the leading article in The Times of March 28, which puts the case in this instance in an extremely clear and forceful way. It makes a particular point as regards B.O.A.C., and I suppose it would apply to any nationalised industry, because it makes the point that, whereas the Chairman is to be concerned with policy matters, there is also a Minister who, under the Act, is responsible for general direction of matters of policy. If he is going to talk with the Chairman, who is also concerned with matters of executive day-to-day detail, it is all too easy for the Minister, in his enthusiasm, to go a little too far and get himself tied up in executive detail, instead of confining himself to the matter of policy. That is why I think that the principle underlying this appointment of the part-time Chairman is fundamentally right. It is unfortunate that in certain quarters it has been regarded as derogatory that there should be a part-time Chairman in any organisation so important as B.O.A.C. But I share the view of my noble friend Lord Swinton in the way he has made the case for a pal-time Chairman.
LORD OGMORE: May I suggest to the noble Lord that what the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, did not do was to make a case for a part-time unpaid Chairman?
LORD ROCHDALE: So far, I have not said anything about the question of his payment, but on the question of the part-time Chairman would say that obviously I would expect him to spend as much time on the job as is necessary to do that job really satisfactorily.
The noble Lord has just referred to the question of his payment. I admit that do not much like the way that it is proposed, or we understand it is proposed, that he is to be paid. I am not personally acquainted with the individual concerned, and I am not going to comment on that—other noble Lords have already done so. But on the principle, I am quite certain that the right decision has been taken.
LORD PAKENHAM: May I interrupt the noble Lord? Would he apply that principle, of having a part-time Chairman, through the nationalised industries, coal and transport generally?
LORD ROCHDALE: My experience leads me to suppose—again depending upon the personality of the individual concerned—that in any industrial organisation there is often a great deal to be said for having a full-time executive and —I will use the term "part-time" if you like—a non-executive Chairman. I do not see why, without having considered the matter, it should not apply just as much to other nationalised industries as it does to a great many private business organisations.
Coming to the question of the Deputy Chairman, I must say that I was surprised when I read of this appointment. I do not know the individual civil servant concerned, and I am quite prepared to accept the very high regard that my noble friend Lord Swinton has for him. But, at the same time, I was rather unhappy about the appointment when I first read of it in the Press. Rightly or wrongly, I rather jumped to the conclusion that it was a first step to his being appointed chief executive. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said something about that which I thought was a little more definite. I was not, therefore, surprised when my noble friend Lord Rennell resigned. The only thing I would say is that the position of the full-time Deputy Chairman, and what he is supposed to do, has now been somewhat resolved, and I am not going to say any more about him. As regards the appointment of the new Managing Director, the chief executive is the appointment of the Board, although I can well see that, in so far as he is also a Director, the Minister may come into the matter to some extent. I welcome the appointment of somebody from within the Board to be Managing Director, and from all that I can gather that appointment is generally welcomed.
Those are the three major points and the three important things. In the ordinary course of events, one would have hoped that those appointments would have gone through smoothly and that nothing need have been said about them. In my view it is unfortunate that, whilst these appointments were being made, two other somewhat confusing events took place. It appeared in the Press, at any rate, that one was an abrupt termination of the appointment of Lord Burghley, and the other was the misunderstanding that has already been referred to—the

427
Press quotation of the report in the News Chronicle as to what took place between the Minister and a reporter on the question of the purchase of British aircraft or otherwise. That position was substantially resolved in a subsequent speech which the Minister made in another place, but it did seem to me that the first statement, as reported in the News Chronicle, could all too easily, rightly or wrongly, have been taken by the existing Board as being an implied criticism of the way they had handled affairs and a suggestion that perhaps they had not put sufficient stress on the purchase of British aircraft. It seems to me that, if that was a criticism, it was most unfortunate seeing that the Board had gone out of their way in the early days and had taken a gamble over the Comet. The Comet disaster was evidence itself of that.
The position now, of course, is fairly clearly resolved, but the fact remains that these misconceptions, shall we say, have obviously had a somewhat unfortunate effect on the staff of B.O.A.C. I can only hope that, now the new Board has been appointed, that disturbance will be soon forgotten and the Corporation will be allowed to go ahead and forward. I was very glad indeed when I saw that my noble friend Lord Rennell had agreed to rejoin the Board, because that in itself shows a measure of good will to try to get these unhappy events healed so that progress can once more be made. In many of these sorts of difficulties, one hears it said: "Least said, soonest mended," but I am inclined to agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, that this debate had to take place in order that misunderstandings of one kind or another could be aired, and that any misconception as to the strength and soundness of B.O.A.C. itself could be killed once and for all time.
I should like to end by saying to my noble friend Lord Selkirk who is to reply that I very much hope that he will be able to give us certain assurances. First of all, I hope he will underline what, in effect, the Minister himself has already said by his appointments: that he has no intention at all of departing from the accepted practice that the Minister does not concern himself with executive matters. That is important, to be underlined. Secondly, I hope the noble Earl
428
will make it clear that nothing the Minister said in connection with the purchase of British aircraft was intended to be in any way derogatory to the then Board of B.O.A.C., because I think it would be unfair if it was. Thirdly, I hope it will be made clear that, whilst we shall all obviously applaud the policy of "Buy British wherever we can," it must be left to the Board and their technical experts to decide from time to time which are the best aircraft to purchase, so that the Corporation can fulfil the duties laid down for it by Parliament and can carry on a service which is a credit to this country and also pays its way.
