Sitting of 10 December 1957

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  LEGAL AID AND ADVICE
  Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Attorney-General whether he is aware that the Legal Aid (Assessment of Resources) Regulations involve considerable hardship; and if he will now amend the scales of contribution to bring them into line with other National Assistance Board scales and with the increased cost of living since 1950.
  Mr. Collinsasked the Attorney-General if, in view of the fact that depreciation in the purchasing power of the £ has led to an increase in average weekly earnings of all industrial workers from £7 2s. 8d. in 1949, when the Legal Aid and Advice Act was passed, to approximately £12, he will raise the maximum limit of disposable income above the present level of £420 so that the advantages of the Act may still be available to the people it was designed to assist.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): No, Sir. The Advisory Committee stated in its last Report that the financial conditions of legal aid did not in general prevent litigants getting the assistance they should. The Committee is now considering the Law Society's Seventh Annual Report and its comments should be awaited.
  I do not of course accept the statement that it is the depreciation of the purchasing power of the £ that has led to the increase in average weekly earnings of all industrial workers, nor do I accept the premise that receipt of increased remuneration necessitates an increase in the scope of legal aid.
  Mr. Fletcher: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree, as I am
  1044
  sure he must, that the operation of the legal aid scheme in its present form causes considerable hardship and that there are a great number of cases in which deserving and desirous litigants are prevented from getting justice owing to the operation of the present scale?
  The Attorney-General: As I have said, I think the hon. Member should await the Report of the Committee.
  Mr. Collins: Is the Attorney-General aware that an ever-increasing percentage of applications is disallowed on financial grounds and that the purpose of the Act, which was to give the average worker a chance to obtain justice in the courts has been frustrated by increasing wages, whatever may be the reason he gives for that? Is he aware that thousands now find it useless? Is it not in the interests of justice and of carrying out the purposes of the Act that this income limit should be raised?
  The Attorney-General: I cannot accept the hon. Member's statement as to the position.
  Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Attorney-General if he will now take steps to bring into operation the provisions of the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949, with regard to providing a system of legal advice.
  The Attorney-General: My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has requested the Law Society to revise its plans and estimates for providing legal advice. When they are received, my noble Friend will consider how best to employ any further funds which may become available.
  Mr. Fletcher: May we take it from that reply that the Government are sympathetic to the idea of now bringing into operation the provision of a system of legal advice? Does the Attorney-General's Answer mean that the Government now realise that we shall never get the full benefits of this Act until the legal advice system is brought into operation?
  The Attorney-General: There has been no change of view by the Government in relation to this matter.

  RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES COURT
  Mr. Jayasked the Attorney-General how soon he expects the question of the agreements in the building and sanitary supplies industry to come before the Restrictive Practices Court.
  The Attorney-General: Directions to refer agreements relating to the supply of some sanitary goods were given to the Registrar on 3rd September. In two cases the agreements have been varied by the omission of all the restrictive clauses and it is unlikely that they will be referred to the court in the near future; I am not in a position to say when any other cases will come before the court. No directions have been given about the building and sanitary supplies industry as such.
  Mr. Jay: Is it satisfactory that nearly eighteen months after the passing of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act no case has yet come before this court? Is the Attorney-General aware that a great many customers of the industry have written to me to say that the present policy of the industry is to register their restrictive practices and still continue on the principle that they can legally do so and that it will take years before it is stopped? Is that satisfactory?
  The Attorney-General: It is the case that a great many people are amending their agreements and so avoiding the necessity for registration by deleting the objectionable clauses. I am sure that that is a satisfactory step as long as they do not adhere to the past practice. Any evidence that they are adhering to their past practice despite an alteration in the agreement would be welcomed by the Registrar.
  The hon. Member referred to the delay in taking these cases before the courts. He realises that even where an order is made for representation a very large number of interests are involved. If justice is to be done, it means that both sides must have proper opportunity for consideration and for investigations. I think that the way in which the Registrar's Office is now functioning shows quite clearly that the time which is being taken to bring these cases before the court compares very favourably with the time normally taken in any big commercial case which is somewhat analogous.
  Mr. Jay: Is the Attorney-General aware that it is precisely for those reasons that we on this side of the House always argued that this procedure would be far too slow?
  The Attorney-General: I cannot accept that as a conclusion when we find that, without the matter coming before the court, a great many of the things which were objectionable are being corrected.
  Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Attorney-General, in how many cases he has nominated counsel under Section 23 (4) of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956, to represent the Registrar in proceedings before the Restrictive Practices Court.
  The Attorney-General: I have nominated leading counsel in three cases. The work of junior counsel has in all cases been carried out by standing counsel to the Registrar.
  Mr. Fletcher: Can the Attorney-General say whether that Answer is some indication that he is satisfied with the progress being made in carrying this Act into operation?
  The Attorney-General: Yes, Sir, I am satisfied.

  PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES ACT, 1770
  Mr. Liptonasked the Attorney-General which counsel has been instructed to appear before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in connection with the Parliamentary Privileges Act, 1770.
  The Attorney-General: No nominations have yet been made. I am at present somewhat engaged on other matters.
  Mr. Lipton: I know, but must the decision in this matter stand over until the Attorney-General has finished cleaning up the City of London, which may take a long time? Will he consider the possibility that, pending a decision in this matter, writs may be piling up somewhere ready for service on Members in respect of what they may have been saying in the House during the past few years? May I beg of him to come to an early decision in the matter?
  The Attorney-General: I do not suppose that it would take very long to come

  1047
  to a decision on nominating counsel. I cannot say anything about when the case is to come up for hearing by the Privy Council, because a lot depends on the arrangements of the Privy Council. It must also be borne in mind that, if this case is to be properly argued on both sides, whoever is nominated to appear for the other side will, and should, have ample opportunity for research and for formulating the arguments in support of their view.

  MINISTRY OF WORKS

    Deep Shelter Entrances, London
    Mr. Gibsonasked the Minister of Works if he will make a statement as to the progress being made in dealing with the unsightly deep shelter entrances in London.
    The Minister of Works (Mr. Hugh Molson): Progress is being made on the work of improving the appearance of these shelter entrances. Work has been completed at The Avenue, Clapham South, and at Stockwell Green, and a start has been made on the two entrances to the Goodge Street shelter in Tottenham Court Road and Chenies Street. The rest will be dealt with as quickly as circumstances allow.
    Mr. Gibson: The Minister's Answer only proves the necessity for asking the Question. The work that he describes as having been completed does not consist of anything really worth while, except that some colour wash has been put over the sides of the very ugly buildings that are there. Will he reconsider this? Is he aware that when the Bill was passed that gave these buildings into the control of the Ministry of Works, we were given an undertaking that they would be quickly looked at with a view to removing their unsightliness; and that, so far, nothing really has been done in that direction except to chop off a few hoods at the top? Will he look again at the matter and really get something going?
    Mr. Molson: I will certainly look at the point which the hon. Member makes. I cannot hold out any prospect of spending a great deal of money on this.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Will the Minister show a greater sense of urgency
    1048
    about this problem? Will he bear in mind that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) says, when we agreed to the Bill going through many did so very reluctantly indeed, and then only on the assurance of his right hon. predecessor that the work would be done to improve the shelters, and that it would be done quickly; and that unless he makes rather more rapid progress than there has so far been, we shall feel we have been seriously let down by the right hon. Gentleman himself.
    Mr. Molson: I am very sorry to hear that. I thought that I was showing a sense of urgency. I have undertaken to look again at the point raised by the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson). I cannot hold out a prospect of spending a large sum of money on this at the present time.

    National Trust (Croft Castle, Herefordshire)
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Minister of Works how many houses and parks have been bought by the National Trust with the aid of contributions from public funds; what was their total value at the time of acquisition; and in what circumstances these contributions were made.
    Mr. Molson: Only Croft Castle, Herefordshire, which, together with some 1,370 acres of woodland and farmland, has recently been bought by the Trust for £40,000 with a grant which I made on the recommendation of the Historic Buildings Council for England. The Trust has obtained a substantial endowment for the upkeep of the property from the previous owner's family. I have made a further grant to the Trust towards the initial repairs necessary to the castle.
    Mr. Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has not answered my Question? I asked how many have been bought in all, not just recently. Would he agree that some possible practical use might be made of some of these houses by, for example, turning them into short-term accommodation for old people? Does he not think that we have by now acquired a sufficient stock of old houses, and could not we avoid spending any more of the taxpayers' money for this purpose?
    Mr. Molson: In reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary, I

    1049
    would point out that he asked me how many houses and parks had been bought by the National Trust, and I replied that only one had been bought. As to his other point, there is in my Ministry a special bureau which is trying to find useful purposes for historic houses. I do not think that it would be the general view of the House that we should not go on preserving ancient and beautiful buildings which are part of the heritage of the country.

    Director-General of Works
    Mr. Malcolm MacPhersonasked the Minister of Works how long it is intended that the post of Director-General of Works shall remain unfilled.
    Mr. Molson: In the absence of a suitably qualified professional candidate, a non-professional general manager has been appointed, and will take control in March next. It is not possible to say how long this arrangement will last.
    Mr. MacPherson: Is not it a very unsatisfactory state of affairs that simply because another properly-trained candidate is not available the Director-General of a very large and important Department should be replaced by someone not properly technically qualified? Is not this just a major instance of the big question on which an official policy has not been decided—how properly to integrate professionally and technically trained people into the Civil Service machine as a whole?
    Mr. Molson: I was naturally disappointed that none of the professional candidates who came before the Selection Board was considered suitable for appointment to that particular post. I do not, however, see any reason to suppose that things will not be extremely well administered by the official whom I have appointed as general manager.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Can the Minister tell us whether he has studied the comments in the Architects' Journal and other architectural papers on the failure of the Department to find a suitable candidate? Is he aware that the view is widely held that, until the Minister shows that he realises that this is not just an administrative appointment but one of the most important architectural appointments in the country, he will lot find a suitable architect? Will he give an
    1050
    assurance that if anybody is appointed to this post as an architect, he will be given reasonable freedom to go ahead with the job, to show initiative, without being hampered by an obsolete administrative machine?
    Mr. Molson: This is an administrative job. There is no need at all for a general manager to have professional qualifications. There is a chief architect in the Ministry, and he is responsible for architecture. I entirely disagree with the criticisms of my Department that have been made in various publications.

    Carlton House Terrace
    Mr. Peytonasked the Minister of Works if he is satisfied that Carlton House Terrace is in an adequate state of repair and decoration; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Molson: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Peyton: Might I ask my right hon. Friend to be good enough to take a walk around this very beautiful building? Does not he really think, from his observations of the building so far, that it presents an appearance of seedy decay which gives the worst possible impression to foreign visitors? I hope that my right hon. Friend will take the matter seriously because, at the moment, the appearance of the building is very bad.
    Mr. Molson: It is the intention to build a new Foreign Office behind Nash's facade, but when it will be possible to undertake that is not apparent at the present time. It is intended that the present building shall last, at any rate, until 1963. Some £30,000 was spent on reconditioning in 1955, and £18,000 a year has been spent on maintenance over the last four years. I hope that it will be possible to repaint the façade during the next financial year, but that depends on whether money is available.

    British Embassy, Rome (Site)
    Mr. Vaneasked the Minister of Works what plans he has for rebuilding on the site of the old British Embassy in Rome near the Porta Pia; and whether he has chosen an architect.
    Mr. Molson: Providing the Italian authorities agree, I propose to sell about half of the site and erect Embassy offices

    1051
    on the remainder. I am not yet able to make a statement about the appointment of an architect.
    Mr. Vane: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is not every day that a British architect has the chance of designing a building in Rome alongside a work by Michelangelo? Does he not consider that this is a case for a very special competition?
    Mr. Molson: I am fully aware of the importance of this site and of the great opportunity that it provides for the erection of a worthy building. It is for that reason that I am not yet in a position to name an architect for appointment for this job. I am doubtful about holding a competition, since that is not popular with architects, as was found in the case of the Nash Terraces.
    Mr. Shinwell: From where will the right hon. Gentleman get the money for this purpose? He could not find the money to remove the unsightly deep shelters.
    Mr. Molson: If the right hon. Gentleman had listened to my original Answer, he would be aware that I was proposing to sell half of the site, and with the proceeds of that sale I hope to be able to pay for the erection of a building on the other half.

    Longleat House and Scrivelsby Court
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the Minister of Works what inquiries were made about the means of the owners before a grant of £4,500 was given towards the cost of repairs to Longleat House and a grant of £5,000 for a gatehouse at Scrivelsby Court.
    Mr. Molson: The Historic Buildings Council for England satisfied itself that the owners needed a grant to enable the necessary work to be done.
    Mr. Hynd: How is it determined whether these owners need a grant of this kind? I do not want to mention names—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—but I will do so if hon. Members want me to. These are obviously people who are not in need of financial aid. How can the Minister reconcile grants of this kind with the fact that he and his hon. Friends object, for example, to grants towards subsidising rented property?
    Mr. Molson: That is an argument which might have been put forward when the Historic Buildings Act was being passed. It was passed with the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House, and the purpose of the Act is to enable grants to be made in respect of the buildings and not primarily for the benefit of the owners.

    National Apprenticeship Scheme
    Mr. Awberyasked the Minister of Works if he has considered the renewed expressions of dissatisfaction in the electrical contracting industry concerning his decision to discontinue the facilities afforded to the National Apprenticeship Scheme, particulars of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Bristol, Central; and, in view of the urgent need for technicians and the training of these young men in electronics and in the technique of new mechanical devices, if he will now reconsider his decision and restore these facilities.
    Mr. Molson: The representations which I have received have not led me to revise the replies given recently to the hon. Members for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) and Itchen (Dr. King).
    Mr. Awbery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the union concerned is getting very perturbed about the reduced number of apprentices? In view of recent scientific and technological developments, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision and restore the grant that was made for apprentices?
    Mr. Molson: I think the hon. Gentleman and perhaps the trade unions concerned rather misunderstand the situation. This council has been concerned only with registration. It is not proposed to reduce in any way the facilities for training apprentices.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Is it not the case that the Minister is withdrawing his support from this scheme at a time when it is reaching an important stage in its work, which would have avoided the employment of juvenile labour in unsatisfactory ways?
    Mr. Molson: No, Sir; I do not think it will have that effect at all. In fact, in all other industries councils of this kind are run and financed by the industries

    1053
    themselves. I see no reason why my Department should undertake this cost if the electrical contracting industry is unwilling to pay for the cost itself.

  SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

    Methane (Liquification)
    Mr. Robensasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, to what extent the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research is co-operating in research into the liquification of methane or natural gas.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Harmar Nicholls): The D.S.I.R. is not concerned with this work, as research in this field comes under the Gas Council.
    Mr. Robens: Is it a fact that the Gas Council is doing this on its own without Government support?
    Mr. Nicholls: It comes under the heading of the Gas Council. If the right hon. Gentleman would put a Question to the Paymaster-General, who answers for that body, perhaps he would get a bitter answer.
    Mr. Robens: Am I to understand that if we put a Question to the Paymaster-General it will be answered and not referred to as a matter of day-to-day administration by the Gas Council?
    Mr. Nicholls: The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the D.S.I.R. for which I am responsible, and this matter does not come within the purview of the D.S.I.R.
    Mr. Robens: The hon. Gentleman said that I could put a Question to the Paymaster-General. If that is done, will the Paymaster-General answer the Question?
    Mr. Nicholls: I can only suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should put the Question down and see what the Answer is.

    British Embassy, Moscow (Scientific Attaché)
    Mr. Robensasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of
    1054
    the Council, when it is proposed to appoint a scientific attaché at the British Embassy in Moscow.
    Mr. H. Nicholls: An appointment of this kind has been considered from time to time and is now being considered again.
    Mr. Robens: Will the hon. Gentleman say when the consideration will have been completed and a decision made? Is he aware of the debate which took place in this House on the problem of the extraction of scientific information from Russian journals? As the Russian Embassy has a scientific attaché here, is not it time that we had a scientific attaché in Moscow in order that we might have proper access to information which it is highly desirable we should have?
    Mr. Nicholls: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that I replied to the debate to which he has referred, so that I have a vivid recollection of it. It is not absolutely accurate to say that the Russians have a scientific attaché here. It may well be that they have on their staff people who have certain scientific qualifications, but not in the sense that they are scientific attachés. I recognise the importance and the urgency of what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind, but it is rather premature to give any definite answers at this stage.

    Russian Scientific and Technical Literature (Translation)
    Mr. Thorntonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, how many persons are employed by Government scientific and technical research establishments on translating published Russian scientific and technical data into English; and whether he is satisfied that our present translating service and organisation is giving an adequate picture to British scientists and technologists of progress and achievements in Russia.
    Mr. H. Nicholls: It is normally found that the best translations of scientific and technical papers are produced by working scientists with a knowledge of Russian. A large number of individuals are employed part-time on this work, and a small number full-time, in Government

    1055
    scientific and technical research establishments. In addition, Government Departments make use, on a contract basis, of panels of translators outside the Government services.
    My noble Friend is not satisfied that British scientists yet have an adequate picture of scientific developments in the U.S.S.R. Measures are in hand to improve the availability of English language translations of Russian literature, but the aim must be to encourage more scientists to learn to read Russian.
    Mr. Thornton: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that according to the New York Times of 25th November, the Soviet Union employs 2,300 full-time and 20,000 part-time translators and abstractors? Is he aware that the United States Administration and Congress are paying keen attention to this problem, and is it not a fact that the progress of the Soviet Union has been due mainly to their organisation in disseminating existing knowledge on scientific matters?
    Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman will have noticed from the recent debate that we have been paying a lot of attention to improving the service in this country. As is set out in the Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy,
    "The Scientific Library and Technical Information Committee are considering with the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research ways of improving the arrangements for abstracting and translating Russian technical literature."
    I notice that the hon. Gentleman has a Question down for Written Answer by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education, and the hon. Gentleman may well find that we are well on the way to meeting the point that he has in mind.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider co-operating with the United States with a view to getting translations into English of these important matters? There is no doubt that there is a shocking delay in making available to both British and American scientists the latest information about Russian developments. Could not there be some much closer co-operation in these translations?
    Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate the problem involved in transferring scientists from carrying out research to actually translating the reports
    1056
    on research which has been carried out. We have a shortage under both heads and it is a matter of using both to the best advantage.
    Mr. Robens: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that his reply to this Question would be made much easier if a scientist of sufficient standing were appointed as a scientific attaché to the British Embassy in Moscow, so that he could in his own right have access to Russian scientists and prevent the need for a good deal of abstraction which is now not being done?
    Mr. Nicholls: If the right hon. Gentleman could guarantee that any such appointment from this country to Russia would enable the person concerned to have special rights to do anything in Russia without voluntary co-operation at that end, perhaps it would help to speed up our decision.
    Mr. Bevan: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that there are not some people in the Services who could be drawn out for this purpose? Has he made any inquiries?
    Mr. Nicholls: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the importance behind this Question is fully understood and we are trying as far as we can to fill this breach and to make the system effective when it is filled.
    Mr. Bevan: Will the hon. Gentleman answer my question? A large number of people have been drawn into the Services in recent years, who might not be as usefully employed today as they thought they might be when they were drawn in. Will the hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of extracting someone for this work?
    Mr. Nicholls: The right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that some translators are not at present engaged in translating. I should like to leave the point; it has been well made, and we are apprised of its importance. We are looking at the practical problems to see whether they can be overcome.

  SCOTLAND

    Fisheries Acts (Consolidation)
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why he authorised the letter of 23rd August

    1057
    addressed to the Secretary of Scottish Inshore White Fish Producers' Association Limited. Aberdeen, by the Scottish Home Department, acknowledging that legislation should be introduced to consolidate the Fisheries Acts and bring them up to date and expressing the view that other demands on the time of parliamentary draftsmen make it unlikely that consolidation could be undertaken in the near future.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen. South (Lady Tweedsmuir) on 18th November.
    Sir D. Robertson: I am unaware of that Answer; but may I ask my right hon. Friend whether anyone has noticed the congestion in this place which would bring about the situation referred to in my Question? If there is a shortage of Parliamentary draftsmen, have not senior draftsmen in the service of the Government the right to employ Parliamentary draftsmen from outside and pay them an adequate fee?
    Mr. Maclay: The position is that a number of consolidation propositions are being considered at the moment; it is very technical work. As I indicated in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South, the task of consolidation of these Acts would be a formidable one which would certainly take some time. I am, however, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the question of consolidating the Fisheries Acts.

    Maize (Whisky Distillation)
    Sir R. Boothbyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much maize has been imported into Scotland during the past year; and how much of it has been purchased for the purpose of distilling whisky.
    Mr. Maclay: The Official statistics of imports relate to the United Kingdom as a whole, and I am, therefore, unable to say how much maize was imported into Scotland; nor am I in a position to answer the second part of the Question.
    Sir R. Boothby: Will my right hon. Friend remind the distillers of Scotland that the importation of dollar feeding-stuffs
    1058
    unnecessarily is not desirable, that they built up their fame and fortunes on Scottish barley, and that they would be well advised to stick to it?
    Mr. Maclay: I understand that the National Farmers' Unions are pursuing with the distillers the question whether in future more home-grown barley could be bought by the distillers

    Hospitals (Out-patient Departments)
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what improvements have been made by hospital boards of management in the organisation of outpatient departments since the issue of his circular; and, in particular, how many appointments systems have been introduced as a result of his recommendations.
    Mr. Maclay: A survey made in 1956 of arrangements for out-patients at 163 hospitals showed that, since 1954, an appointments system had been introduced at 49 additional clinics, and also showed many other improvements in organisation. Almost all the larger hospitals have appointments in the majority of their clinics, and 106 hospitals have them for all clinics.
    Mr. Hannan: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that there is great room for improvement in the use of appointment systems in hospitals in order to cope with the substantial increase in attendances, which now run at a rate of over 7 million annually? Will he take all the steps he can to ensure that more of these systems are inaugurated in order to save patients' waiting time at hospital?
    Mr. Maclay: I am very conscious of the importance of this matter. My Department is in constant touch with the regional hospital boards on the subject, and there is steady improvement going on.

    Mental Illness
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the interested organisations have now conveyed to him their views in respect of Command Paper No. 9623 relating to mental illness, and mental deficiency in Scotland and also on the application to Scotland of the Report of the Royal Commission on Mental Health and Mental Deficiency in England and Wales; and what action he is proposing to take.
    Mr. Maclay: A number of the interested organisations have sent in memoranda, and the remainder expect to do so shortly. I am also consulting the Scottish Health Services Council, which hopes to complete its consideration of the matter early in the New Year.
    Mr. Hannan: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that this Command Paper was published two years ago? In view of the increasing incidence of mental illness in Scotland, will he give added interest and push to this business in order to get some result?
    Mr. Maclay: We are very interested in it, of course, and, as I say, early in the New Year we hope to receive the replies from the interested bodies which have been consulted. I hope that that will happen.

    Rent Act
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the effects of the Rent Act in Scotland; and which of the objectives for which the Act was designed have been, or are being, achieved.
    Mr. Maclay: It is too early yet to draw any firm conclusion about the effect in Scotland of the 1957 Rent Act.
    Mr. Hannan: But it is surely not too early for the right hon. Gentleman to appreciate the reprehensible effect of anxiety and misery caused particularly to very many aged people. Since many of his hon. Friends are now showing some sign of realising the enormity of the great injustice which they have perpetrated in passing the Act, will the right hon. Gentleman now introduce an amending Bill to restore control to houses in Scotland?
    Mr. Maclay: The hon. Gentleman will realise that the main object of the Rent Act is to maintain and make the best use of our stock of houses. What is more, although a change such as this after so many years of complete control may, I accept, produce some temporary hardship, however much we try to avoid it, I remain convinced that the Act is in the general interest.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that people who have occupied these houses for years are finding themselves threatened with eviction, with no possibility of finding another
    1060
    home? Does he not realise that this will cause widespread distress throughout many of the towns of Scotland?
    Mr. Maclay: I do not accept that the evidence available at the moment bears out what the right hon. Gentleman has said. No one can be certain what will happen until October of next year.
    Mr. J. Henderson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while not all landlords and factors in Glasgow have put ridiculously high increases on these houses which have become decontrolled, quite a number have imposed quite unreasonable increases in respect of many of them? Will he bear in mind also that there are 105,000 houses controlled by the Corporation of Glasgow which are not affected by the Act, so that not only do these people whose homes or houses have now been directly affected have these additional increases—as much as 100 per cent.—to face, but they have also to pay towards the rents of the people who are staying in the 105,000 uneconomic and subsidised houses in the City of Glasgow? Is not this grossly unfair?
    Mr. Maclay: In reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's Question, I would say that I know that occasional cases of apparent hardship have been reported; but, as I have said in public before now, I sincerely hope that all landlords in Scotland will act with humanity and intelligence, as I understand they are doing in the great majority of cases.
    Mr. D. Johnston: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman does not accept the truth of the facts given by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. George) in his interview with the Glasgow Herald a few days ago?
    Mr. Maclay: That is not on the Order Paper, and I am not fully conversant with what was stated at that time. I repeat that there are cases where there is, I think, hardship, and I sincerely hope that the landlords concerned will behave in their own best interests and the interests of the tenants.
    Mr. Johnston: If the right hon. Gentleman accepts that there are cases of hardship, does he propose to do something about it and bring in an amending Bill?
    Mr. Maclay: No. As I said before, after so many years of complete control—which, I believe, everybody in the

    1061
    House knows has produced a very difficult position in the country—there is bound to be some disruption when even an element of decontrol is introduced. But one sincerely hopes—as I believe it will—that the general effect of the Act will be in the interests of everybody in the country.
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if, in view of the widespread hardships due to lack of alternative accommodation for those evicted under the Rent Act, he will initiate legislation to establish a Scottish tribunal to report to him and advise on interchangeability of houses to rent;
    (2) if he is aware of the threats of eviction and hardships throughout Scotland caused by the Rent Act, 1957; and if he will amend the Act in respect to the decontrolling of dwellinghouses of £40 and over.
    Mr. Rossasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes to take to mitigate the hardship caused to tenants of rented houses by the implementing of the provisions of the Rent Act.
    Mr. Maclay: No, Sir. The Government do not accept the suggestion that there will be widespread hardship and have announced that they do not contemplate amendment of the Rent Act. As regards interchangeability of houses to rent, one of the underlying objects of the Act is to enable better use than hitherto to be made of the pool of rented accommodation, but exchange of tenancies is a matter for mutual arrangement between landlords and tenants.
    Mrs. Mann: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is the first time in Scotland's history that a change like this has taken place in a Rent Act without a previous survey by a commission, and particularly a survey into the houses available to let, before decontrol was introduced? In regard to interchangeability, the right hon. Gentleman talks about hoping that there will be houses to let. Surely, there is no justification here for the triumph of hope over experience. Has experience not taught us that during the past 20 years every vacant house has been put up for sale and not to let?
    Mr. Maclay: In reply to the first part of the question, I should have to make a check to discover about past surveys. Concerning the second part, it is much too early to be certain what will happen about the availability of houses to let. I do not think one should make the assumption that the hon. Lady is making.
    Mr. D. Johnston: Are we, then, to assume that the right hon. Gentleman is wholly satisfied with the workings of the Act? Are we further to assume that he desires to be known as the Panglossian Secretary of State for Scotland?
    Mr. Maclay: There is very good reason to believe that the Rent Act is functioning already in relation to getting more repair work done and reducing the extreme inflexibility of movement. I should have to consult my dictionary before risking a reply to the second part of the question.
    Mr. Johnston: May I suggest that rather than consult his dictionary, the right hon. Gentleman should consult Voltaire? Does not he realise that there is a growing body of evidence, spoken to by Members on both sides, showing that the Act is working most harshly and that many people are suffering great hardship?
    Mr. Maclay: No. I am by no means convinced that there is widespread distress. I agreed in answer to an earlier question that there are some cases of hardship, and I have stated my views.
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take immediate steps to amend Section 9 of the Rent Act.
    Mr. Maclay: No, Sir. I have, in any case had no representations related particularly to Section 9, which deals with the amount of the repairs increase under the 1954 Act.
    Mrs. Mann: In view of the representations to the right hon. Gentleman upon the whole of the Act and what he has said, may we take it from him that later he may consider amending it?
    Mr. Maclay: No, I would ask that no such thing should be taken from what I said, but I hope there may be a proper study of the remarks I made earlier.
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set up a committee to inquire and report on the working of the Rent Act in Scotland.
    Mr. Maclay: No, Sir.
    Mr. Hughes: Has the Secretary of State read the statement made in the Glasgow Herald on 2nd December by his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. George), in which he says that he has found hundreds of cases of hardship in Glasgow and that the Act is being sabotaged? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to study that report?
    Mr. Maclay: I do not think it would be appropriate for me to go over the replies which I have made already to similar Questions today.
    Mr. T. Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how much distress has to be caused in Scotland before he will be shaken out of his present complacency?
    Mr. Maclay: I am not convinced, as I said before, that there is any widespread measure of hardship because of this Act.

    Old People (Services)
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes to take to co-ordinate the activities of all agencies, voluntary and statutory, which are at present dealing with the problems of the aged in Scotland.
    Mr. Maclay: Hospital boards and local authorities have been urged to ensure the fullest collaboration with voluntary agencies so that in each area old people may receive the full benefit of available services. I shall continue to stress the need for this.
    Mr. Willis: Will the right hon. Gentleman do nothing more than this? The matter has been pointed out as not only important but very urgent. Should he not be doing something more than he told us he was doing two years ago?
    Mr. Maclay: A series of circulars have been sent out, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I am constantly in touch with this very urgent matter and will do what I can to speed it on.
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes to take to assist local authorities in Scotland to meet the large need for laundry services for the aged that has been shown to exist.
    Mr. Maclay: Local health authorities have power to provide facilities for laundry services as part of their arrangements for domestic help or as part of their services for the prevention of illness, care and after care, both of which attract grant under the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947.
    Mr. Willis: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will support local authorities in this work? Will he, in particular, support Edinburgh in the endeavours it is making; and may we be assured that the grants will be forthcoming in spite of the present Treasury policy?
    Mr. Maclay: I have just approved a pilot scheme, submitted by the Corporation of Edinburgh, for providing a laundry service for old people, which, I understand, will be closely linked with the home-help service.

    General Grant (Government Proposals)
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many protests he has received against the introduction of the block grant proposals from local authorities, local authority associations, and other bodies in Scotland, respectively.
    Mr. Maclay: I have received representations against the proposed general grant from the local authority associations, 15 individual local authorities, and 21 educational organisations, including 11 local associations of the Educational Institute for Scotland, and two other bodies.
    Mr. Willis: In view of the overwhelming opposition to the proposals in Scotland, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he ought to try now to govern Scotland in accordance with Scottish needs and drop the Bill?
    Mr. Maclay: I can only reply that I am convinced that it will be realised in time that the proposals are in the best interests of local government as a whole and of the services concerned.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Can the Secretary of State say how many letters or resolutions he has received in favour of the Government's proposals?
    Mr. Maclay: Not without notice.

    Students (Grants)
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what information he has of university students being forced by insufficient grants to abandon their studies; and what steps he will take to stop such wastage;
    (2) his estimate of the number of potential entrants to Scottish universities who do not go forward because they are prevented by financial difficulties due to insufficient grants and waiting periods before grants are paid.
    Mr. Maclay: I have no information which suggests that inadequacy of grants or delays by education authorities in paying such grants have compelled Scottish university students to abandon their studies. Nor have I any information at present which suggests that any persons qualified for admission to Scottish universities do not go forward for these reasons.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the Secretary of State aware that Scottish students say that this information exists and that I have myself checked with local authorities, who say that such cases exist? Is he prepared to inquire and find out whether that is the position?
    Mr. Maclay: That question might more easily be answered on the next Question.
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Scottish students about difficulties arising from insufficient grants; and whether he will investigate all the circumstances in conjunction with the local authorities.
    Mr. Maclay: I have received no representations that the improved grants which have been payable since 1st July are inadequate. The Scottish Union of Students has asked for an inquiry into the problems of higher education, including grants to students, and this is being considered.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that because they have to lay out their money until the grants
    1066
    are paid, although they cannot afford to do so, some parents hesitate to allow their children to accept university training?
    Mr. Maclay: That is a question of delay in the making of the payments. I understand that while there may very occasionally be delays, there is no reason for the delays and I hope that they will disappear.

    Police Force
    Miss Herbisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the authorised establishment for the police force, male, in Scotland; and how far short it is of this figure.
    Mr. Maclay: At 30th November, 1957, the authorised male establishment of the Scottish police force was 8,499, and the actual strength was 7,919.
    Miss Herbison: Since that shows that we need many more policemen in Scotland to give us the correct establishment, what further steps will the Secretary of State take to attract more men into the force?
    Mr. Maclay: The figures are better than those at the same time last year—they have improved by 78—and fairly strenuous campaigns are, of course, being conducted to bring to people's attention the advantages of the police force as a career.

    Dewshill, Salsburgh (Street Lighting)
    Miss Herbisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now accede to the request of the Lanark County Council to have installation of street lighting at Dewshill, Salsburgh, accepted for contribution purposes.
    Mr. Maclay: I do not think that the scheme proposed by the county council would add to the safety of the road, but I should be prepared to consider a scheme which would provide group A standard of lighting between Dewshill and either of the existing installations at Harthill or Salsburgh.
    Miss Herbison: In thanking the Minister for that reply, may I express the hope that he will consider very carefully the need for lighting in this area? Is he aware that this is now the black spot between Salsburgh and Harthill, which was considered to be the most dangerous

    1067
    road in the whole of Scotland? Will the right hon. Gentleman make certain that when the local authority does apply for this new type of grant, it will be given it?
    Mr. Maclay: As I said, I will certainly consider it; but it is a hypothetical matter until I receive the request. I know this stretch of road personally and I can understand the hon. Lady's concern about it.