6.24 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, has said that he does not so much object to the substance of what has been done, but he dislikes the way in which it was done. I should like to follow him in that view. One of the reasons for these rather unfortunate events which led up to what may be a perfectly correct decision in the end may well be the fact that the Minister, who had not been long in his appointment, was not in as close touch as possible, and did not know well, the members of the Board and the senior people in B.O.A.C. I know there was much feeling among certain people in the Corporation that that was the case. There is no doubt that these events have been bad publicity for B.O.A.C. Good publicity is most important for any airline competing in the world's markets. As an agent of theirs, I work closely with the Corporation, not perhaps at Board level but a little lower down the scale. One senior executive said to me at a travel function the other night—and I heartily agree with him—"For Heaven's sake, leave us alone and let us get on with our job of running an airline." There is no doubt that, by and large, the story of B.O.A.C. in the last few years, in spite of setbacks with the Comet, has been a success story. It has been turned from an organisation making tremendous losses to a substantial profit-earner. I should like to join with other noble Lords in paying tribute to Sir Miles Thomas and Mr. Whitney Straight for what they have done in the past.
We ought to be able to say that B.O.A.C. is now a stable and a going

429
concern. A very wise man, who is the head of a great textile and clothing industry, once said to me: "The most important thing in business is to get your chain of command worked out so that promotion can be made from within." I think that for the future that should be given most careful consideration, because it is undesirable, unless absolutely necessary, to bring people in from outside over the top of those who have grown up in the company. I am not saying that these appointments were not quite right and proper, but, for the future, I hope that this will be the cardinal principle. I think most noble Lords who have run businesses of their own will agree with me. The other thing I should like to ask— and it is something on which the Government have to make up their minds—is whether the Chairman of B.O.A.C. is to be treated as the head of a big business whose views are normally accepted, or is to be more in the position of the Director-General of the Post Office, under the direct orders of the Minister. In my view, the Chairmen of our great Corporations should be given a much freer hand, as is the case in K.L.M., Air France and other nationalised or partially nationalised corporations of foreign countries.
I should like to say a little about the ordering of aircraft. In that regard, I think that the Chairman and the Board of B.O.A.C. should be given as free a hand as possible. We all want to order British aircraft, but, as a user and as someone whose organisation sells a great many tickets for airlines, I think that when once an aeroplane is flying in the colours of a certain country, in the colours of B.O.A.C., people think of it as a British aircraft, whether or not it was, in fact, manufactured in this country. I give the instance of the Danish cross-Channel packet which was built in Newcastle. It operates under the Danish flag and, quite irrespective of where it was constructed, it is regarded as Danish.
I am a little worried about the delays in ordering new aircraft and the delays due to "teething troubles" before these aircraft get into service. I often think it is unfortunate that the Corporation should have to do so much, riot exactly on proving a plane but in regard to early flying, when so many modifications are bound to crop up. In the United States a large amount of this preliminary flying
430
of new types of aircraft is done by Transport Command first in the carriage of freight and later with trooping, so that by the time the aircraft gets into the airline it is much mire reliable than it otherwise would be. This point applies particularly to engines which can be tried out by Transport Command. Indeed, I see no reason why the Ministry of Supply should not lease aircraft to the charter companies, so that experience on long-distance routes can be obtained before they go into the Corporation. This might mean some delay but I think it would be well worth it.
My Lords, I would add only this: that B.O.A.C. and, to a lesser extent, B.E.A., are in a quite different position from any other nationalised industry. We have got to order our coal from the National Coal Board; by and large we have got to travel by British Railways and we have got to send our freight by British Railways—there are alternate routes by road, but we cannot avoid patronising British Railways. But, if we wish to do so and if their reputation is not good, we can avoid flying either by B.E.A. or by B.O.A.C. Believe me, there are many airlines of every nationality with excellent high-powered salesmen, fighting for more traffic at the expense of our Corporations. I am glad to say—and I am sure that all noble Lords are fully aware of this—that B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. have more than held their own in the world up to date, and I hope and believe that they will go on doing so.
6.33 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, we are all anxious to hear the noble Earl—himself a practical airman and a Minister well accustomed to dealing with difficult themes—reply to this debate. We have not had a long discussion, but the speeches have been forceful; and certainly, in the case of my noble friend Lord Ogmore, I would say most damaging to the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation. I do not think that he will have drawn much comfort from other contributions, even from the generous paternal effort of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, who dismissed him with a caution on the ground of slight ineptitude. I feel that this hard-pressed Minister is most fortunate—and I think he needs his good forture—that he does not find himself on the opposite side of this House

431
to the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. I have had to face the noble Earl and have tried to do it without quailing at the thought. But if I came forward with a case such as that with which Mr. Watkinson has equipped himself, I think I should run away and hide, rather than stand up to Lord Swinton. But the noble Earl has done all he can for him—and a very good best it is.
At the risk of some repetition I feel that there are four aspects of this matter upon which we want to dwell, and on which we hope the Minister will say more than a word or two. There are the merits of the individual changes; there is the wisdom of the new set-up; there is the attitude of the Minister towards his relationship with B.O.A.C., and in particular towards its aircraft programme; and there are the intentions of the Minister and the Government towards the issue of nationalisation in the field of civil flying. There is also, of course, the whole conduct of these affairs by the Minister, including his handling of so-called public relations in recent weeks. There, I think, there has been general condemnation. I think we all give the poor Minister an Omega mark and can let it go at that; because I do not think anybody has come forward to say that he has presented his case, whatever it may be, to the public with any skill.