    Slaughterhouses Bill
    Sir J. Duncanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish draft slaughterhouse regulations for Scotland in advance of the publication of the Scottish Slaughterhouses Bill, as has been done in England and Wales.
    Mr. Maclay: There is no prospect of a Scottish Slaughterhouses Bill being tabled in the current Session. It is, therefore, rather too early to be specific about the arrangements to be made in advance. I shall, however, consider this matter nearer the appropriate time.
    Sir J. Duncan: Is my right hon. Friend aware of Command Paper 243, which applies to England and Wales and which was published by the Minister of Agriculture for England four months before the introduction of the Slaughterhouses Bill, thus giving prior notice to those who wish to put their slaughterhouses in order in England and Wales what the conditions would be? Would it not be very helpful to those interested in slaughterhouses—mainly local authorities—in Scotland to know what the standards will be?
    Mr. Maclay: I think it would be unwise to give any undertaking such as my hon. Friend suggests so far ahead. I would, however, add that any slaughterhouse owner, whether public or private, can communicate with me and I will arrange for him in due course to be given such guidance, if possible, in advance of legislation.

    Hospital Beds, Fife
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the continued and growing dissatisfaction in Fife concerning the provision of hospital beds of all kinds; and if he will take immediate steps to ensure that this county is treated on the same basis as all others in this matter.
    Mr. Maclay: The hon. Gentleman will realise, that in the past Fife relied mainly for its general hospital beds on Edinburgh and Dundee. But capital expenditure on hospitals in Fife itself is now well above the average level for Scotland as a whole.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that Fife is by no means satisfied with the answer that is continually given that it must depend on Dundee and Edinburgh for its hospital facilities? Is the Secretary of State not shaken out of his complacency by the figures which he himself supplied to every Member of Parliament representing Fife constituencies? People are getting more and more alarmed about the position.
    Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member will realise from my original reply that I am not suggesting that Fife should be dependent on Edinburgh and Dundee, because a big share of capital investment is now going into Fife. Fife is getting £691 per thousand of the population as against £486 per thousand of the population in Scotland as a whole. This represents a very fair share.

    Health and Welfare Services, Glenrothes
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will make a statement on the prospect of building a health clinic in Glenrothes;
    (2) if he is aware of the anxiety in Glenrothes, particularly among women, concerning the inadequacy of health and welfare services in the town; and what steps he intends to take in the immediate future to improve such services.
    Mr. Maclay: My Department is in touch with both the local health and hospital authorities about the health and welfare services and I am awaiting plans from the county council for a proposed new clinic. They have already been given authority to borrow for the purchase of the site.
    Mr. Hamilton: Although that is quite satisfactory as far as it goes, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will speed things up in view of the very disturbing figures of the stillbirth rate in Glenrothes as compared with the rest of Fife?
    Mr. Maclay: I realise there has been some concern about this matter. I hope that the decision about the clinic will make a big difference.

    Distribution of Industry Act, 1945
    Mr. McInnesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will indicate the amount paid to Scottish local authorities under Section 3 of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, for each year from 1946 to 1956.
    Mr. Maclay: As the Answer involves a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the information:

    PAYMENTS TO SCOTTISH LOCAL AUTHORITIES UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY ACT, 1945

    £

    1946–47

    …

    …

    …

    3,925

    1947–48

    …

    …

    …

    128,583

    1948–49

    …

    …

    …

    100,599

    1949–50

    …

    …

    …

    197,769

    1950–51

    …

    …

    …

    488,864

    1951–52

    …

    …

    …

    477,782

    1952–53

    …

    …

    …

    977,785

    1953–54

    …

    …

    …

    1,351,071

    1954–55

    …

    …

    …

    946,613

    1955–56

    …

    …

    …

    511,288

    1956–57

    …

    …

    …

    661,464

    Local Government Expenditure
    Mr. McInnesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland in what proportion local government expenditure was met by Exchequer grants, local rates, and other sources, for the years 1954, 1955, and 1956.
    Mr. Maclay: As the Answer contains a table of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. McInnes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in accordance with Section 298 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, he is under a statutory obligation to lay before both Houses of Parliament every year an annual summary of the Scottish local authorities' financial returns? Is he further aware that this Question would not have appeared on the Paper had he not been in default on the statutory provisions in so far as he has not laid a summary of the statements for the last six years?
    Mr. Maclay: That does not arise evidently out of the Question on the Paper. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to put down another Question.
    The figures are as follows:

    Year

    Percentage of the total expenditure on revenue account of local authorities in Scotland met from

    Exchequer Grants

    Rate

    Other sources

    1953–54

    38·5

    34·6

    31·5

    1954–55

    38·7

    31·6

    30·8

    1955–56 (estimated)

    38·6

    30·8

    29·7

    NOTES:
    1. Income exceeded expenditure in 1953–54 and 1954–55, and was less than expenditure in 1955–56.
    2. The figures relate to the total expenditure of the local authorities including revenue-producing undertakings.
    3. Income from other sources include payments in lieu of rates by railway and electricity undertakings under Part V of the Local Government Act, 1948.

    Subsidies
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for introducing legislation to restrict the payment of subsidies in Scotland to those whose relevant needs are established.
    Mr. Maclay: None, Sir.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman approve the recent speech made in my constituency by the Minister of State in which he said that to pay subsidies to people who should not have them was not only wrong but immoral? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is widespread immorality of this kind in Scotland, and does he countenance and condone immorality?
    Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member should read the extract of the report of my noble Friend's speech more carefully. He has completely misrepresented what my noble Friend said. What he said was that it was wrong that anyone should be forced to subsidise any person if that person could afford to pay for himself. He did not say that housing subsidies as such are wrong or immoral. What is more, he went on to say what has never been mentioned by the hon. Member, that a family needing a house should be housed according to its need and pay rent in accordance with its means.
    Mr. T. Fraser: As the right hon. Gentleman himself told us in this House, when commending to the House financial provision for housing, that subsidies should be given only to those who need them, may I ask him when he proposes to take his own advice and provide subsidies only for those who need them?
    Mr. Maclay: I am afraid I do not completely follow the question. The answer is simply the one I have given. As an expression of view the Government have always said that with a rebate scheme we can get over the problem of need every time.
    Mr. Fraser: If the right hon. Gentleman does not understand what I mean, may I make the position quite clear? The right hon. Gentleman has introduced many subsidies, including agricultural subsidies, and quite recently he provided that an owner of agricultural land could have a subsidy for building a pigsty whether he needed the subsidy or not. What I was asking was when he would take his own advice about subsidies.
    Mr. Maclay: The principle involved in housing subsidies is obviously completely different from the principle involved in other subsidies.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the grossly unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter again on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

  AIRCRAFT (NUCLEAR BOMBS)
  Mr. Zilliacusasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the danger of the release of highly toxic radioactive materials in case of fire supervening on the crash of a plane loaded with atomic or hydrogen bombs, he will prohibit the carrying of such missiles on patrol by any planes based in this country.
  Mrs. Castleasked the Prime Minister whether he has satisfied himself that there would be no risk of escape of radioactive or toxic material from hydrogen bombs carried by United States planes on patrol in this country in case of fire following a crash by any of these planes.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I would refer the hon. Members to the reply which I gave on Thursday last.
  Mr. Zilliacus: While appreciating that the Prime Minister has replied to a good many Questions of this kind, may I ask why it is necessary to subject the people of this country to the risk of a super Windscale accident or even to the touching off of a world war by accident when in civil defence the Government are prepared to stake the lives of the people of this country on the assumption that there will be long enough notice of an outbreak of hostilities to permit the evacuation of 12 million people? Why not base both policies on the assumption that there will be long enough notice to obviate the necessity at any rate of planes carrying hydrogen bombs?
  The Prime Minister: I think the hon. Member is now addressing himself to a new and different question. This Question relates to the possibility of an accident arising from the crash of an aeroplane carrying a bomb not charged by which some of the material would be dispersed. It has nothing to do with the other point he is now raising as to the general policy of having our own or American bombers on patrol for operational purposes.
  Mrs. Castle: Although the Prime Minister said that danger arising from a crash is limited, he has not denied that a danger does exist, and in view of this, would not it be common sense at any rate to arrange for the training planes to carry dummy bombs on their training flights?
  The Prime Minister: I was asked about the danger, the character of it, and I did my best on Thursday, without being an expert, to inform myself and to inform the House as best I could as to the character of that danger. It is very limited. Perhaps I may take the opportunity to correct a small misunderstanding which may have arisen. It is true that uranium 235 neither burns nor oxidises so readily as plutonium. That is the main reason why the hazards are less from the activities of uranium 235 per unit weight, far less than from a similar weight of plutonium. However, hazards arise really because these are materials which, if they are in this position, emit alpha particles or rays, but the range of alpha particles in the air is very short, in fact less than one millimetre; that is, less than one-thirtieth of an inch. It can,

  1073
  therefore, be seen that any hazard from this form of radiation is very slight. The possibility of ingestion and of external hazards is really negligible.
  Mr. Warbey: On a point of order. It would appear to me that the Prime Minister is now covering matters which are raised in my Question No. 60, yet the right hon. Gentleman did not link that Question with the other two Questions he is answering.
  Mr. Speaker: We have not got there yet.
  The Prime Minister: I sometimes link Questions together and then, of course, I get into some difficulty, so I thought I would try to go steadily through the Questions, but I am afraid that Scotland has been too persistent.
  Mr. Bevan: Hon. Members on both sides of the House are still quite puzzled about the present situation. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If they are not puzzled they ought to be. The right hon. Gentleman has told us on several occasions that these bombs are not live in the sense that they are capable of immediate detonation. Nevertheless, they have been carried in the air in these bombers for training purposes. I cannot quite understand why they should be carried for training purposes. Is it because of the weight involved? if so, cannot they put some ballast on board the planes to the same amount of weight? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Certainly. Hon. Members opposite raised this question with me and cannot quite understand what is involved here at all. If those bombs are not live, then, of course, the danger does not arise except when they are precipitated by the collapse of the bombing plane itself. Why have the bombs at all in the circumstances?
  The Prime Minister: That is another question. I tried to answer the points raised about the scientific results of the crash of a bomb not charged but, perhaps, breaking up. I have tried to explain, as I did last week, that they seemed to me to be very small and probably could easily be dealt with by localised methods and that the crash was most likely to take place, if it did take place, as we all know, either on taking off or on landing. On the wider question, there are Questions on the Order Paper. If the right
  1074
  hon. Gentleman will put a Question on the Order Paper, I will do my best to answer it, but this matter does not arise from the technical and scientific questions which I am trying to answer today.
  Mr. Bevan: May I, with respect, ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider this point? My question is not a wide one and it arises directly out of a statement that he has made. What is the necessity of having these bombs on the planes at all in the circumstances which he has described? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the reason we are persisting in this question is because information is reaching us that all the bombs carried from the various places are not in the condition which he describes?
  The Prime Minister: That is a quite different question. If the right hon. Gentleman will put it on the Order Paper I will get accurate information.
  Mr. Harold Davies: It is time that the House was told.

NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION (MEETING)
Mr. J. Griffiths: I desire to raise a point of order and make a special submission to you, Mr. Speaker. I submitted for your consideration a Private Notice Question which I desired to put to the Prime Minister, to ask him whether he would state what proposals Her Majesty's Government will put forward at the forthcoming conference of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. I was quite aware that a Question in broadly similar terms was addressed to the Foreign Secretary last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey), when the Foreign Secretary replied that he did not propose to make public whatever proposals Her Majesty's Government would submit to the N.A.T.O. conference.
I submit that there is growing evidence that this conference will be of a special character, that decisions may be made which will change fundamentally the relationships between the member States, including the United Kingdom, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and that new decisions which may be made at the conference will involve some surrender of our sovereignty.

1075
It seemed to me desirable that, by means of a Private Notice Question, I should give the Prime Minister, in view of the far-reaching nature of the decisions that may be reached, an opportunity of stating what Her Majesty's Government propose to put forward at this conference. Will you, Mr. Speaker, therefore reconsider the request which I made, that I should be allowed to submit a Private Notice Question to the Prime Minister?
Mr. Speaker: To prevent a bad precedent arising, I ought to preface my remarks by saying that when a Question has been disallowed it is not in order to raise it again as a point of order, but I realise the importance that right hon. Gentlemen attach to this matter and I will tell the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) that these considerations which he has advanced are really not for me. The rule of the House is quite clear, that when a Question has been fully answered in one Session it is not in order to ask it again.
As recently as 4th December last, the Foreign Secretary, in answer to a Question put by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey), of which due notice had been given by its being placed on the Order Paper, gave a considered reply in which he said that he would not make any statement about the proposals which Her Majesty's Government proposed to put forward at this conference.
On the merits of the reply I have nothing to say. It has nothing to do with me. I am content to rule that when a reply as complete as that has been given on a matter the Question has been answered, and I am bound by the rules of the House.
Mr. S. Silverman: I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether you took into account, in considering this matter, that the circumstances are, in one respect, at any rate, different from the circumstances which existed when the Foreign Secretary gave his Answer. Since that date, the business statement was made last Thursday by the Leader of the House and, as a result of what the right hon. Gentleman then said, and of supplementary questions addressed to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) and myself, it became clear for the first time that the House would not have an opportunity of debating these matters until after the conclusion of the conference. That
1076
was not known at the time when the Foreign Secretary gave the Answer to which you, Mr. Speaker, have referred. Does not this create a somewhat new situation in which the matter ought to be reasonably reconsidered?
Mr. Speaker: These considerations are not for me. What the Foreign Secretary said was:
"I am not prepared to make a statement in public as to what proposals may be put forward by Her Majesty's Government at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Conference."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1957; Vol. 579, c. 379.]
That Answer is a complete answer and is a reply to a Question which is indistinguishable in matter from that submitted by the right hon. Member for Llanelly. I felt that I was bound by the rules.
Mr. Bevan: But surely there are different circumstances here, Mr. Speaker. This is a changing situation. Statements are being made purporting to indicate the points of view of various Governments taking part in the N.A.T.O. conference from time to time. We have had several statements from the United States. We have had indications from France. We have had some from Germany. Therefore, the statement that Her Majesty's Government do not propose to make a statement about what they will propose at the N.A.T.O. conference, made a week ago, is not quite the same thing as a statement made in the context of subsequent statements made by member Governments. In my submission, therefore, it is proper to ask the Government, in the light of these other statements, whether they will now tell the House the proposals which they propose to put before the conference.
Mr. Speaker: The Question put by the right hon. Member for Llanelly did not import these arguments into it and it was framed in language which, to all intents and purposes, was the same as that of the Question which had been previously asked.
Mr. J. Griffiths: I did not think that I could import those arguments into the Question which I sought to ask the Prime Minister in asking whether he would make a statement, Sir. Although the Question was answered last week, I thought that there were reasons why it should be asked and answered again.
Mr. Speaker: I quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's reasons for wishing to put the Question.
Mr. Bevan: With respect, Mr. Speaker, is it not a fact that this is a Changing situation and that the N.A.T.O. conference itself, and its possibilities, continually undergo changes when member Governments are making statements indicating their point of view while Her Majesty's Government remain quite silent in the matter? If we cannot ask the Question because of your Ruling, Sir, cannot we have from the Government an undertaking that no fundamental changes will be made in the policies of the Government and in Her Majesty's relations with any other Power belonging to N.A.T.O. until the House has had an opportunity to consider the matter?
Mr. Shinwell: Further to that point of order. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on whether, as announced according to the statement which you have just made in quoting the previous Question and the Answer by the Foreign Secretary, the refusal of the Government to tell the House the policy which they propose to advance at the forthcoming N.A.T.O. conference could not be regarded as a matter of urgent and definite public importance? If that is so, does it not come within Standing Order No. 9?
Mr. Speaker: No, it does not. It has been ruled frequently that the refusal by a Minister to answer a Question is not a matter that can be raised on that Standing Order.
Mr. Harold Davies: Further to that point of order, Sir, may I ask your guidance? The House and the country are trying to elicit information. I sometimes think that we are playing "Twenty Questions", with Gilbert Harding in the chair instead of the Prime Minister dealing, with the House. We are told perpetually to ask another question. Could not the Government or you, Sir, protect the rights not only of Parliament, but also of the people, by insisting that the truth is told about agreements that have been made before the N.A.T.O. conference? Is there not some means by which we can extract the truth from the Government, who have already given away much of the sovereignty of the nation without the people having a chance of discussing it?
Mr. Speaker: The best service that can render to the House and to the country and to hon. Members in all parts of it is to see that the rules of the House are obeyed.
Mr. Bevan: May I ask one further question? Will the Prime Minister note that the whole of the country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] On a point of order, Will the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is all right, you will get it one day. Will the right hon. Gentleman note the refusal of the Government—
Hon. Members: Order.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order. The right hon. Member has risen to a point of order. I have been able to hear only a little of his opening sentence.
Mr. Bevan: We have been on a point of order all the time. It was raised originally by my right hon. Friend. I am asking the Prime Minister whether he will note that the failure of the Government—
Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order, order. A point of order is being raised by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). Until I have disposed of it, I cannot deal with another point of order. I can only deal with one at a time. I would point out that points of order should be directed to me.
Mr. Bevan: Mr. Speaker, you were good enough to say earlier that the considerations I represented to you today were not made to you by my right hon. Friend when he submitted the Private Notice Question to you. Also, you did not make any reply to my representation that the situation has changed, and that the statement made by the Foreign Secretary a week ago was about a situation that does not exist today. So, with all respect to you, Sir, you have not answered my point of order. Is it not a fact that a Private Notice Question relating to a Government statement on N.A.T.O. today is not the same thing as the Question answered a week ago about an entirely different situation?
Mr. Speaker: The answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that I have to rule on the Question submitted to me.
Mr. Bevan: I am submitting it now.
Mr. Speaker: I said that the Question of the right hon. Member for Llanelly did not import certain arguments—which was proper, because Questions should not import arguments—but if it had been phrased in a way to say that in view of some changed circumstances, I might have taken another view of it. However, as the Question was framed, and as the previous Question was answered completely I thought, I was bound by the rules of the House, and I was bound not to accept it.
Mr. J. Griffiths: May I submit to you, Sir, that if I submit a Question couched in the terms you have indicated now, you will consider it today?
Mr. Speaker: I shall have to look at the Question when the right hon. Gentleman submits it to me.
Mr. E. Fletcher: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. Although I realise that it is not normal to move the Adjournment of the House because of the refusal of a Minister to answer a Question, will you consider a Motion for the Adjournment of the House as a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the intention of Her Majesty's Government to submit proposals to N.A.T.O. for abrogating British sovereignty in respect of the Armed Forces of the Crown without consultation with this House?
Mr. Speaker: I do not know with what facts that is supported. I have not heard of any such intention.
Mr. Fletcher: In support of that, may I say that it has been widely reported in numerous sections of the Press—and utterances of the Prime Minister have given credence to the belief—that at the forthcoming meeting of N.A.T.O. proposals are to be submitted by Her Majesty's Government, arising out of consultations which have taken place in London during the last day or two with representatives of the United States Government, for far-reaching changes in the present organisation of N.A.T.O. which will involve a complete change in the sovereignty of this country as hitherto understood, and which will involve very big changes in the control of the Armed Forces of the Crown, including suggestions for the integration of Her Majesty's
1080
Armed Forces with those of other countries.
Is not this a matter of such outstanding importance that suggestions and proposals of this kind ought not to be pursued further without adequate discussion in this House? I submit, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think I can shorten this discussion. The time of the House is precious when so many hon. Members wish to speak in the important debate that is to follow. The hon. Member is not putting forward a single definite matter, and it is not within the Standing Order, and nobody could ever find that it was. I am very sorry, but the House will have to find some other way if it wishes to express its opinion.
Mr. S. Silverman: Further to that point of order, Sir. Would it not be a single definite matter if the Government were proposing, without consultation with the House, to sacrifice the freedom and independence of this country to the forces of some other country or some other combination of countries? Would not that be a single matter of definite public importance?
Mr. Speaker: If any Government proposed that, I suppose there would be a great deal of argument and dispute about it, but I have not got any definite facts before me that would justify me in applying the Standing Order. I understand that there will be a debate some time after the conference—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and if the House does not like what the Government bring back from the conference it has its remedy in its own hands.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have ruled on the point of order.
Mr. Silverman Mr. Silverman rose—
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to raise a new point of order?
Mr. Silverman: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it arises directly out of something you said only a few seconds ago. It is new because this argument was not raised previously in the questions that have been respectfully put to you. You said just now that there would be a debate some time, but the point of these questions is that, according to the Government statement

1081
fast Thursday, the debate would take place ex post facto, and it is this which is causing the anxiety and which makes this matter one of definite, urgent public importance.
Mr. Speaker: I have considered that carefully, but there is no evidence before me which would justify me in finding the matter within the Standing Order. Mr Wedgwood Benn.
Mr. E. Fletcher Mr. E. Fletcher rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order, order. I have ruled on the points of order.

BILL PRESENTED

  HUMAN RIGHTS
  Bill to make provision for the establishment of Human Rights Commissions in the British non-self-governing colonies
  and protectorates, presented by Mr. Wedgwood Benn; supported by Mr. Brockway, Mr. Kenneth Robinson, Mrs. Castle, Mr. Royle, Mr. Stonehouse, Mr. Robert Edwards, Mr. Frank Allaun, Mr. Willis, Mr. Warbey, Mr. Stan Awbery, and Dr. Barnett Stross; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 7th February, and to be printed. [Bill 45.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put:—
That the Proceedings of the Committee on Local Government [Money] and of the Committee on Land Drainage (Scotland) [Money] he exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes 211, Noes 180.

Division No. 16.]

AYES

[3.48 p.m.

Aitken, W. T.

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Hulbert, Sir Norman

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

Drayson, G. B.

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

Alport, C. J. M.

Duncan, Sir James

Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Duthie, W. S.

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Ashton, H.

Elliott, R. W. (N'castle upon Tyne, N.)

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Astor, Hon. J. J.

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Errington, Sir Eric

Joseph, Sir Keith

Baldwin, A. E.

Erroll, F. J.

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Balniel, Lord

Farey-Jones, F. W

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Barber, Anthony

Fell, A.

Kershaw, J. A.

Barlow, Sir John

Finlay, Graeme

Kimball, M.

Barter, John

Fisher, Nigel

Kirk, P. M.

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, s.)

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Lagden, G. W.

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Forrest, G.

Lambton, Viscount

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Fort, R.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Biggs-Davison, J. A.

Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Bingham, R. M.

Freeth, Denzil

Leavey, J. A.

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Leburn, W. G.

Bishop, F. P.

George, J. C. (Pollok)

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

Bossom, Sir Alfred

Gibson-Watt, D.

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

Glover, D.

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

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

Glyn, Col. Richard H.

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Gower, H. R.

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

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

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

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

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Green, A.

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Brooman-White, R. C.

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

Gurden, Harold

McAdden, S. J.

Bryan, P.

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

Campbell, Sir David

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Cary, Sir Robert

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

Channon, Sir Henry

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Chichester-Clark, R.

Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

MacLeod John (Ross & Cromarty)

Cole, Norman

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

Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Cooke, Robert

Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

Maddan, Martin

Cooper, A. E.

Hesketh, R. F.

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

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

Maitland Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

Hill. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

Marshall, Douglas

Dance, J. C. G.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Mathew, R.

Davidson, Viscountess

Hirst, Geoffrey

Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Mawby, R. L.

D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Hornby, R. P.

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

Deedes, W. F.

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

Moore, Sir Thomas

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Neave, Airey

Remnant, Hon. P.

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Nicholls, Harmar

Renton, D. L. M.

Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

Ridsdale, J. E.

Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

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

Rippon, A. G. F.

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Oakshott, H. D.

Robertson, Sir David

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.

Roper, Sir Harold

Vane, W. M. F.

Osborne, C.

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Panned, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Russell, R. S.

Vickers, Miss Joan

Partridge, E.

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Wade, D. W.

Peel, W. J.

Sharples, R. C.

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

Peyton, J. W. W.

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Wall, Major Patrick

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Speir, R. M.

Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Stevens, Geoffrey

Webbe, Sir H.

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

Whitelaw, W. S. I.

Pott, H. P.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Powell, J. Enoch

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Wood, Hon. R.

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Studholme, Sir Henry

Woollam, John Victor

Profumo, J. D.

Teeling, W.

Redmayne, M.

Temple, John M.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Mr. Wills and Mr. Hughes-Young.

NOES

Albu, A. H.

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

Palmer, A. M. F.

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Hastings, S.

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Hayman, F. H.

Pargiter, G. A.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Healey, Denis

Parkin, B. T.

Awbery, S. S.

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

Paton, John

Balfour, A.

Herbison, Miss M.

Pearson, A.

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

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Peart, T. F.

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

Hobsen, C. R. (Keighley)

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Benson, G.

Holman, P.

Popplewell, E.

Beswick, Frank

Holmes, Horace

Prentice, R. E.

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

Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

Probert, A. R.

Blackburn, F.

Howell, Denis (All Saints)

Pryde, D. J.

Blenkinsop, A.

Hoy, J. H.

Randall, H. E.

Blyton, W. R.

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Rankin, John

Boardman, H.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Redhead, E. C.

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Rhodes, H.

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

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Bowles, F. G.

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Boyd, T. C.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Brockway, A. F.

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

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Jeger, George (Goole)

Short, E. W.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

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

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Burke, W. A.

Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Burton, Miss F. E.

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Callaghan, L. J.

Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

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

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

Champion, A. J.

Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Clunie, J.

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Snow, J. W.

Coldrick, W.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Sparks, J. A.

Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

King, Dr. H. M.

Steele, T.

Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

Lawson, G. M.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Stonehouse, John

Cove, W. G.

Lindgren, G. S.

Stones, W. (Consett)

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Lipton, Marcus

Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Logan, D. G.

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

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

MacColl, J. E.

Sylvester, G. O.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

McGhee, H. G.

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

McInnes, J.

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Deer, G.

McLeavy, Frank

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Diamond, John

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Tomney, F.

Dodds, N. N.

MacPherson Malcolm (Stirling)

Viant S. P.

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

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigs)

Warbey, W. N.

Dye, S.

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Watkins, T. E.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Mason, Roy

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Mellish, R. J.

Wheeldon, W. E.

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Mikardo, Ian

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Mitchison, G. R.

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Fernyhough, E.

Moody, A. S.

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

Finch, H. J.

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Fletcher, Eric

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

Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

Foot, D. M.

Mort, D. L.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Moss, R.

Winterbottom, Richard

George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

Moyle, A.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Gibson, C. W.

Mulley, F. W.

Woof, R. E.

Greenwood, Anthony

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

Grey, C. F.

Oliver, G. H.

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Orbach, M.

Zilliacus, K.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Owen, W. J.

Hamilton, W. W.

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Hannan, W.

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Mr. Rogers and Mr. Wilkins.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [9th December], That the Bill be now read a Second time.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]
  Which Amendment was, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which fails to meet the increasing financial difficulties of local authorities, does not fully rerate industry or give local authorities the full benefit of partial rerating and which, by the substitution of a general grant for existing grants, hampers the development of essential social services, particularly those of education and health."—[Mr. Bottomley.]
  Question again proposed, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question.
  4.2 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Stewart: In yesterday's debate we had the advantage of the opinions of Government Back Bench supporters on the Government's own Bill. Those opinions followed a certain general pattern. After a few stereotyped phrases in support of the general principles of the Bill, hon. Members opposite went on to explain why they found the Bill disagreeable either in a particular locality or to a particular service of which they had special knowledge or in which they had special interest. We had a series of vague, theoretical reasons as to why the Bill was good in general and sharp, precise reasons as to why it injured everybody in particular. I cannot think that the Minister of Education, who is to follow me in the debate, if he heard yesterday the speeches of my hon. Friends who represent Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Wheeldon) and Birmingham. All Saints (Mr. D. Howell) will tell us that there is great enthusiasm in the City of Birmingham for the passing of the Bill.
  Since it is the Minister of Education who is to follow me, I propose to concentrate my remarks on the effect of Part I of the Bill on the education service. I do that without any derogation to the many other important matters in the Bill and on which, no doubt, many hon. Members will wish to speak. By general agreement, the effect of Part I on
  1086
  education is one of the major aspects of the Bill. It will be convenient, therefore, to concentrate our attention for a short time on that matter. Everyone who has discussed this question in the House or outside has been obliged to ask himself why the Government are making this substitution of block grant for percentage grant in education and certain other services.
  Broadly, we have received from the Government two answers. When the Government speak with the voice and manner of Dr. Jekyll we are told that it is to give greater freedom to local authorities. No sooner has Dr. Jekyll finished speaking than up from the Tory Party Conference leaps Mr. Hyde with the suggestion that the real idea is to restrict expenditure in these services and to restrain extravagant local authorities.
  Let us look at how much validity there is in the Dr. Jekyll argument of increased freedom. We have been told with great emphasis that it is a grave infringement of the freedom of local authorities to impose a percentage grant on them and that it implies a contemptuous attitude towards their sense of responsibility. Those who have opposed the percentage grant have been charged with having no trust in it and having too low an opinion of it. Surely it has taken the Government some time to find this out. For forty years, a truly biblical period, local authorities have lain in the supposed bondage and writhed under the supposed insult of a percentage grant.
  Surprisingly enough, neither by the local education authorities nor, except tentatively and inconclusively, by Governments during those forty years, have attempts been made to deliver them from this bondage and insult. The quarters from which suggestions about block grant rather than percentage grant have come are such as to make us suppose that it is Mr. Hyde rather than Dr. Jekyll that informs this argument.
  If local authorities are to be given greater freedom, in what sphere will it be given? Freedom is the right of choice. A man, council or institution has freedom in so far as he or it has a certain number of alternatives and can make a choice between them. Where does this supposed freedom lie? Will they be free, as the Minister of Housing and Local Government suggested, from certain niggling controls supposed to be

  1087
  associated with the percentage grant? The Minister has not told us what niggling controls these are. He has not brought forward any evidence of complaint from local authorities that the operation of the percentage grant is, by virtue of the controls required, vexatious to them. Not only has he not brought forward any evidence, but those who have searched for evidence have not found any. They have found that what evidence there may be points in the contrary direction.
  The Institution of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants made an inquiry into this matter. The distinguished financial officers of great local authorities who examined the matter and the county boroughs, Metropolitan and Home Counties local authorities from whom they inquired all gave an answer which can be summarised in the words "Departmental inquiries "—that is to say, inquiries relating to the operation of the percentage grant. They said, "They are riot unreasonable and little inconvenience is caused by answering them." That is the considered answer of people who studied the matter.
  It may well be true that there are certain controls exercised by the central Government that are both vexatious and unnecessary, but they are not to be found in association with the percentage grant. The Government have admitted that by proposing, among other measures, to undertake an overhaul of central controls in general. Good luck to them. If they can find any controls that could properly and reasonably be done away with, so much the better. But they have not found—and all the evidence is that they will not find—that such unnecessary and vexatious controls that exist will associate it as a matter of cause and effect with the operation of a percentage grant rather than a block grant.
  Is the supposed freedom a freedom to choose how they will allocate the block grant between education and the ten other services mentioned in the Act to which it will apply? In theory, that freedom will exist, but if anyone supposes that it exists in practice I hope he will study the impressive speech made yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for All Saints It will be remembered that he examined all those services. Before we even begin the examination we have to remember that the part of the block grant which is
  1088
  in any way related, or can be supposed to be related, to education is eight times as great as that related to all the other services covered, under the Act, by the block grant. If, therefore, local authorities try to exercise freedom in this sphere to cut down any of the other services to an impossible and unreasonable extent they will be able, as a result, to make only a minimal addition to their educational expenditure.
  Is it suggested that people of nobler character and greater wisdom will be attracted into local government service by the reflection that it is now possible to decide to spend a little less on police vehicles and school crossing patrols and spend a little more on education? It will not be possible for them to make the economies on the other services. They might be able to do it the other way round, but is it the desire of the Minister of Education that they should exercise their freedom by spending less than they would have done otherwise on education so as to have more police vehicles, more road crossing patrols, or more of the items designated in the Schedule to the Bill?
  Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: Or vice versa.
  Mr. Stewart: I dealt with the vice versa situation earlier.
  Does the freedom arise in relation to the attitude of local authorities to the different parts of the education service? Let us see what some of those parts are. The largest part—that which involves the greatest expenditure; which is most in the public eye, and which the average man thinks of first when the education service is mentioned—concerns the provision of the ordinary primary and secondary schools maintained by the local education authorities.
  In what respects will the introduction of a block grant give a local authority greater freedom of real action in its management of its maintained primary and secondary schools? Among the most obvious and pressing things that need to be done in those schools are the recruiting of a greater number of teachers and an improvement in the size and quality of the buildings. The extent of the local authorities' freedom in those matters depends partly upon the mere