I say one other word of sympathy for the unfortunate Minister whom, to my knowledge, I have not so far had the pleasure of meeting: I feel sympathetic towards a young Minister of Civil Aviation who wants to "go places and do things." I had not been Minister of Civil Aviation for much longer than the present occupant of that position when I had changed two of the Chairmen, amalgamated one of the Corporations with another, rejected a great many aircraft that were on order, and grounded a great many of the remaining aircraft. So I quite understand that any young active Minister should want to beat that record. We can make many allowances for a man in the prime of life, who is certainly human, if a little hubristic, so far as we can see. But if we set aside these minor points of procedure and presentation, we must, of course, come to the merits of the individual changes. Whilst the disappearance of Sir Miles Thomas may admit of a perfectly sound
432
explanation, it is a little surprising. We have had many tributes paid to Sir Miles. I join in them, and even try to bask in them in a little reflected glory, because I had the honour to appoint him. I certainly join in the great tributes which have been paid to his work and to the progress made by B.O.A.C. during his period of office. He has now left us. It is not quite clear why. I understand that he has talked somewhere of "frustration." I do not know whether the noble Earl will be able to explain why Sir Miles left at this particular juncture. It may be that there is nothing more to be said.
Coming to the new appointments (I am dealing now not with the set-up, but with individuals), I sympathise with the bold, public-spirited gentlemen who come forward as Chairmen of nationalised industries. We are bound to discuss and to criticise the appointments, because, after all, the appointment of a chairman is one of the most important things—indeed, almost the most important—that a Minister for a nationalised industry does; and obviously Parliament must discuss the appointments. I realise, however, that we must show a discretion in these discussions, otherwise we should find it impossible to persuade gentlemen of eminence and outstanding repute to apply at all, and I think everyone has to-day borne that fact in mind.
As regard Mr. d'Erlanger, I am particularly anxious, as everyone will realise, to say nothing which would make harder his already difficult task. As many Members are aware—it was referred to earlier in the debate—it fell to my lot to inform Mr. d'Erlanger early in 1949 that it would not be possible for me to reappoint him when his time came to an end a few months later. In those circumstances, he preferred, understandably, to resign forthwith. I would emphasise that, in spite of what the Press have said, there was no question of dismissal, which would clearly have argued some grave disagreement between myself and the Chairman or, alternatively, a very low opinion on my part of his competence. And I have never regarded Mr. d'Erlanger as any other than an experienced and capable man, who is, possibly, still more experienced and capable to-day than he was seven years ago. Certainly in recent years, to the best of my belief, he has proved himself

433
a success in business. That is why I intervened earlier to correct an impression which I think had been formed in the mind of the noble Earl.
Nevertheless f formed the opinion at the time when I intimated that I should not be able to reappoint him, and that I could find a Chairman still more suited to the task in hand; therefore it was not a disagreement—there was nothing at which one could point. But I formed that opinion and it is the duty of a Minister to give effect to an opinion which he reaches in those circumstances. On such matters every Minister must make up his own mind. I will add something more. It is now seven years ago. I do not think I have met Mr. d'Erlanger since, but in his recent work at the A.T.A.C. under the distinguished chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Terrington, Mr. d'Erlanger has shown a devotion to aviation, and in his assumption of these new duties as Chairman of B.O.A.C. he has shown a moral courage which any fair-minded person must add to the credit side of the calculation. I say that because it is my candid opinion, but I am bound to add that I am not retracting any view I formed in earlier days.
The House will be interested to know what was thought by the Opposition of that time about the prospects of the Corporations, not specifically B.O.A.C. or B.E.A., but both. In the debate on March 1, 1949, which followed Mr. d'Erlanger's resignation, the first spokesman for the Opposition in another place used language which looks rather remarkable to-day (OFFICIAL REPORT (Commons), Vol. 462, col. 209):
"I do not think these Corporations will ever pay their way. I am trying to be quite unbiased, and I think that any man who comes in to run them as they are at present, will find that it is only a question of time before they break him."
The two gentlemen then coming in to run the Corporation were, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Kirtleside, and Sir Miles Thomas. The speaker went on:
"I do not think that any man can run a business under a Minister who is, perhaps, going to interfere, exert his will and upset the smooth running of that business organisation."
He concluded (col. 210):
"When the Conservative Party comes back to power, we shall make drastic changes to see that the business is run efficiently, and
434
we shall have the courage to 'unscramble' it, where we think it is necessary."
I feel bound to give that recollection of the view taken in 1947 by one of the leading Members in Opposition: that these Corporations could never pay their way. That was the situation taken over by the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Kirtleside, and Sir Miles Thomas, and, as we have heard, in the case of the B.O.A.C. a loss of nearly £8 million has been transformed into a profit; and in the case of B.E.A. a less of £3½ million in 1947–48 has also been transformed into a profit. So those who had any responsibility at that time are not coming to this House to-day to stand in a white sheet. Having said that, I say, with all seriousness and rather special warmth, that I wish Mr. d'Erlanger well in the work that he has undertaken in these arduous circumstances.
In relation to Sir George Cribbett I feel very much as the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, does, whether we are discussing his merits as a man or as an expert on civil aviation. He was for three years one of my two closest advisers. I should not claim to know very much about civil aviation but, so far as I know anything, it is mostly due to Sir George. Throughout that time—and it is still more true to-day—there was no-one in this country, unless it was the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, who stands apart, upon whom foreigners concerned with civil aviation were more anxious to draw than Sir George. He has a wonderful position in word civil aviation, in this country and abroad. Personally, I not only hope but believe that he will do remarkably well in his new job.