  1089
  facts of the case—such as the number of teachers available at any given time—and partly upon controls, suggestions or recommendations put forward in quite a different connection by the Ministry itself.
  There is, for instance, the Minister's present attitude about the degree of restraint which authorities should exercise in the recruiting of teachers, so that some authorities do not do exceptionally well in comparison with others. A change from a percentage to a block grant cannot alter the Minister's attitude about the supply of teachers. If circumstances alter in that respect lie may be able to relax the restrictions which he at present urges upon local authorities, but that would be quite independent of the question whether a percentage or a block grant system were operating. The degree of restriction of a local authority is in no way connected with the grant, and its freedom will be in no way increased by a change from a percentage to a block grant system.
  Similarly with buildings we have had few things more curious than the suggestion, in the speech of the Minister, that the Bill would give us an opportunity to discuss the education service I do not know whether he has noticed it, but the House has done that on many occasions, and will persist in doing it, Bill or no Bill. During those discussions the question of the Ministry's control over local authorities' educational building programmes has appeared very prominently. We know why it is necessary for the Minister to have a say in the matter, and that reason is not in the least altered by a change from a percentage to a block grant. In the major part of the education service this change will give local authorities no greater freedom than they enjoy at the present time.
  What about the other parts of the education service? It is about these that some people who have studied the Bill very carefully have the greatest anxiety. Even if a local authority is not public spirited it will think twice before very seriously neglecting its schools—because a very considerable number of its citizens will notice and resent the fact. There are other parts of the education service which are quite as important to the nation in the long run, but which do not immediately affect so many people.
  1090
  There is the question of the scale of maintenance allowances paid by a local authority to children staying at school past the school-leaving age, and the generosity of the authority's allowances to students going on to universities or other institutions of further education. In that connection, I hope that the Minister will consider amending the Bill in Committee so as to include those student allowances in the arrangements which are pooled, as occurs in connection with certain other parts of the education service.
  Then there is the youth service. The Select Committee on Estimates has already remarked about the extreme coldness of the Ministry towards that service. That is the kind of thing that could too easily be neglected as soon as a local authority finds itself in difficulties owing to the operation of a block grant. There is also adult education. Although the champions of that are intelligent, articulate and vigorous they are, unfortunately, fewer in number than those who would be affected by more obvious but perhaps not more serious neglect of the education service.
  Is this freedom a freedom to go beyond the standards normally recommended or advised by the Minister in certain parts of the education service? Here we have an important point, in connection with which the Government are either misleading us or are under a serious misconception themselves. A short time ago my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King), in an Adjournment debate, raised the matter of the maintenance allowances of children staying on at school, which I take as an example of a whole group of services. In the course of that debate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education said that one of the advantages of the block grant was that it would enable a local authority which wanted to go beyond the scales of allowances now recommended by the Minister so to do.
  What is the position, in fact? At present, there is a scale which the Minister has not rigidly prescribed but has recommended and encouraged local authorities to attain to. Rather less than half attain to it. But let us suppose that an authority wants to go beyond that. There is nothing in the law to stop it. The Minister can permit it to

  1091
  do so today, provided that it is prepared to meet the extra cost from the rates. That is exactly the position which will operate under a block grant system. The block grant gives a local authority no further liberty in that respect than exists at present. It gives the authority liberty to do something extra, provided that it is prepared to bear the extra cost involved out of the rates. The authority will be in no different or freer position under a block grant system.
  What about those authorities which are not yet up to the standard? If they try to rise to the standard under a block grant system the whole cost will have to fall on the rates, while those authorities which are content to remain below the standard will have a financial advantage as a result of their failure to do so. The effect will be that no advantage will accrue to those authorities which want to be more generous—and a disadvantage will be inflicted upon those who are striving to rise to the prescribed standard—while there will be a reward to those authorities who are not anxious to reach the standard.
  Finally, is it freedom to keep the education service down to the minimum? The answer is, "Yes". We were told over and over again by hon. Members opposite that the Minister of Education would still be on the watch to maintain minimum educational standards. I shall have a word to say shortly about the methods available to him for that purpose. But let us suppose that he does that. Under the block grant system he has still provided freedom for a local authority to do no more than the minimum; and not only freedom to do so, but a positive incentive. The local authority which, having received the block grant, keeps its services down to that minimum which just prevents it getting into trouble with the Ministry, will have a financial advantage and a reward for doing so.
  The position, therefore, is that in many parts of the education service we discern three levels: the minimum standards, below which the Ministry will not allow an authority to fall; standards at a higher level which the Minister himself prescribes, recommends or encourages; and a further level which ambitious authorities might reach. The result of the block grant proposal is that for those who want
  1092
  to go beyond the standards there is no change in their ability to do so; for those who are raising their minimum standards to the recommended standards the task will be harder, and for those who are content to stay as near the minimum as they dare there will be a positive reward.
  We know that Acts of Parliament cannot make individual citizens virtuous, but we regard it as part of a common sense and good morality that the framework of our laws should be such as to make the pursuit of virtue rather more rewarding than the pursuit of its opposite. In the same way, Acts of Parliament alone cannot make local authorities public spirited if their citizens do not want them to be public spirited, but it is at least common sense and good administration to arrange the grant system so that the path of the public spirited is made easier and the path of the cheese-paring is made harder; and that is exactly the opposite of what this proposal does.
  It has been suggested repeatedly that we on this side of the House do not trust local authorities, that we regard them as prone to neglect the services. There is not much evidence of that charge. There is a good deal more evidence of the charge that the Conservative Party regard local authorities as bodies which will waste money the moment we give them the opportunity to do so. If we strip away the party controversy from this matter, the facts are that some local authorities are better than others, that some are more public spirited and that others are more inclined to parsimony than to public spirit. The effect of the block grant system is to put a premium on parsimony and a penalty on public spirit.
  I shall be told that all these apprehensions are groundless because the grants will be so generous in amount that none of these evil results will follow. I want to show now why we on this side of the House and nearly everybody interested in education throughout the country are afraid that the grants will be inadequate.
  We have good reasons for thinking so. First, all the previous associations of block grant proposals have been with economy proposals. The pedigree of this monster is not attractive. Secondly, the Minister of Housing and Local Government, in his White Paper, described the percentage grant as

  1093
  "an indiscriminating incentive to further expenditure."
  If one says that one is getting rid of something because it is
  "an indiscriminating incentive to further expenditure."
  then it is a reasonable presumption that one expects and wants the result of one's action to be a reduction in that expenditure.
  I do not know what is meant by this talk of indiscriminating incentive. To hear some of the defenders of the block grant talk, one would think that the local authority says quite cheerfully. "We will expand in this direction and in that direction", as if the 40 per cent. cost which it will put on to the ratepayers were a mere bagatelle. It certainly is not so, because 40 per cent. of the cost is a very serious consideration to local authorities.
  If we look at some of the answers which hon. Members opposite have given when pursued by persons in their constituencies who are interested in education, we find that some hon. Members, not very happily from the point of view of their Front Bench, have mentioned the block grant as one of the Government's measures against inflation. The assumption that the Government will still be continuing their measures against inflation eighteen months from now is, of course, pessimistic as to their efficacy, but perhaps it is not unjustifiable pessimism; but if it is described in those terms it is not surprising that people feel that one of the purposes of this Bill is to restrict expenditure.
  Indeed, hon. Members opposite who gave that kind of reply had good precedent for it, because the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, at the Tory Party Conference, listed the block grant as part of the Government's battle against inflation. If the Government would come forward and say, plainly, "The country is up against it and we are sorry to say that education, like everything else, must bear its share," that would at least be understandable. That is what the Minister is saying about his circulars which restrict educational development in certain respects at the moment. But if the Government want to say that about the block grant, let them plainly say it. The trouble is that they try to assert that in one breath and to deny it in the next.
  1094
  If we have any further reasons for distrust, they lie, if the Minister of Housing and Local Government will allow me to say so, in the Minister himself. He introduced the Bill. He gave us the assurance that no assault on the education service is intended. When we hear assurances from him of all people, however, other assurances float through our minds—for instance, assurances given by the Conservative Party at the last Election that they did not propose to allow a general increase in rents.
  It is not encouraging to find that the assurances for the future of education are given by the very Minister who is the Government's chosen instrument for their major breach of faith in this Parliament. The trusting princess who marries Blue-beard without knowledge of his antecedents may be forgiven, but there is no excuse for the simplicity of the maiden who entrusts herself to him after the contents of his secret cupboard have already been disclosed.
  If we have reasons for thinking that the grant will be inadequate, we also have good reason to fear that it will not he sufficiently flexible. Whenever it has been suggested that the grant would be inflexible and that it would not enable local authorities to meet rising and differing costs, we have been referred to those Clauses of the Bill which apparently allow certain variations. Let us look at them. If we are to take at their face value the speeches which we heard yesterday from he defenders of the Bill, we are to assume, first, that the first calculation of the amount of the percentage grant will be based on a generous estimate of the need for the education service in the first grant period, but, alas, that estimate will not be made by the Minister of Education but by his colleague, the Minister of Housing and Local Government, sitting next to him. That is only one of the respects in which the Bill puts education into the position of a subordinate Ministry to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.
  If we do not make the encouraging and perhaps over-optimistic assumption that the original calculation of the grant will be made on a generous reckoning of what education expenditure will be in the first grant period, we are told that it can be varied during the period. It is likely, is it not, if there is a heavy inflation which

  1095
  causes all local authorities' costs to increase, that a Government will pick that moment to come forward with a special Order, to be debated in Parliament, to increase the amount of the grant? When this procedure was first suggested it was described as a most exceptional procedure, but to hear hon Members opposite yesterday one would have supposed that at the first cloud on the horizon this procedure in the Bill will be invoked. The one thing which is, quite certain is that it cannot be invoked until local authorities have already suffered fairly severely from the inflation.
  Will the grant be sufficiently flexible to allow for widely differing costs for running the same service in different areas? The present formula is not. If the Minister's example is any guide to the facts—and although it is only an example it ought to be of some value—the new proposal is not a formula flexible enough to allow for the variations in costs which occur between different areas for reasons often quite unconnected with the factors mentioned in the weighting formula in the Bill. The costs of education in some areas, other than the salaries of teachers, are sometimes twice as much per pupil as in other areas, and that is due not to extravagance but to factors outside the authorities' control. There is certainly no provision for that in the Bill.
  If we altered the Bill in this respect to give a block grant which was based in the first place on the assumption of growth, which contained differing amounts for each year of the grant period, which was subject to variation within the period on any reasonable ground and which contained a formula capable of allowing for different levels of costs in different areas—if we had all that and if we removed all the grounds that exist for fearing that the grant is inflexible, we should end up with an infinitely clumsier way of calculating a percentage grant.
  In that case we might as well have remained where we were at the beginning. We cannot move from percentage to block grant and then pretend that we can give a block grant all the qualities which, by its nature, it does not possess and is not intended to possess. As a character in one of Bernard Shaw's plays
  1096
  says, "You can't jilt a lady in a gentlemanly way; the thing isn't gentlemanly in itself."
  Now I would say a word about the maintenance of minimum standards. Over and over again those who were concerned for education have told us "Your fears are groundless. The powers of the Minister to maintain minimum standards are in every way unchanged." The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) was very emphatic on this point yesterday and his speech was most illuminating. He showed that if an authority fell below minimum standards the Minister could threaten it with withdrawal of the grant.
  Once again, he can do this only if the Minister of Housing and Local Government agrees. It is true that the Minister of Housing and Local Government cannot do it except on the certificate of the Minister of Education, but I see nothing in the Bill to prevent a situation in which an unhappy Minister of Education comes forward eagerly with a certificate and finds that his colleague at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government is not prepared to withdraw the grant. There is nothing to say that the grant must be withdrawn if the Minister of Education is unsatisfied with this service. Again, the Minister of Education is put into a subordinate position. This is a point on which the Ministers concerned might consider amending the Bill.
  We were told that the Minister can proceed by Order and directive, and finally—said the hon. Member for Ilford, North—by invocation of Section 99 of the Education Act, which permits the pushing of authorities about by means of a writ of mandamus. Really, it is a long journey—to use the phrase of the Minister of Housing and Local Government—from the road to freedom for local authorities to the invocation of a writ of mandamus.
  What does all this amount to? It means that we are giving local authorities less incentive to do their work well, and less reward for doing so. Because we cannot rely much upon reward we must rely more upon threat and punishment. A step away from using reward as an incentive and towards using threats and punishment is not a step towards freedom, but away from it.

  1097
  We speak of minimum standards. The Minister will have been in his Department long enough to have studied the differing standards that prevail in various authorities, and he will agree that it would be a bleak educational world indeed if what are now minimum standards became the universal standard all over the country. The progress of education depends very largely on there being authorities eager to step up a bit beyond the minimum and to make what was the aspiration of one decade the minimum of the next.
  Up to now, under the percentage grant, authorities that were prepared to do that could not just do it cheerfully at no cost to themselves, but they were at least given a reasonable incentive and reward for the valuable service that they were rendering to the nation. What we have now is something which, beyond minimum standards, is a punishment rather than an incentive. If we ask what progress we are to make beyond minimum standards we find that the less a local authority wants to go beyond a minimum standard the easier its financial position will be.
  The effect of that upon education over a generation could be very serious indeed. It would gratify some of the Mr. Hyde forces that are behind the gentle visages of the Ministers who are propounding the Bill. It would gratify certain sections of the Tory Party Conference, and would do a great injury to the nation. It would do, by a back door, what Ministers are not prepared to do to education by the front door. The attitude of Ministers to education reminds me of the attitude of the conspirators in Shakespeare's Henry VI against the good Duke who was then Protector of the Realm:
  "That he should die is worthy policy:
  But yet we want a colour for his death:
  Tis meet he be condemn'd by course of law."
  A great deal has been said during the debate about the importance of local authorities to democracy. We should also remind ourselves that all government, central or local, is only a means to an end. Government exists to provide the citizens with defence, security, amenity, health, education, and all the other services of civilised life. Those services do not exist to give Parliament and councils something to do. Citizens will not, in the long run, engage in a nice balance of argument
  1098
  as to, "Have you made the borough council interesting for the borough councillors, and Parliament interesting for the Members?" They say, "What is the quality of the services that are being rendered?"
  We reject the Bill because its provisions for maintaining minimum standards in education are more clumsy and less effective than those which now prevail, and because, for progress beyond the minimum, the Bill imposes a positive penalty on those authorities which are best prepared to serve the nation.
  4.36 p.m.
  The Minister of Education (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) has asked me to be frank and not to take refuge between saying one thing on one occasion and another thing on another. He drew the parallel between Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Therefore, I propose this afternoon to be very direct with the House on this very important question, as it affects education.
  I shall reply to a great many of the points made by the hon. Gentleman, and by other hon. Members in the debate yesterday. I must, first, explain sonic fundamental points about the Bill which have so far escaped the attention of most hon. Members, particularly on the Opposition benches. I make a special exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger), who had done some exceedingly efficient homework on the Bill. Naturally, I have done some as well, with a good deal of assistance. It may help the House to get to grips with the real issues with which we are faced.
  I was rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who has held office himself, should attempt to draw a distinction between the Ministers mentioned in the Bill as performing special functions. As to whether the grant is actually fixed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who is sitting beside me, or by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the hon. Gentleman must know that under the system of Cabinet Government this is a matter of Government policy and, therefore, it must be settled by the Government as a whole and by the Cabinet. It is not of the slightest importance who is actually named in the Bill. [Interruption.] I am being

  1099
  very frank. Anyone with Parliamentary and governmental experience knows that what I say is correct.
  Everybody knows that it is not possible to make a serious alteration in the grant system without including education because of the great importance of the service and of the large amount of money involved. Here is the rub, because acute controversy has broken out in educational circles about the proposals now before the House. I am sure that the House wants our discussions to be based on reality. Therefore, I must tell the House that what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) mentioned—I want to emphasise it—is true; with the exception, the significant exception I think, of the local authority associations, the whole of the organised educational world is strongly opposed to the proposals in the Bill.
  The Association of Education Committees and the National Union of Teachers are not always in agreement, but they have collaborated in producing a pamphlet which is called "The Threat to Education", and they have organised a series of meetings throughout the country in order to attack the general grant proposals.
  I know that the House, in these circumstances, would want to pay special attention to this question of education, and, indeed, I want to do so also, as Minister of Education. If the House will allow me, I should like to take hon. Members through what I conceive to be the main objections to the general grant proposals. Of course, I take them from the speeches of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham, of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochester and Chatham, who spoke yesterday, of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) and other hon. Members of the House, and also from the pamphlet "Threat to Education" and from deputations I have received from the educational world.
  I hope to be able to show that some of these objections, although not all, are based upon a complete misconception. I want to deal with them first, because I then want to concentrate on the other important objections which remain. We all know that education is an expanding service, and we all accept that, but the
  1100
  educational spokesman, and particularly the hon. Member for Wellingborough, who spoke last night, said that this new plan must mean reduced expenditure on education. The hon. Member for Wellingborough said that any increased expenditure on education would have to come out of the rates. In order to make this point quite clear—crystal clear—I should like to quote from a speech made by Dr. Alexander, Secretary of the Association of Education Committees, in the Central Hall, on 2nd December. He said:
  "The whole cost of any new proposals would fall on the rates alone…. In five years' time the education service would cost £700 million a year—£150 million more than it did at present. If the block grant were introduced the amount to be found by the local authorities would go up from £200 million to £400 million. This would mean an increase of 7s. in the £ in rates."
  It is a little similar, but not quite similar, to the point made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. D. Howell) with regard to Birmingham's problem, which I hope to deal with later if I have time. This statement and similar ones have been printed and repeated all over the country and also in this House. I hope to be able to show hon. Members why this statement and all similar statements are completely Inaccurate.
  I would remind hon. Members that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government yesterday said that, in regard to the question of grants, Clause 2 of the Bill was the vital Clause. I would ask hon. Members to consider this Clause, particularly from the point of view of education, because the Clause lays down what the Minister or the Government is bound to consider by Statute in fixing the general grant. In subsection (1) the House will see under paragraph (a), that he has to take into account
  "the latest information available to him of the rate of relevant expenditure,…"
  which for our purpose means that the Government start by considering the present rate of expenditure on education as it is at the time. Then, under paragraph (b), he has to consider
  " any probable fluctuation in the demand for the services…"
  that is, for education, the obvious needs of the increasing school population.