I am bound to side, however, with the principle so clearly stated by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that there is grave danger. Though we must learn as we go, for a Minister one almost feels that it is contrary to constitutional practice to appoint to a leading position in one of the nationalisect industries a man who has been one of his closest advisers. The practice is too open to abuse. It is open to grave misunderstanding to start with; and taking the long view, I think the country would be safer without appointments of that kind. I say that with great reluctance in this case, because I defer to Sir George; I admire him so greatly as a figure in civil aviation, and I have

435
so many personal grounds for gratitude. We cannot ignore such warnings as those given, for instance, in the Daily Telegraph which said:
"There have been instances since the war of civil servants taking up high positions in nationalised industries but they have been rare."
The Daily Telegraph goes on to say that this is a most dangerous precedent.
Then we come to the set-up—the part-time Chairman and the full-time Deputy Chairman. It seems to me that that particular combination has been universally condemned, and, so far as I know, it has not received any defence in your Lordships' House to-day. The noble Earl, Lord Swinton, was interrupted by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and asked if he would care to defend that particular combination; and though on these Benches we listened very carefully we did not hear any defence forthcoming; and I shall be astounded if the noble Earl, when he replies, is able to defend it. If we were to put only one question this would be the first, or at least the second, most fundamental that we should wish to put: how can the noble Earl defend this particular set-up of a part-time Chairman and a full-time Deputy Chairman? In my experience one can defend almost any organisational arrangement, but that one seems to defy even the greatest ingenuity in defence.
We have had a long discussion so I will not spend much time on the question of whether the Chairman should be full-time or part-time. I decline to get into any theological frenzy on the issue. The requirement varies from industry to industry and I seriously put to the noble Earl the point on which I ventured to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale. Would the noble Earl be happy to see Sir Brian Robertson become part-time? Quite seriously, one cannot brush aside a question of that kind, and I ask whether he is advocating part-time Chairmen generally in nationalised industries. If not in the others, then why in this particular nationalised industry, which we are told is to go through a time of great difficulty and which certainly involves more travelling than any other industry? With regard to B.O.A.C. I would line up behind the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. He argues, and I agree, that the Corporation should have first and over-riding
436
claim on the Chairman who ought to attend the office every day except when on tour. I agree with the noble Lord that some outside contacts are possibly desirable; but, speaking for myself, I should suggest that he be paid full-time salary, whatever you like to make it, from this point of view: that these outside contacts ought to be justified on the ground not that they detract from his contribution but that they actually add to it; and he should be paid as a man who is rendering the equivalent of full-time service.
I am not, therefore, very clear or happy as to what time Mr. d'Erlanger is going to give to B.O.A.C. I have seen various statements attributed to him, though they may not all have been correct. There has been a plethora of statements buzzing about in recent weeks from almost everyone in this field. I do not know whether Mr. d'Erlanger has, in fact, said anything at all on this matter. I saw one statement which implied that he was going to give nearly all his time to B.O.A.C. at the beginning and then perhaps half his time, or not much more, to it. Can we have any enlightenment on how much of his time he is to give to B.O.A.C., because we on this side of the House are convinced that unless he does give over-riding priority to B.O.A.C. he will be unable to do justice to the job?
I am also sure, and I should have thought that almost everyone in the House would agree, that the plan of taking no salary is a serious mistake. I go about daily, meeting people of different Parties and different occupations, but I have not heard anyone defend that particular arrangement. I accept it, as coming from Mr. d'Erlanger, as a well-intentioned and public spirited gesture; I am ready to look at it from his point of view in that way. But I am sure that the Minister has made a serious mistake —for it is the Minister's responsibility—in allowing Mr. d'Erlanger to waive his salary. It tends to create the impression that he is not taking the job seriously, and that he has other occupations to which he has to devote himself in order to earn his living. I wonder, even at this late hour, whether on that point a serious misunderstanding and a source of suspicion could not be removed by making an arrangement under which he received a salary. Let us concede—following the suggestion made during an earlier debate by the noble and learned Viscount, the

437
Lord Chancellor, that when the decision has gone against one in politics one should try to offer a constructive amendment to whatever is contemplated—the principle of what is called a part-time Chairman (though I am very sorry to see it) and give to this Corporation this part-time Chairman and full-time Deputy.
We have been told to read The Times of March 3—Lord Rochdale instructed us to read The Times of that date. I read at the time the article to which he has referred, and I shall be delighted to go back to it when this debate is over. May I, in turn, suggest to Lord Rochdale that he reads The Times of April 20? There he will find these memorable words:
"By appointing a full-time Deputy Chairman the Minister seems to have pre-judged not indeed the question of the chief executive job itself, but at least the conditions under which that job will have to be performed, and pre-judged them quite wrongly."
So if I am to take my guidance from The Times of March 3, perhaps the noble Lord will back me up in making this serious criticism. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, quoted the military metaphor used so pungently and effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, about the colonel and the adjutant. We are very glad that Lord Rennell has rejoined the Board. I hope that, without being offensive, I may say that a little sanity there will not do any harm, and I am pleased to think that Lord Rennell will be maintaining that tradition. I realise that he will be only a part-time member, but that seems to mean nothing in these times; it may be that he will be devoting 90 per cent. or even 99 per cent. of his time to it. As Lord Rennell now has Lord Tweedsmuir so closely associated with him, they can always make forceful representations to the Minister. This idea of part-time members making representations to the Minister is some-thing we have been reading about. I am sure they will form a powerful and enlightened little bloc.