  1101
  Thirdly, in paragraph (c), he has to consider:
  "The reed for developing those services and the extent to which, having regard to general economic conditions, it is reasonable to develop those services."
  That is the need, which is, I think, agreed by everyone, for further development of the education services in present circumstances.
  Mr. John Diamond: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Clause as the answer to all our fears. I should like our fears to be answered. He has referred to a Clause which says "reasonable". He knows that that is never to be found in a Clause without defining whose judgment is to be relied upon.
  Mr. Lloyd: It is obvious that in the last resort the Government themselves must take responsibility. But, as I shall have occasion to mention later on in another connection, before the Government take their decisions they are by Statute required under Clause 1 to consult the associations of local authorities and also to bring forward in this House an affirmative Resolution which, no doubt, will be debated.
  I have now taken the House through the formal safeguards to be laid down by statute, but I want to add to that an assurance which I think will interest the House and will. I am certain, interest the education world. I want to state categorically, since we know it is in the last resort the responsibility of the Government, that it is no part of this Government's policy to reduce the central Government's grant aid to local authorities' expenditure on education. It is not part of our policy to freeze that contribution at its present level. But it is our policy to make a proper increase in that contribution in accordance with Clause 2 of the Bill.
  Mr. G. Lindgren: Why is it in the Bill at all? What is the necessity for it?
  Mr. Lloyd: I should like at this point to say a word on the general question of the extra advantages which local authorities will derive from the Bill. I listened to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Wheeldon) yesterday, and I understand his argument, but I think it is relevant at this moment
  1102
  to say that in the transitional period they do get £40 million which they cannot get their hands on at present, and, of course, they will have the extra £10 million from re-rating.
  I should like to say a word about the Birmingham point, which was put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for All Saints. He said that at present, as we know, the city is under-establishment so far as teachers are concerned, and he asked what was likely to happen in a few years' time when they got 400 or 500 extra teachers. I think the hon. Member for Small Heath's point was that expenditure is getting on for £500,000 and they will not get any more under this proposal. I should like the hon. Gentleman to realise, and I think it is a good example for the House to appreciate in regard to the problem as a whole, that the general grant will be fixed with due regard to the Government's policy and to the average teaching establishment which is necessary for the education service in the country as a whole.
  That, of course, means that a city like Birmingham, which is at the present time several hundred teachers below establishment, would, if the general grant were in operation, already be getting the money in respect of the proper establishment of teachers. Therefore, it would be getting a general grant which assumed that it was fully staffed. It would be getting benefits from a strictly financial point of view which would certainly help it to meet its problems.
  Mr. Denis Howell: This is extremely important. Is the Minister saying that when the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament and the block grant is decided upon for Birmingham and other authorities, that will be a grant taking into consideration the maximum staffing establishment of the schools and that no matter how many teachers we are able to recruit afterwards the extra cost must go on the rates?
  Mr. Lloyd: I am not saying that. I am saying that the grant would be fixed in order to make an appropriate contribution in relation to the average staffing throughout the country. Therefore, if the city, as at present, were below staffing establishment it would not suffer but, would, in fact, make an uncovenanted financial gain.
  Mr. F. H. Hayman Mr. F. H. Hayman (Falmouth and Camborne) rose—
  Mr. Lloyd: Would the hon. Member allow me to proceed, because I do not want to be too long with my speech? After I had dealt with deputations from the local authorities on the financial question I have just mentioned, and after I had explained to them that they should dismiss from their minds any idea that it was Government policy either to reduce or to freeze present Government expenditure on education, they immediately brought forward another objection, to which they attached very considerable importance. They said, "Even if sufficient money is provided, we are still opposed to the proposal." They felt they could not be sure of getting that money for education.
  They were afraid that a local authority would take it away to be used for other services. I naturally asked them. "Are you really asking me to accept the view that national Government can be trusted to give due importance to education whereas local government cannot be trusted in the same way?" Much to my surprise, they replied, "Yes". I think it important that we should study these arguments carefully. They said, "Yes, and the reason is that education is by far the most important local service and is spending far the greatest amount of money—more than any other service. All the other committees are jealous of the education committees and waiting to take a slice of the money education committees think ought to be devoted to education." They further said that they considered that the position of the Minister of Education in the Cabinet was stronger in regard to education because there he had colleagues also responsible for large spending departments.
  I ask the House to give serious attention to this matter, because it is true that educationists are seriously alarmed about it, and also because I think it is a question which spotlights a crucial feature of the Government's plan. Also, I believe that by bringing it out into the light of day we may do a great deal to prevent any danger there may really be in this idea. I ask the House, therefore, to consider how these matters will arise in practice. I have made it clear that the general grant is to be fixed in accordance with the education policy of
  1104
  the Government. That policy, as is normal, will be announced in this House and it will be made known to local authorities. Particularly we have to remember the procedure under the Bill, that under Clause 1 it will be necessary for the Government to consult the associations of local authorities and then, under the affirmative Resolution procedure, there will be a debate in this House.
  Can we really believe that local authorities will frustrate the national policy approved by Parliament and properly provided for in the moneys voted by this House?
  Mr. Hayman: Yes.
  Mr. Lloyd: I do not believe it, and if it did happen in one or two isolated cases, it is the fact that the powers of the Minister under the Education Act remain exactly the same as they were before the Bill was introduced and before it is passed and becomes an Act. The hon. Member for Fulham referred to a writ of mandamus, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North pointed out, there are various less severe sanctions. In fact, it has always been possible in the past by the use of one or other of the powers in the Act to bring—if I may use the word—a recalcitrant local authority to heel. All the same, I feel we want to do everything we can to help local authorities and particularly education committees in regard to this new plan because we must realise—this is the essence of the problem to which hon. Members opposite have not paid full attention—we are asking local authorities and education committees to do something new which does involve an increase in responsibility. It does unquestionably demand from them a fresh approach and a changed outlook.
  I will say what these changes are, particularly in regard to education committees. They are going to be much more closely involved than now in explaining and defining their proposals to their councils and finance committees and to local public opinion. I cannot believe that is a bad thing; on the contrary, I think it is all to the good. It has been said by hon. Members opposite that, while there has been a great deal of talk about freedom, there has been no example given. The right hon. Member for

  1105
  Rochester and Chatham challenged me on this point yesterday and the hon. Member for Fulham today talked about niggling controls. He said that an association of local authority officers had said that departmental inquiries had not been found to be vexatious. I daresay that may be the case, but I am not at the moment going to talk about departmental inquiries. I am going to talk about the very point he mentioned, a certain number of controls which are specifically related to the percentage grant.
  I will give a general instance of why this is so. The very fact that £40 of local expenditure carries with it £60 of Exchequer money has always meant in practice, under every Government, including that of the hon. Member for Fulham, that the Treasury has insisted—although the work is actually carried out by other Departments under the system of collective responsibility—that there should be certain powers of veto and limitation on a number of things that are done by the local authorities.
  I give as an example the provision of school transport. Some people may say that is a small subject, but it is a very human subject and there has been a great deal of difficulty about it. Hon. Members know that in the Act it is laid down in regard to children over eight that there is a duty on the local authority to provide transport if they live more than three miles from the school. Also in the Act there is discretion to provide transport over shorter distances, but in fact successive Governments—not merely this Government—have refused to provide grants in respect of any distance less than the three miles laid down in the Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] There have been just very occasional exceptions, but broadly speaking that has been the case, and it has caused a great deal of irritation in many parts of the country. That is a control which I should feel able to withdraw immediately the grant comes into operation.
  There are other matters of a kind in which the hon. Member for Fulham is particularly interested. He said that if only the Minister would do something, for example, about the minimum scale of fees for further education that would be really worthwhile. That is exactly one of the things which I propose to do at once. If the general grant comes into operation
  1106
  this is a control which will immediately disappear. [An HON. MEMBER: "The could do it now."] An hon. Gentleman says "They could do it now," but the point is that local authorities have grown so accustomed to the grant system that they are, as a practical matter, never prepared to do anything which does not attract grant. Broadly speaking, that is the case.
  It must be remembered that under the new system, when there will not be a percentage grant and when the local authority will be receiving a lump sum which it can handle, it might be, in much the same way as its own rate income, there will be a completely different approach. Therefore, this freedom will be a real one. It will also apply to such rather irritating restrictions as the necessity for the approval of expenditure on furniture and equipment. This is not very onerous—the Ministry is, I think, reasonable about it—but it is much resented by many local authorities. That, also, will be able to go.
  There is also the question, mentioned earlier in an Adjournment debate, of maintenance allowances for older pupils in secondary schools. We shall no longer have to provide a maximum scale here. I think that, together, these measures make up a useful instalment of freedom for full local responsibility. But only a little farther off is a further list which I should like to mention to the House, although the matters on that list would require legislation. Again I choose them for the reason which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, because the need for them really depends directly upon the percentage grant system.
  On this list of further freedoms I would include expenditure on research, on facilities for recreation, on social and physical training, on conferences, the amount of assistance to non-maintained schools and also the scales for boarding fees at maintained schools. I propose directly the general grant system is in operation and before we can have legislation to remove these controls, which we intend to introduce, to operate them in such a way as to give the maximum effective freedom.
  I wish to conclude by putting an important general point to the House. I want to put it frankly and to try, if that is possible, to avoid being misunderstood.

  1107
  Soon after I became Minister of Education The Teachers World offered me some advice which I would like to read to the House. It said:
  "New Ministers have plenty of advice. For all that, here is some more for Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd. I assume that you want to do your best for education, the service to which you are appointed. Then forget the Ministry of Education, leave Curzon House unvisited. The permanent officials there will see that national education goes on. Local officials will see that local education goes on. And, when the officials have done their part, teachers will see that children are taught. Spend your time—all your time—in the Cabinet, in the House of Commons, in the country at large—working against inflation. It will not be easy, nor popular with the Opposition and its supporters."
  That is brightly and provocatively written, but the fundamental point is good.
  May I therefore ask the House to consider the grant system from this point of view? From the point of view of experts in public and international finance a system of percentage grants creates uncertainty because it appears that Treasury expenditure running into several hundred millions a year is not under the control of the Central Government, but increases automatically as a result of decisions by large numbers of local bodies, bodies which are not concerned with nor, indeed, trained in matters of national finance. This is a weakness in our national financial arrangements which is not lost on financial experts abroad as well as at home.
  What worries me about the present controversy is that the case as put forward by the educational associations pays not the slightest attention to this broad national financial problem. As far as their pamphlet is concerned, it might as well not exist, and the case is argued on grounds entirely confined to educational interests. In others words, it is a strictly sectional case. It may be argued that they are entitled to do this. I am not sure. But I am sure that it is our duty, if it is necessary in the national interest, to withstand any sectional interest, however respectable it may be.
  My right hon. Friend said yesterday that the new system would help the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his budgeting because he would know more definitely what his commitments were. Hon. Members opposite jeered at that, but the statement
  1108
  is true. Nor is it inconsistent with an expansion in educational services in accordance with Government policy. But it is the fact that the present Government are making over a wide field a more vigorous attempt to contain inflation than has been made by any Government in recent years.
  I ask the House to support the Bill because, in addition to its other undoubted merits, it has a moderate but definite part to play in the struggle against the greatest menace to the progress of our modern society.
  Mr. G. R. Mitchison: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, may I put this point to him, because I am sure that he would not wish to mislead the House? He referred to expert opinion. I am only quoting expert opinion to which the Government themselves referred. Here is a treatise by the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants on local expenditure and Exchequer grants and it agrees very definitely with the former views of the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry that a percentage grant is right, and right for education.
  Mr. Lloyd: I was referring not to experts in municipal finance, but to experts in national and international finance.
  5.9 p.m.
  Lady Megan Lloyd George: I am afraid the Minister has made a bad job of a bad Bill. He has protested too much and explained too little, and he has certainly not explained away the—
  Mr. Edward Short: On a point of order. Can it be, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister has set the House on fire, because what appears to be smoke is drifting along under the Gallery.
  Lady Megan Lloyd George: It is probably the steam and the hot air generated by the Minister of Education.
  I was saying that the right hon. Gentleman has not explained away the block grant. He has certainly confirmed the worst suspicions of hon. Members on this side of the House. He has claimed, as did the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Housing and Local Government yesterday, that the substitution of the block grant for the percentage grant is not a

  1109
  cut. He says that it is an incentive. The Minister for Housing and Local Government said yesterday that it means that local authorities will administer the services more thoughtfully, no doubt with an eye to their overdraft and the ratepayers. The Government say categorically that it is not the intention of the Bill surreptitiously to cut down services. May I ask, if that is so, why the Government have deliberately excluded from the block grant the police and prison services?
  Why have they made special provisions for pooling the expenditure on higher technical education? Why should these two services be differently treated? Why are the police services to be denied all the advantages of the block grant of which the Minister spoke? Are they not vital services? Is it not important that we should keep them up to a high pitch of efficiency? Why have they been excluded? We are told it is for technical reasons. Very well. If there are technical reasons, I hope that the Government will explain what they are before the end of the debate.
  To us the answer seems perfectly plain. The block grant is an instrument of economy, and the reason why these services have been excluded is that the Government cannot afford to have a cut in the police forces. The hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) gave the case away in a very interesting question she put the other day. With her shrewd North Country instinct she went straight to the heart of the matter. She asked whether in the North, where the proportion of grammar school places is below the national average, they could be brought up to the national average before the block grant system comes into operation. Why before? Because the hon. Lady knows very well that the chances of it being done afterwards are remote. The alternatives which, as a result of this Bill, are put before local authorities are very clear. No one made them clearer than the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education. He said:
  "If a local authority embarks upon a deliberate expansion of the education services as an act of local policy, it is the deliberate intention of the Government, and it is inherent in their proposals, that this should in future be the local authority's own affair in the matter of finance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1957; Vol. 574, c. 1025.]
  1110
  Nothing could be clearer than that. In fact, the Government are "passing the buck" to the local authorities.
  Today the Minister of Education said that under the terms of this Bill local authorities would be able to explain to the public, to the ratepayers, why they could do certain things and why they could not do certain other things. The real point is that the Government are putting local authorities in the dock instead of being there themselves. I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education what he meant when he spoke about an expansion of the education service. Did it include the levelling up of standards? The Minister of Housing and Local Government was very indignant yesterday at the suggestion that the block grant would mean lower standards, that it would lead to minimum standards. The right hon. Gentleman invoked Clause 3 (3) of the Bill where the Minister has power to prescribe standards. The Minister said he would not hesitate to use those powers to reduce grants to local authorities who failed to achieve or maintain reasonable standards.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) asked the Minister this afternoon who is to be the judge of whether standards are reasonable or not. The Minister said it was the Government. In fact, the Government will be judge and jury in their own case. I wish to know what was meant by reasonable standards. The House and local authorities are entitled to some guidance in this matter. I am thinking not only of building standards but of opportunities and facilities for children in various parts of the country, because these standards vary greatly from one part of the country to another. Take the case of grammar schools. The average figure of children receiving a grammar school education in Wales is 35 per cent. In England it is 25 per cent. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) once said that it is only by the grace of God that you can escape going to a university in Wales. But which of these standards does the Minister consider reasonable?
  I will take another test, one of the most important tests of educational advance, the number of children in classes. Here again the variation in numbers is considerable. If we take the average number