The criticism which Lord Rennell made seemed to me to be unaffected by the explanations since offered on the part of the Minister, and I really cannot understand how this absurd set-up was arrived at, except on the hypothesis which has been put forward with a good deal of authority by Lord Ogmore. It seems to me that the Minister intended to appoint
438
a part-time chairman, Mr. d'Erlanger, and a full-time Deputy Chairman, who would also in effect be Chief Executive; but then the Board, by threatening to resign, stopped that So the Minister was left with Sir George Cribbett on his hands, and this new set-up was arrived at. I should say that it is not a set-up which, on its merits, anyone in the House is likely to defend. I hope that as time passes means of adjustment will be found.
I will riot say much to-day about the very important question of aircraft. No doubt when we debate civil aviation as a whole next month that is a matter which will come up. The Minister again seems to have upset people, or to have given rise to a slight misunderstanding—that is how his friends spoke of it. The Times at one point said that:
"relations between the Minister and B.O.A.C. Board members were strained for a period after one of Mr. Watkinson's statements about the assignment to fly British which he was going to give the new Chairman and his colleagues."
I should have thought that when that happened people would have been more agitated, but now a period of strain between a Department and a Minister seems to be accepted as all in the day's work. Later the Minister was understood to have "clarified the position" and explained that his general attitude would not be different from that of his predecessors, so the whole thing was a misunderstanding. So that particular mess is now understood to have been cleared up, leaving no more than a certain amount of confusion and suspicion behind, and we must not linger too long over it when we nave so many other messes to consider.
Finally, I come to the question of the attitude of the Minister and his colleagues to the nationalisation of civil aviation. Members of the House will have read various official and unofficial statements on behalf of the staff of B.O.A.C. which make plain a grave anxiety that the appointment of Mr. d'Erlanger is itself a symptom of an intention to impair the position of B.O.A.C. and to favour its private enterprise rivals, or, alternatively, to inject private capital into B.O.A.C. itself. It is right for me to say that during my association with Mr. d'Erlanger, now seven years old, nothing occurred or was ever said by him to lend special colour

439
to a suspicion of this kind. I think it is only right for me to say that. But I have not seen him for seven years now and I do not know what his present views may be. I must tell the Government frankly that we on this side of the House have never been able to fathom the real desires and purposes of the present Government regarding nationalisation or denationalisation in civil aviation. I recall a statement made in 1949 by the first Conservative spokesman to the effect that when the Conservative Government came back to power:
"We shall make drastic changes so that the business is run efficiently … and we shall unscramble if and where we think it is necessary."
It is true to say that they have not unscrambled or tried to do so so far.
Of course the situation on paper was very bad in 1949. When the Conservative Government was formed at the end of 1951, the picture was much brighter. In December, 1951, Lord Leathers, who was then an overlord in transport, made a statement that was on the whole reassuring. I will not quote more than a sentence. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 174, col. 822]:
"We have no intention of undermining the existing international network of the Air Corporations, B.O.A.C. and B.E.A."
I beg the noble Earl, if he is empowered to do so to-day, and if not to-day when we debate civil aviation next month, to reaffirm categorically that statement of Lord Leathers. I know that the Minister in another place has said that he is not going to denationalise or dismember B.O.A.C., but a good deal could be done to wreck B.O.A.C. while not technically denationalising or dismembering it. I hope we can have some reassuring statement to-day, not only because it would be good for the country generally, but particularly with a view to the effect on the staff.
I hope that I have not spoken harshly of the present Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation. We Ministers and ex-Ministers of Transport and Civil Aviation are something of a trade union, and we have no desire to cut one another's throats. I am told that the present Minister did well at the Ministry of Labour, and there is no reason why he should not do well in his present office. I was recently playing golf at Portrush
440
where there is a hole called "Calamity Corner." I believe Mr. Walter Haydon once took thirteen strokes to negotiate it—I need not tell your Lordships how many were required from me. This whole episode has been a "Calamity Corner" for Mr. Watkinson. There is no reason why he should not overcome it and avoid the other two holes which he will find at Portrush: one is "The Giant's Grave" and the other is "Purgatory." But, in all seriousness, he has to make up leeway. In our view, he has slipped badly in recent weeks, and he must show a more modest approach to his job before he can obtain our full confidence.
From the Government as a whole we want a clear statement of whether they are going to continue the splendid work done by the Corporations in recent years. Whatever our political differences, I agree with all the previous speakers who have said that we have at heart the future of B.O.A.C. and realise that they are facing difficult times. I join with the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, in sending out a message of warm encouragement to the Corporation as a whole and to the new leaders. We send riot only a message of encouragement, but also the profound hope that they will surpass their recent achievements in the immediate future. With all our hearts we wish them well.
7.2 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I was glad to hear the last words of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, because, frankly, I was a little disturbed at the opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. I do not mind in the least what he said about my right honourable friend, but this is a delicate plant we are dealing with, the B.O.A.C. It has been emphasised over and over again that we are in a world of intense competition. My noble friend Lord Gifford said that this was good publicity for our rivals, and I think we must be careful in addressing ourselves to the discussion of this intensely competitive industry which, although I have not checked this statistically, is probably the industry which has increased more than any other in the world since the war. It is expanding at an enormous speed. I think we have to be careful in what we say, and I hope that nothing has been said to-day which may be taken as a reflection on B.O.A.C. There has been a good deal of confused and irresponsible publicity

441
recently, and I am fairly confident that a good deal of it has not been directed by people who are really interested in the long-term interests of the Corporation. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Rochdale emphasised the false impression which some of this might have given. We must, indeed, be proud of the development which both the national Corporations have made over the last ten years.
I do not propose to deal with these rumours. If I did I would give increased publicity to some things quite unworthy of publicity at all. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that I could not trace some of the sources at all. What I would do is to deal with the facts of the case. There has been a series of events which might spuriously give the impression of being connected. Let me deal with them. First of all, let me deal with the Deputy Chairman, Mr. Whitney Straight. He has been with the Corporation for six years and now has taken up an extremely important appointment with Rolls-Royce. Is he better employed by Rolls-Royce than by B.O.A.C.? Frankly, many of us would have difficulty in answering that question. Sir Miles Thomas resigned after being seven years as Chairman. A man cannot be expected to remain indefinitely as Chairman. The noble Lord rather ingenuously asked the reasons why he resigned. Sir Miles said a number of things at the time which I do not need to repeat to your Lordships now, about politicians and their influence over the Corporations and things of that sort. Whether they were fundamental reasons or not, that is what he said. His services were of high value to the country.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, in defence of Sir Miles Thomas, for whom I have a high regard, is the noble Earl saying that the reasons which he gives might not be the real reasons?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am trying to pass this lightly. What Sir Miles did say was that he did not particularly like nationalised industry or being pecked at by Back Benchers. He mentioned these things among others, but apparently he wanted to go to another job. I do not make any reflection on Sir Miles—I have already paid him a full compliment in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Rennell, resigned from the Board because he did not like the organisation. It was
442
more fully explained to him and he was satisfied.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, as a result of the noble Lord's resignation the organisation was changed. That is why he came back again. It was not because it was explained to him.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I do not see how it could have been changed, because it was not until the new Board of B.O.A.C. was set up that the new organisation could be laid down.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, it was not publicly known, but the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, was told what the new organisation was. As a result of that he resigned, and when he resigned the Minister had another thought and altered the organisation.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, so far as I know that is a pure fairy tale. The noble Lord can tell any story he likes in this House without any authority. I am afraid I know nothing about it.
Lord Burghley served for ten years on the Board. I think it is probably the intention of Parliament—certainly my right honourable friend took it as such—that from time to time new people should be appointed to fill part-time appointments, and for that reason, after ten years, he thought it a good thing to make a change in this appointment. There is nothing the least bit abnormal in that.
Let me turn to the structure of the Board. I do not know whether noble Lords have seen the report (Cmd. 9660) published last December dealing with the structure of the various public boards operating in this country. It is an interesting document, which clearly shows that we have no sealed pattern for nationalised public boards. They take many different forms. Some members are full-time and some part-time; some chairmen are full-time and some part-time, and some are paid and some unpaid. That is the extraordinary system which exists at the, present time. The noble Lord was "laying it on" pretty strongly about unpaid chairmen, but we have already two en existing boards.
LORD PAKENHAM: Which boards are they?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: There is Mr. Tom Johnston, who is part-time chairman of the North of Scotland Hydro Electric Board. I think it is right that we should have no sealed pattern of any kind. That is probably what the noble Lord has in mind. I have been surprised at the number of people who go on public boards not just for the salary received.
I should like to turn to the organisation that has been criticised to-day. First, let us be clear about this. A member of the Board has only one duty, and that is to attend Board meetings. That is a duty which the Minister imposes upon him; and the remainder of his duties, if any, flow directly from the decision of the Board itself—that is to say, the duties of any member of the Board are purely a decision for the Board itself. The noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, has emphasised the difference between policy and execution. Sometimes these are combined in one man, who is executive director. The Minister took the line, which my noble friend Earl Swinton has emphasised, of the strong need for separating the Chief Executive and the Chairman. He took the view that it was better to divide those two jobs and broaden out the base on which the Board was formed. He was perfectly clear about that, and that was one of the reasons why he took the course which he has taken.
I was asked how much time Mr. d'Erlanger was going to give. I am informed that he will give as much as is necessary. I cannot quite accept Lord Pakenham's picture of the Chairman turning up for routine office hours. If I may refer to an old nursery rhyme I heard many years ago, what really matters is not what hours you put in, but what you put into the hours. With a Chairman, I should have thought that that was much more the important matter.
LORD PAKENHAM: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but he is being somewhat vigorous, and I am sure he will not mind. I did not talk about routine. I said that unless the Chairman is on tour it is desirable that he should go to the office every day. I did not say how long he should stay there.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I understood that to mean that he should keep office hours. He certainly should be
444
available, but I do not think he should keep office hours.
I turn now to the major appointment by the Board—namely, that of the Managing Director, Mr. Smallpiece. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has been good enough to read out his functions, but perhaps I might repeat them, because it is important to realise that he has full charge of the whole flying operations of the B.O.A.C.—the operating, engineering, commercial traffic, personnel and accounting activities of the Corporation. I am given to understand that he is fully satisfied with that definition. I next turn to the appointment of a Deputy Chairman, which the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, said was an absurd set-up. It seems to me that it is entirely a matter for the Board: either they think it is what they want or they do not. If the Board feel it is what they want, then I see no reason why it should not work satisfactorily.