  1111
  of pupils per full-time teacher in all counties—I hope the House will forgive me if I compare the figures in England with those of Wales—for all counties in primary schools in England, the figure is 30 and for Wales it is 24. For secondary schools in all counties the figure in England is 21 and in Wales 19. In totally maintained schools the English figure is 26 and the Welsh figure 23. Which standard will be the reasonable standard? I am not here quoting other figures in which the average number of pupils per class is very much higher in individual schools throughout the country.
  I should like to take another yardstick. There are in this country a great many local authorities with leeway to make up due to causes largely outside their control. I am not speaking of reactionary authorities, but of authorities who have done their best but for one reason or another circumstances have been too much for them. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will know of the slum schools in the villages and in towns.
  In this connection I would draw the attention of the House to the recent investigation into rural schools by the National Association of Head Teachers. Its report is very interesting. It is based upon 134 replies to a questionnaire issued in very widely separated rural areas. Some of the comments and conclusions are interesting.
  It is stated that there are many rural schools which have not been affected by the intensive school building since the war. One in three of the schools has inferior sanitation. One in eight relies on inadequate water supplies from wells or springs which usually dry up in the summer. The report draws attention to one school where water is drawn from a hillside stream used by cattle. The report points out that in many of these schools heating and lighting are inadequate.
  If local authorities in areas such as these are to attempt to bring the standard of the schools up to a reasonable level or build new schools, will they come under the axe? Can the Minister tell us that? Will they come under the definition of expansion as described by the Parliamentary Secretary? I say at once that if that is the case it will be impossible to bring these schools up to the
  1112
  requisite standard out of the block grant. In some counties the product of a 1d. rate varies from £600 to £800, and in many of them there is very little industry, so rerating will not make a substantial difference. Because of their very poverty they are backward in all the other services for which they will now be made responsible—health, child care, physical training and recreation and agricultural education, a vital national service.
  I can tell the Minister that some of those counties have been kept solvent only by the Exchequer equalisation grant, and it is only the Exchequer equalisation grant and, of course, the percentage grant which have enabled those local authorities to improve and develop their education services so far. There is the block grant, but we do not know how much the grant will be. It remains a mysterious figure X. All we know positively about it is that there is nothing to prevent the Government cutting it down to whatever figure they think adequate, which does not inspire any confidence on this side of the House. There is the formula which will take account of scarcity as well as density of population, of children of various ages and so on, but it will not take into account the education needs of an area as against its resources which is the only valid test.
  I am very glad to see that the Minister of Housing and Local Government—and Welsh Affairs—has now taken his place on the Front Bench, because I want to say to him that I do not believe the deficiency grants will benefit a single Welsh county. If he can tell me—and I hope that he will be able to do so—that the position of Welsh counties will remain even substantially the same under the block grant as it is today, that the Welsh counties will be able to carry out their development programmes, I shall welcome it. I am afraid that the Minister does not respond to my challenge.
  At the same time, this change in grant offers a cast-iron alibi to reactionary authorities. It is more than that; it is an inducement to reaction. But to those authorities who are striving to improve and expand education of the children and to offer them a greater equality of opportunity in life this is one of the most retrograde steps ever taken by any Government in this country. There are

  1113
  still some people who think that too much education is a dangerous thing. It all depends on who has it.
  The Minister of Education said that nobody had mentioned inflation. No Government can afford to neglect education. To do so is a very short-sighted policy from a national point of view. The national interest demands not cuts but expansion in education—and I am very glad to see that the Minister nods his head, and I hope that he means more than mere assent. When we consider the dramatic and impressive scientific and technical advances in the Soviet Union, a country which was largely agricultural in its most primitive form two decades ago, we cannot still fail to understand the vital importance of these services, not only to our efficiency and competitive power as a trading nation, but to our standard of living and to our influence as a great Power, which depends on our capacity not only to defend ourselves but to give that unique leadership which I believe we can still give to the world.
  5.25 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: We have listened to the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) with great interest. She put her case as reasonably as it could be put, and I hope that she will forgive me if I do not follow her in her discussion of the position of the Welsh counties. I should like later to refer to some of the things she said about the maintenance of the standards of education. I respectfully suggest that she has not followed the debate in all its details, certainly on the subject of the police.
  I was interested yesterday to hear the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) referring to the position of the police and explaining why he thought local authorities in the Metropolitan Police District should perhaps be given some say in the management of the police. Then I realised that the right hon. Gentleman's experience of local government was a very long time ago. Indeed, his right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) said in a speech at the end of July that he used to have similar views until he became Home Secretary in 1940. I should be interested to hear whether the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede)
  1114
  has in any way changed the views which he held when he was Home Secretary. We must accept that there are very great difficulties in regard to the Metropolitan Police District, quite apart from the technical considerations to which reference has been made in the course of the debate.
  This is not merely an education Bill. It is a Bill of very great importance to local government, and I hope that I shall not be thought to be digressing if I make some observations on the general principles. No one can doubt that since the end of the war there has been a continual weakening of local government as a result of the recasting by legislation of nearly all our major services, with very few exceptions. In almost every case that legislation has involved an extension of central control. Indeed, we must concede that this process has been rendered almost inevitable as a result of the disparity of population and resources between local government units of the same statutory type.
  It is clearly impossible to secure any systematic reallocation of those functions in the way many hon. Members on both sides of the House want, unless we have a comprehensive review. I want to welcome the Bill first because it is designed to provide machinery to strengthen the structure of local government. At the same time, I think we all recognise that there has been a second cause of the weakening of local government, and that is the almost complete financial control by central Government officials of day-to-day administration.
  I join with those who welcome the alteration in the grant system as a first instalment—to use the words of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education—towards giving local authorities freedom to determine their local needs in accordance with their local circumstances. The issue between us was defined by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), in his usual inimitable and vigorous fashion, when he spoke in the debate on the White Paper on 29th July. He said:
  "What is to happen if this block grant goes through? The battle will be transferred from a battle between the right hon. Gentleman and the Treasury, or a battle between his Ministry and the local authorities, to a battle conducted on the floor of the council chamber itself, where the chairman of the finance committee—chairmen of finance committees usually

  1115
  welcome this sort of thing—will find a great accession of power. Those who are interested in education, in the tire service, in the health service, or in child care, will have to battle for what they can get out of the general grant. I believe that to be fundamentally wrong."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1957; Vol. 574, c. 953–4.]
  I believe that to be fundamentally right. It is right that the collective view of the council should be paramount over the interests of particular committees. Listening to some speeches from hon. Members opposite, I have taken the view that they have borne in mind that
  "Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it."
  The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) denied that there were great weaknesses in the present percentage grant system. But the only evidence that has been quoted in support of that contention that there are no weaknesses, is the Report of the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants.
  Mr. Lindgren: And general experience.
  Mr. Rippon: I would suggest that the general experience of members of local authorities, which for this purpose is more valid than that of a particular set of officials, is to the contrary. It is worth bearing in mind that whatever the views of the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants, the local authority associations have generally welcomed the Bill—
  Mr. Lindgren: No.
  Mr. Rippon: —because from time to time over the years they have raised objections to the elaborate apparatus of grant claims, to the delay in the settlement of the amount paid, to the undue central control over details of a kind to which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education has referred, and to the fact that the percentage grant system destroys much of the incentive towards prudent economy.
  Mr. Lindgren: The hon. Gentleman is an experienced local government administrator, particularly in London, but all these statements are airy. Can he give one instance of any local authority with which he has been associated having been hampered in this way by Government interference? No instances have been given.
  Mr. Rippon: It has been my continual experience. I would quote from a report issued by the National Association of Local Government Officers in 1951 entitled "Scope for Enterprise in Local Government," in which it was stated:
  "There are two great advantages in a grant which is not tied to a particular service and which is variable in relation to the financial resources of an area. It is not likely to entail so much detailed control as a percentage grant, and it is likely to encourage authorities to rely on their own initiative, both in extending services and in supervising the efficiency of administration."
  A lot of hon. Members look upon "economy" as a rather dirty word, but I believe that efficiency in administration is essential if we are to make full use in the local authorities of whatever total sum may be made available to us. Within my own experience I know of local authorities that have carried out organisation and methods surveys. They come forward with a report that shows a saving of, say, £50,000. They are very pleased with it, and then it is pointed out that that is a gross amount and that the net amount of saving will be only £20,000. There is then a tendency for members of local authorities to say. "We do not want to give up the £30,000 that we got from the central Government."
  Mr. G. A. Pargiter: Can the hon. Gentleman give an instance of a local authority which has said that?
  Mr. Rippon: It is a continual process. It is extremely difficult to get the recommendations of organisation and methods surveys accepted in these circumstances.
  Mr. Lindgren: Coventry?
  Mr. Mitchison: Norwich?
  Mr. Lindgren: London?
  Mr. Pargiter: As the hon. Member is unable to name one authority, is he willing to withdraw?
  Mr. Rippon: No. I think hon. Members opposite will find that the majority of local authority associations, as distinct from various bodies and committees, have welcomed these proposals for the reasons which I have indicated.
  Mr. David Jones: Is it not true that all the national associations have merely accepted them conditionally, and that there have been no answers to the questions they have asked?
  Mr. Rippon: I would accept that point of view in the sense that I believe the proposals are accepted conditionally, subject to the matters which I think we ought to be discussing, namely, the total amount of the grant, the method of providing adjustments to meet unforeseen circumstances and the formula for distribution. All these things are matters which we can usefully discuss. I think the educationists would have a far stronger case if they had put it forward on the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Fulham, instead of talking nonsense about tearing up the Education Act of 1944.
  I concede that there is a great deal of force in a lot of what the hon. Member had to say about the formula. I think there is a need to provide some incentive to the good authorities, which I do not think is included at present. At the moment there is only pros is ion for a supplementary grant if the number of children under fifteen years of age is above the average. I should like to see built into the formula some provision for an additional grant where there are smaller classes, or where possibly there are more teachers, or where the number of children over fifteen still at school is above the national average, or in relation to university awards.
  I think there is an argument on that ground, if a satisfactory formula can be devised, but I do not accept for one moment the view expressed by hon. Members opposite, that the largest grant should be given to the local authorities who spend the most money. I think a local authority, if it intends to provide services over and above a minimum or national standard, should have to weigh the cost of those services and the willingness of its ratepayers to finance them. I should have thought that would be a view which we in this House would all hold, because if the total sum is adequate there is no reason to suppose that education or the other services should suffer.
  Why should not the House accept the assurance of the Minister of Education that we are not only going to maintain education expenditure at its present level but that we envisage expanding it? After all, the Education Estimates have risen by 94 per cent. in the lifetime of the present Government. I do not think that is a factor which justifies the suggestion
  1118
  that the Conservative Government want to cut education expenditure.
  Mr. Lindgren: Much of the 94 per cent. increase was in interest charges.
  Mr. Rippon: Not only that. The cost of school buildings, the cost per place, and so forth, have been reduced, so that the value for money spent has been greatly increased.
  Mr. Mitchison: The hon. Gentleman will, of course, be aware that the Ministry of Education estimates of future expenditure already provide, and quite properly, for a very much larger sum than at present. For that reason, I find it difficult to attach much importance to the assurance that was given.
  Mr. Rippon: I should have thought that the hon. and learned Member would therefore have attached more importance to it. We ought to bear in mind that when we talk of Treasury control in these matters we really mean Parliamentary control. One of the reasons why the standing of the House has been reduced in the minds of many people, if I may say so with great respect, and why the Executive power is so greatly increased, is that we in the House are no longer really interested in keeping a proper control over the level of public expenditure. It is greatly to be regretted that the Opposition is always urging the Executive to spend more money instead of exercising its proper function of controlling the total amount.
  I would accept that the new general grant will not in itself weaken central control in many fields. That, of course, is quite apart from the provisions of Clause 3 (1) which gives the appropriate Minister the power to reduce the grant in cases of default. The House will recollect that the Local Government Manpower Committee was inhibited from making really effective recommendations for less Ministerial control because much of this control derives from statutes and the regulations made thereunder.
  I would like to have seen in this Bill a considerable amount of amending legislation to reduce the controls which Ministers exercise in the field of local government, quite independently of this question of financial control. We must hope, however, that the proposed review will be treated as a matter of urgency. As far

  1119
  as education is concerned, the real teeth are not in Clause 3 (1) but are in the Education Act, 1944, which imposes upon the Minister a duty at almost every key point in the educational system.
  The Children Act, 1948, and the Fire Services Act, 1947, appear to contain more references to the Secretary of State and his powers than references to children or firemen. That is not a wholly satisfactory state of affairs. As the Local Government Chronicle said on 20th July:
  "It has been fashionable for post-war legislation to provide that local authorities carry out various functions under the general guidance of the Minister and in accordance with regulations of the Minister. General guidance is susceptible of many interpretations. A horse under the control of a rider in full control of bit and reins, whip and spurs, is under the general guidance of the rider, but the animal has little say as to the direction he shall go or the speed of his gallop. It all depends upon the severity of the rider. The analogy can be applied to Ministerial control over local authorities."
  The hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen need have no fear that the standard of the education service, or of any other service, will be reduced by this first instalment of freedom to local authorities. If I have any criticism of the Bill to make, it is that it still imposes severe controls on the day-to-day administration of local government. There often are compelling reasons, from an administrative point of view, for this central control, but I believe that if a Minister tries to do everything he ends by doing nothing. For all practical purposes, when one reads "the Minister" in the Bill, one should read "an official", probably a principal of the Minister's Department, who has more power, in fact, than the democratically elected local authority.
  What we need is a Measure which will bring back many of the things that have been lost to local government. I hope that the new Commissions will succeed in achieving that purpose. We must recognise, however, that the real battles over areas and functions will take place once the work of those Commissions is under way. I hope that the Minister will beware of too much compromise.
  I have said that the local authority associations are in general agreement with the principles of the Bill. I believe that to be true, and I do not think that hon. Gentlemen opposite can deny it, though, in some senses, I regret it, because
  1120
  it represents the lowest common denominator of agreement.
  The time must come when the Minister will have to take the decision as to what constitutes an effective and convenient unit of local government. It is probably as well that there is no definition in the Bill of "effective and convenient." All too often there is a conflict between the two conceptions. While I believe that there is undoubtedly a minimum below which a local authority should not be allowed to fall—the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) gave a striking example of that yesterday—there is equally a maximum above which effectiveness falls off. I hope that it will be a cardinal principle guiding the Commissions that every local government unit shall be as small as is compatible with efficiency.
  The new Commissions will start their work in an atmosphere more favourable than that which existed in 1948. They will have powers of review which the Labour Government denied to the former Boundary Commission, powers to carry out the job properly and effectively. I hope that someone has now told the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South why the Boundary Commission was dissolved.
  The Local Government Boundary Commission in its Report of 1947 stated the right principle, that local government should be as local as possible. I believe that we should not have too rigid a standard as to population, it is wrong to write into an Act of Parliament a population limit, if it can possibly be avoided. I particularly hope that the Government will have regard to the views expressed in the 1947 Report on the subject of delegation. The Boundary Commission believed that the most-purpose authorities should be autonomous local education authorities and local health authorities. It may be necessary to have delegation in certain circumstances, but, in the past, that has meant little or nothing. All too often, we have found that approval had to be obtained in order to mend a tap or put up a new flagstaff, control being, in fact, exercised by some junior official at County Hall who took a rigid view of the instrument of delegation and was able to rule the roost. I hope that we shall move towards the exercise of functions as of right by local authorities.