Perhaps I might deal first with the duties, which have been clearly laid down and as to which I understand there should be no difficulty. First of all, the Chairman is undertaking the policy, long-range planning and overall financial control, and the Deputy-Chairman will advise him specifically on those matters. But, over and above that, the Deputy Chairman will undertake liaison with Government Departments, and that is a considerable task, because Government Departments consult B.O.A.C. especially on the question of foreign operators, which is of great importance. There is a large number of companies in one part of the world or another, something like a dozen, with which the Corporation are closely associated. It is important to have someone at Board level who can be a member of the Board and attend Board meetings, and can also supervise generally the relationship and policy of the Corporation in relation to their associates. There are also partners of B.O.A.C.—and Qantas and the South African Airlines are the two major ones. These are tasks which can best be fulfilled at a high level. There is liaison with British independent air companies, I believe, particularly, Skyways and Hunting's with whom B.O.A.C. have certain connections; and there is representation of the Corporation on a certain number of bodies where otherwise the Chairman himself might be a member. As a matter of interest, if we take these

445
three posts of Managing Director, Chairman and Deputy Chairman, we find that twelve months ago there were three full-time people filling them, whereas to-day there are two and a half. I give that only as an example to show that there is plenty for a full-time Deputy Chairman to do.
There are special reasons why an aviation company such as B.O.A.C. requires a full-time man at a high level—not necessarily the Chairman, but a full-time man apart from the Chief Executive. The first thing I would say is that B.O.A.C. fly over some thirty countries all over the world, with the greater number of which bilateral agreements of one kind or another have to be made between the Government of the United Kingdom and the respective Governments. Under all of these B.O.A.C. have to operate, and, of course, they are closely associated with these arrangements. I think it is common knowledge, certainly to noble Lords opposite who have been Ministers of Civil Aviation at one time or another, that the freedom of the air is a different thing from the freedom of the seas. Freedom of the seas does not present the same difficulties as freedom of the air.
There is another point I should like to mention arising from the far-reaching contacts of B.O.A.C., and that is the necessity to travel. If the Chairman had to be somebody who could readily be available it would be more difficult for him to travel to the many different places in which B.O.A.C. operate. As a matter of interest, when the resignation of Sir Miles Thomas was announced, he was in Pretoria; and the Vice-Chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, happened to be in Australia. I do not think it matters very much, but it was an occasion when I should have thought it was probably desirable, if possible, that either the Chairman or Deputy Chairman should have been in this country. Moreover, I think it is desirable that a Corporation which is so much in the public eye should be able to find someone at almost any time who can take a broad view of the Corporation's interests and who has a full knowledge of its policy.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said that a civil servant should never be appointed. He voted what I had said, and of course I agree that it is a matter which should not in any way be regarded
446
as a normal step in the ladder—though, as my noble friend Lord Swinton said, I could easily quote quite a number of significant instances in which precisely that was done by the Labour Government when they were in power. I refrain from doing so, because I do not think it is desirable. I submit that Sir George Cribbett has a unique experience, and indeed, in certain respects, is a figure in world aviation as perhaps no one else is in this country. My noble friend Lord Swinton referred to it when he spoke, and I am certain he is correct in what he said. One thing I would say is that the placing of civil servants on public Boards has never resulted in those Boards coming under greater control of Government Departments. In fact, experience has been of precisely the opposite character.
The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, asked for certain assurances regarding the status of the Corporations. I am happy to be able to tell him something that I hope will satisfy him, although I know that he is very exacting in these matters. I can repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, said: that we have no intention of undermining the Corporations at all; we have no intention to denationalise, to merge or dismember the Corporations. But I should like to emphasise that, although we can stress the success of recent years, I am not in any way complacent about the difficulties which lie ahead. The Minister has warned us that there are likely to be difficulties and that continued profits are not assured. Quite frankly, I think he is anxious about what may happen. We should like to see British aircraft going back to South America; and we should also like to see the percentage of North Atlantic traffic carried by B.O.A.C. substantially higher than it is at present. I would only say that B.O.A.C. are carrying about one-third of the North Atlantic air traffic from this country, whereas British ships carry about 66 per cent. of the sea traffic. I suggest that there is a considerable margin which could be caught up.
There have not been many questions raised in regard to aircraft, though the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, raised one or two points in that respect. I think I should remind your Lordships that one of the first things the new Chairman did

447
was to set up a Committee of B.O.A.C. to examine the adequacy of the Corporation's aircraft programme. This Committee will consist of the Chairman, Deputy Chairman, Managing Director, Operations Director, Sales Director, Operations Development Director, Chief Engineer and a senior pilot. This Committee recognises the extreme difficulty and importance of the decision which the Corporation will have to make in regard to future aircraft.
I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, made his point that the Chairman of B.O.A.C. is a man, if I may use his words, whose views are normally accepted. He is not, shall I say, just a general managing director. If anyone wanted any proof of that, it is the fact that he is part-time. I think one of the advantages of being a part-time man is that it is much more difficult to be "in anyone's pocket" than it is for a full-time man, whose whole future is dependent on the position. As regards British aircraft, I do not know that we have gone a great deal further than the famous White Paper which was produced in 1945 or 1946. There it was laid down that it will be the general policy of His Majesty's Government to require the Corporations to use British aircraft types. That injunction has been somewhat honoured in the breach, I must admit. I think we should all like to fly British aircraft, but I can also say that we must recognise that these Corporations must have the best aircraft they can get.
I have not dealt at all with the personalities of these men who have been under consideration. I have sought to examine the organisation and the reasons which have actuated my right honourable friend to take the course he has done. The decision, of course, is his. It has been laid down by Act of Parliament that Board appointments are his responsibility. What I do think is worth remembering is this. Whatever his decision may be, both the Chairman and Vice-Chairman have qualifications and have carried responsibility which shows their real and lasting interest in aviation. I should like to remind the House of the record of Mr. d'Erlanger. He is by profession a chartered accountant and vice-chairman of the firm of d'Erlanger. He is a pilot of nearly thirty years' experi-
448
ence; was director of Hillman Airways in 1934; British Airways, 1935; on the Board of B.O.A.C., 1940; Commanding Officer, A.T.A., from 1939 to 1945, in which he commanded some 800 pilots and delivered 350,000 military aircraft; Managing Director of B.E.A., 1946; Chairman of B.E.A., from 1947 until 1949; on the Board of the Air Transport Advisory Council and Deputy Chairman, 1954. That is the record of a man pretty deeply interested in aviation.
May I now turn to Sir George Cribbett? He was a pilot in the Royal Flying Corps from 1914 to 1918, joined the Exchequer and Audit Department in 1919, and subsequently moved to the Air Ministry at the begining of the Second World War, when he was a principal in the Air Ministry. From 1941 to 1943 he was Director of Administrative Finance, R.A.F. Delegation, Washington. On his return in 1943 he was charged with a special responsibility for formulating Britain's post-war international air policy. In 1944 he was delegate under the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, at the Chicago conference, and since 1946 has been deputy Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation. I should add that he was specially charged, with the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, to reorganise B.O.A.C. during the period when the noble Lord was Minister, and who, I should imagine, was fairly competent to do that. Sir George Cribbett had intended to retire from the Civil Service to enter a business appointment at the end of this year; but at the Minister's request he did not do so and joined B.O.A.C. instead. I say without hesitation that he is in the international sphere, as the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, has said, and I find myself in full agreement. He is probably one of the most experienced men in this country.
I have sought to answer the questions which have been put, because it is important that I should do so. I think that both the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of B.O.A.C. are men of very high experience in aviation. Indeed, they have devoted a large part of their lives to the problems of aviation, and I can assure the House that they are both enthusiastic and determined to make a success of this great enterprise. Their only concern will be that B.O.A.C. should become a greater and more important British commercial enterprise. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, wishes to ask

449
me any further questions. What I do hope is that there will be an end of criticism of B.O.A.C. or the personnel, although criticism may rest on my right honourable friend or myself.
7.25 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I do not know that one can ever hope, in this unhappy world, to avoid criticism. In whatever sphere one is in, one must expect criticism. I think the noble Earl is being a little optimistic if he thinks that any organisation can avoid that very human activity.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I merely meant personal criticism. I apologise; I went too far.
LORD OGMORE: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken to-day for the care with which they prepared their case and for the interest they have obviously shown in this important issue. I must say that during the years that I have been in either House I have never heard, so far as I can recollect, such a weak case put up by any Minister as that put up by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, this evening. That is not his fault. In fact, as we all know only too well, especially those who sit on this side of the House, the noble Earl is an extremely skilful debater. If there is any case at all he will make it. He will usually make it rather better than it is, but he will make it, and no fault at all lies on him. He has done his best.
The fact is that he has an extremely poor case to make, and that is why it has been so unsatisfactory. I go away from this debate feeling entirely dissatisfied with the result, so far as the Government's answer is concerned. Of course, the noble Earl is only the spokesman for the Minister; but he is a Member of the Cabinet, and the Cabinet take responsibility. So far as his answer is concerned, he has not really answered our main points in this debate—the point of organisation, for example; the unpaid Chairman, the full-time Deputy Chairman, and so on. He has not really answered our point on organisation, and he has not answered our point on the question of whether the Minister intends to direct B.O.A.C. to do things which a Board should never—
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: With respect, I did seek to answer that. The Minister
450
does not intend to direct. He is, of course, responsible to Parliament for the Board, and that is all there is to it. The direction of policy, particularly in aircraft, is the responsibility of B.O.A.C.
LORD OGMORE: Then at some time or other he must have retracted this statement which he gave on, I should have thought, an incredible platform—that is to say, in an exclusive interview in the News Chronicle. Presumably, he has retracted that statement which he made very clearly to the reporter of the News Chronicle. But it is only at this moment that I, at least, have been aware that that is so, and that he will allow the Board to select aircraft which, in their opinion, are the most suitable.
I will not delay your Lordships any longer. In the beginning the noble Earl expressed, with perhaps somewhat pantomime fury, his concern that I had done something to make the B.O.A.C. position more difficult. I can assure your Lordships that the last thing I want to do is to detract m any way from the progress of B.O.A.C. It has my full support and sympathy, and my concern to-day is that the Government, and especially the Minister, have struck a shrewd blow at it. That is what I am now afraid of. In this instance, we are it a difficulty which Oppositions are always in. Your Lordships know that I often address you on colonial questions. Something happens. We are not implicated, and we are not consulted. The Government make a decision or fail to make a decision. A certain event occurs or a transaction takes place. We, the Opposition, object; we ask for certain assurances, and we criticize. We are then told, "You must not do that. You are making the position worse in the Colony. You are affecting the morale of the troops or the police."
Something of the sort has been said to-day. The noble Earl says, "You must not levy these criticisms; you must not raise this subject in Parliament in the way you have done because you will probably, and I am afraid have, affected the public mind. They will think that you are making some dreadful criticism about B.O.A.C., and already the rivals of B.O.A.C. are rejoicing at what you are saying." But after all, my Lords, we are Her Majesty's Opposition. It is our duty to call attention to these matters. It is

451
not we who are at fault: it is the Government who are at fault. We are not at fault for criticising; it is the Government who are at fault for taking the action which causes us to criticise. With those few words, I will ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL PEOPLE'S DISPENSARY FOR SICK ANIMALS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
PONTYPOOL AND DISTRICT WATER BILL [H.L.] SION COLLEGE BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION (No. 2) BILL
Committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
WALTHAMSTOW CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

EDINBURGH CORPORATION BILL
Report from the Select Committee that it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before eight o'clock.