  1121
  I welcome the Bill as an important first step towards giving greater freedom and responsibility to local authorities. I appeal to those who have a vested interest in the status quo, of whom, I fear, there are some on both sides of the House, to contemplate fairly radical changes in the structure and areas of local government. If they resist those necessary changes, they will play right into the hands of those, of whom there are many, I believe, among the party opposite, who want to by-pass local government and conduct the local services through other agencies. We must create new areas and new structures. We must give the local authorities proper resources, and then trust them to get on with the job.
  5.46 p.m.
  Mrs. Freda Corbet: I am glad to be able to follow the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Ripon). We have certain sentiments in common and others in opposition. I should have liked him to give a specific example of the operation of the percentage grant being found to be hampering. The experience of my authority is quite the reverse. We have always been able to ascertain whether or not a project of ours would meet with approval without any difficulty. The only thing which has bothered us over the years has been the question of maintenance grants for children above school-leaving age. My authority waited for some years, until the report of the committee came along, to have some information on that matter.
  As regards capital matters, which are quite different and depend entirely on the economic situation at any moment, being one thing one year and another the next, all local authorities, I think, have found difficulty.
  I have always had a great deal of affection for the percentage grant, particularly when I noted the improvement in the work of the children's committees since the Children Act, 1948, and the establishment, for the first time, of a 50 per cent. grant in eight of those services. Before that time, those services were part of the Poor Law Services and, as such, did not carry a specific grant. We are all familiar with, and appreciate, I think, the tremendous developments which have come about in all local authorities in the provision for the welfare of children.
  1122
  Education itself has, without a shadow of doubt, benefited from the percentage grant. Before 1919, there was a kind of per capita grant and no percentage grant. Since then, the education service has advanced by leaps and hounds to the position with which we are familiar today.
  There is no doubt that the progressive authorities have found it extremely useful to be able to realise that, if they proposed some rather large item of expenditure, they would be able to recoup to the extent of 60 per cent. from central Government. My authority, as it should be, is one of those progressive authorities. It has an immense rateable value, and it has been able to experiment and set the pace in many directions. For instance, it has been in the forefront in the provision of evening institutes, school libraries and playing fields. It has encouraged music and drama and school journeys. There have been special courses in secondary schools to encourage pupils to remain beyond the age of 15.
  My authority has all sorts of other plans. It would like to develop its system of nursery education. It wants to reduce the size of classes in primary schools, to develop a wide range of courses in engineering, building and commerce and other things in secondary schools, to carry out extensive improvements to old school buildings, to extend the playing-field provision and to develop further its activities in connection with music, drama and school journeys.
  We are not likely to be afraid to do those things. I assure the House that a great deal of consideration goes into every item of expenditure that my authority, and, I am sure, other local authorities, embarks upon. It is not light-heartedly that new expenditure is undertaken. Not only the education committee, but the finance committee also, looks very carefully into all projects. The council does not incur the expenditure merely because its share amounts to only 40 per cent. There is no need for the Government to worry about extravagance by local authorities, for their 40 per cent. share of the expenditure is sufficient to deter any council from embarking on any project which it does not consider to be essential to the development of its service.
  Education has been one of the favoured services in the post-war years. Education and housing have had top priority. There

  1123
  are other services—and they are included in the general grant proposals—which have had to take a back seat for many a long year but which are itching to develop themselves and ought to be developed. I think particularly of the welfare services and of the millions of old people who need so much done for them. There can hardly be a limit to the expenditure which would be in the interests of these people, but the councils cannot contemplate expenditure on the vast scale that is necessary.
  One looks again at the health services. Have we reached the millennium so far as our health services are concerned? Of course not. There is a very great deal to be done. There are also the disabled and crippled, who are now the charge of the local authorities. This is a new service since the war. For them, too, a vast improvement of the service is required.
  I assure the House that local authorities, when looking around, can be at no loss for plans of development on which to spend their money. In fact, they must be guided all the time by the feeling that they must go carefully, that they must gradually build up their plans and that they must refrain from increasing the rate beyond an amount which the electorate is prepared to stand.
  Therefore, in the interests of the services, we ought to retain the percentage grant. It would satisfy most people who have an interest in the development of those services. Educationists, those concerned with the welfare of children and of old people and with the health of all of us, would be happy to know that if they could persuade their local authorities to spend the necessary money an adequate grant would be forthcoming from the Government, rather than he faced with the situation that if the local authority dares to spend the money it must do so at the expense of its ratepayers to such a large degree that it would be hardly possible to embark upon the development.
  I was very interested to listen to the speech of the Minister of Education. He talked about the discretion given in the Education Act concerning the transport of children to school. We have been aware for some time of this discretion and efforts have been made to get the Minister
  1124
  to relax a little in his directions to local authorities. My authority cannot complain, because we got in in time for the Minister to relax his regulations, and in the payment of fares for transport we in London enjoy probably a better standard than most of the country.
  Do I understand, however, that the Minister is saying that if the local authorities in general, exercising their discretion, relax their rules so that payment for transport became general for a distance of two miles rather than three miles, they would then be regarded as qualifying for extra general grant? If so, if the Minister goes on giving more and more discretion to local authorities, he may be sorry about it, but naturally enough, the local authorities will be pleased. We should like to know the answer to this.
  Education, as we know it, is not an expendable service. The chairman of the finance committee of a local authority who is telling all the committee chairmen that the rate must be brought down and that there must be cuts, turning to the chairman of the education committee and asking him to contribute his share, usually receives the answer, "There is nothing we can cut. We are committed up to the hilt. There is so much for teachers' salaries, so much for this, that and the other and we have nothing whatever to play about with." Believe me, there are very few frills in education, unless some people say that a few pounds spent on a little music and drama is a frill and should be cut. But what difference would that cutting make to the enormous sums of money which today have to be spent on the education service?
  I hope it can be realised that local authorities do not have the elbow-room to cut their services. If they want to cut, they must change their policy. On the whole, they cannot change their policy, because the Ministers, quite rightly, want to hold them to a reasonable standard. I hope that they will hold them to a reasonable standard. It is essential that the education service should be developed to the greatest possible extent.
  We cannot, as things are, begin to imagine the kind of education which we shall be able to provide. We are not at the moment even building the proper foundation for the secondary education which the Act enjoins upon the Minister

  1125
  and the local authorities to provide. We cannot with the classes of the size we have to put up with, and it is essential to reduce the size of the classes to as small a size as possible and as quickly as possible.
  I hope that we shall soon see the virtue of implementing fully the Education Act, which made provision for children to remain at school until 16. It is thirteen years since the Act was passed. Are we to wait the full twenty years before the provision of the Act relating to the school-leaving age is put into operation? I hope we shall not.
  Meanwhile, there is one very important step which we can take, and that is to encourage children to remain voluntarily at school after they become 15. I am glad to note agreement expressed from both sides of the House to that proposition. I am proud to say that my own authority gives every possible encouragement to children to stay at school. One of the important things to do, of course, is to provide courses of a kind for which the children will be prepared to stay at school and for which their parents will be prepared to keep them there.
  We cannot do that without the expenditure of money. Those progressive authorities which want to do that may find themselves, under this new general grant, having to pay a much greater bill than their resources can meet.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Sir Edward Boyle): I think that the hon. Lady will agree that public opinion has an important effect upon children staying on at school, and that it should be highly esteemed by public opinion, and I think she will agree, also, that the extended courses at secondary modern schools and public opinion must be efficacious as the years go on.
  Mrs. Corbet: I hope they will be. I am only too glad to have some kind of assurance.
  However, I was shocked only yesterday to hear of a headmistress who will not allow a girl to remain at school after the age of 15. I hope that the Minister will get busy about that, because it surely cannot be in accordance with his philosophy and his policy.
  I wish the Minister could see that the greatest progress has been made when
  1126
  we have had the percentage grant. If educational associations and authorities are worried about this proposed grant it is because they have cause to worry. Personally, I would not care to trust the Government in a time of difficulty to make the general grant as large as it ought to be, even having regard for the provisions of the Measure. I should be suspicious that the Government might seek to stabilise, as it has been called, their expenditure. I am suspicious that the grant is intended as a disincentive to local authority expenditure. I cannot help being so, and there are many of us who sincerely share this feeling. I had hoped that the Government would have thought again.
  It is all very well to talk about the freedom of local authorities to spend their money as they will, but surely it is inconsistent to talk like that and yet, when there is little scope for them to spend as they will, when it is so difficult to secure the money to do it, when there is so much to be done, to give them a grant which is of a certain size and which will restrict any extra expenditure in the future.
  I am worried also about the town planning grant. The removal of nonconforming industry in the London County Council area has been estimated to cost a very large sum. I hesitate to say what exactly the sum is, because I cannot be quite sure the figure I shall mention is right, but I believe it was estimated some years ago at £300 million. By today it would be greatly increased owing to the depreciation in the value of money. The London County Council feels that it is making some effort to deal with this situation by setting apart every year£500,000, knowing, of course, that the Government would contribute their share.
  What we have been asking for is an increase in the grant which can be given for these town planning purposes and, in particular, for removing factories from the London area. Many a time have representations been made to the appropriate Minister that we were going to close a factory whose owner had gone out of London and that we must have a larger grant than any which Ministers so far have been prepared to give. Despite all our hopes of getting a larger grant, all our hopes of doing something great in the decentralisation of London's population

  1127
  and of London's industry, which is absolutely essential if the population is to be at the level which is the desideratum, we are faced with a grant which, we fear, will only limit what we can do in the future.
  I welcome the Royal Commission. It is felt that some consideration should be given to its set-up. There have been a number of reports dealing with this very difficult problem of London government. I myself sat on a committee which considered it some years ago. It was considering it in the London County Council area only. The committee came to the conclusion it was best not to meddle with the matter, that things were working not too badly at all, and that it would be extremely difficult to find better arrangements. Now the Royal Commission is to consider the problem in a wider area.
  Within the administrative county there are a large number of authorities. Some of them are too small to be efficient. Some of them are large enough to be of county borough status. I wish the Royal Commission good luck in its very difficult job, but I hope it will not feel that it must provide a solution at all costs, and that it will make sure anything which it proposes will be better than the present set-up. I hope it will bear in mind the fact that a one-tier authority is the most satisfactory local government unit, if it is possible to arrange for it. I say this advisedly, because in London we have the two-tier system. There is very good cooperation between the London County Council and the Metropolitan borough councils. I deplore the supposition that the one is supposed to be the major authority and the other the minor authorities. We all of us regard ourselves as equals.
  The two-tier system in London makes it extremely difficult for people to know to which authority they should go. Should they go to County Hall or to the local town hall? That division of loyalty between two bodies does not make it easy to obtain the kind of municipal patriotism and local interest which I am told exists in places like Birmingham, Manchester, and Liverpool, where there is a one-tier authority.
  I should have thought, therefore, that in so far as it is possible to have a one-tier authority we ought to have it. I do
  1128
  not know that we can have it in London, though it may be possible on the fringes. If it were adopted in London the present L.C.C. would have to be a county borough. I believe that the L.C.C. could manage that, but I do not think that the existing boroughs inside the county boundary would like it at all.
  When the Minister says that he has been advised to help get rid of inflation I must point out to him that I did not notice that that advice called upon him to get rid of the percentage grant. I hope, therefore, that he will reconsider this whole matter.
  6.11 p.m.
  Mr. R. P. Hornby: I listened with great interest to what I am sure everyone would agree was a very knowledgeable speech from the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet). I was mystified by one feature of her speech and of the speeches of many other hon. Members opposite. It caused me to wonder sometimes whether I had been projected some years ahead to a debate on a mythical block grant of the future which was thought to be far too small by many hon. Members opposite. Time and again many of their criticisms seemed to be directed at what they felt would be the total size of the grant rather than at the nature of the grant itself.
  I know that a great many hon. Members want to speak and, therefore, I propose to be brief and confine myself to two points. The first is the general grant and its effect upon the relationship between central authority and the local authorities. The second is the relationship between local authorities and the public whom they seek to serve.
  As to the effect of the general grant on local authorities, it seems to me that hon. Members opposite have been fearing two villains in this piece. Villain No. 1, and he is often cast in that rôle by hon. Members opposite, is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In spite of what the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) said today, it seems to me that villain No. 2 is the local authority and the councillors themselves.
  I should like to say a few words about the central Government and the Chancellor, or, rather, about the Cabinet acting collectively in this matter. In spite of

  1129
  their very genuine fears, I cannot see on what hon. Members opposite base their accusations that this proposal will mean a diminution in expenditure on education and other services. They will see from the figures for the last few years since our party has been in office that expenditure on education has gone up, whether from the point of view of expenditure per child at school or as a percentage of the national income.
  Mr. D. Jones: Prices have gone up.
  Mr. George Thomas: Expenditure has gone up under the percentage system.
  Mr. Hornby: Admittedly, but the percentage system and the new system are both decided in the light of Cabinet policy on education and other services.
  Furthermore, if hon. Members opposite will study the pronouncements of successive Ministers of Education and other members of the Government, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the statement made by the Minister of Education today, when he included the Government as a whole in his remarks, they will find that, as the Minister said, it is no part of our policy to reduce expenditure on education. My right hon. Friend added that it is no part of our policy to freeze expenditure at its present level.
  I was delighted to hear him say that, because I agree entirely with what was said of education, most sincerely and convincingly, by the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham. We must look at education as the absolutely basic investment for the future of the country. Everything else that we do depends upon what we do for education.
  Dr. Horace King: In view of that statement by the Minister, does the hon. Member also remember the Minister saying that Birmingham will be financially better off because it has larger classes than any other authority in the country? Does the hon. Member not realise that that gives a financial inducement to lower standards?
  Mr. Hornby: My right hon. Friend went on to say that he would look at the average level for the country. The Bill provides that the general grant to a
  1130
  local authority is looked at in detail before the total is decided. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon) had a point when he talked about trying to give some weighting to those authorities who had tried to meet their obligations.
  Contrary again to what has been suggested by hon. Members opposite, another point about the effect of these proposals on local authorities is that the position of the Minister of Education in the Cabinet is likely to be stronger not weaker than hitherto. I say that because I believe that he will be in a position to give more definite advice and information as to what the exact financial requirements of local authorities are likely to be. In other words, he will be talking in relation to a definite figure and not the much more indefinite one which, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government said yesterday, was a perpetual worry which he knew from his days at the Treasury when the figures were constantly coming in late.
  I cannot see that it is a disservice to education or to any other local or social service to make it easier rather than more difficult for the Exchequer to budget as efficiently as possible. Much as we want the best possible in education, we must also recognise that we cannot look at these things in isolation from economic policy. Therefore, I thought that it was completely right and honest of the Minister of Education to conclude his remarks today with a comment on inflation.
  I turn to the other villain of the piece as suggested by many hon. Members opposite. I think that the argument of educationists and of so many hon. Members opposite amounts to the fact that they have no confidence in the ability of local councillors to administer these matters.
  Mr. Short: Who said that?
  Mr. Hornby: I cannot help feeling that it has been implicit in everything said from the opposite side of the House. I find it extremely puzzling when, time and time again, we have speeches from hon. Gentlemen opposite paying tribute to the many happy years they themselves have had in local government, and the pride they have taken in the work they were

  1131
  trying to do there, whether for education or for any of the other services. I cannot help asking myself why they assume that their successors in local government in the years to come will not have precisely the same pride in developing those services. I believe that hon. Mmbers opposite have merely become bemused by their desire to centralise everything.
  Mr. D. Jones: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to interrupt, I will tell him that it is precisely because we have had years of experience of municipalities whose levying of a high rate imposed an undue hardship on the people concerned because of the poverty of the authority under the circumstances of that time. We are afraid that precisely the same thing will happen again.
  Mr. Hornby: Again, I say that there has been no evidence produced from the opposite side of the House that the amount forthcoming from the Exchequer will be less rather than more under this system.
  Now I want to deal further with the rather gloomy picture of the local authorities painted by hon. Gentlemen on the opposite benches. It seems to me that they look at, say, the chairman of an education committee presenting his estimates, and they see him harried by many other councillors, not necessarily members of the education committee. They know that education is far and away the big-best spender. They know that there are a majority of councillors not on the education committee. They feel, therefore, that education, which has been the main bone of contention under this block grant, does not stand a chance in the council chamber.
  I will make one or two comments on that. First, we have had from the Minister in detail his view of how he understands Clause 2 of the Bill, and my right hon. Friend also mentioned Clause 3, which contains the ultimate safeguards and penalties. If we look at this in detail, of course there will be detailed discussion in the council chamber of the expenditure of the education committee. Are hon. Gentlemen opposite really telling me that this is a bad thing? [An HON. MEMBER: "No, we are not."] Is it not true to say that some education expenditure is more important than other
  1132
  education expenditure, and is it not right that these things should be debated in any healthy local government organisation?
  Mr. R. Moss: It is all a "phoney" argument.
  Mr. Hornby: Of course, education committees prefer to go almost into a huddle with education officials about the way in which to spend their money and get this virtually cut and dried. They are dealing almost entirely with people whose business is education.
  Mr. Moss: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the central and local authorities are a partnership in the great adventure of education? That is how we regard it, and we are now concerned with finding the best financial instruments to give effect to that partnership. There is no question of mistrust on either side.
  Mr. Hornby: I have already tried to deal with my view on the financial point and I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say that he regards local authorities now as partners in the attempt to try to build education.
  Mr. Moss: We always have done.
  Mr. Hornby: It seems to me that in many of the criticisms made hitherto there have been assumptions that local authorities are not capable of devising their own priorities, of seeing that education is a service of enormous importance to this country and must be fairly treated by them inside the context of the grant they receive.
  Perhaps I may make one other point. Of course, Sir Ronald Gould has every right to be anxious if he really finds cause for saying that education investment has been cut.
  Mr. G. Thomas: He has not said that.
  Mr. Hornby: It seems to me that he has gone off greatly in advance of any danger, that he has flown into a fright far earlier than necessary. I ask him to reflect that it seems to be paying a rather poor tribute to the teaching profession if he doubts its ability in the long run, to produce citizens who will recognise and vote for high expenditure on education when they become ratepayers and, maybe, when they become councillors.

  1133
  Last night, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) regarded the crux of this matter as the relationship between the central authority and local government, and in this respect he described education as a national service locally administered. That view may not be far off a reasonable description of the position, but I do not see why we should always assume, as to some extent that definition does, that local authorities should have no say in policy making but should be concerned solely with administration. I believe that is one of the things which has lowered the interest in local authority work during recent years.
  I much prefer the description in an article in the Economist last week which referred to this relationship and referred to local authorities as "half slave, half free." They are certainly slaves in that they have legislated upon them certain national standards which they must observe, but are completely free to go as far beyond those standards as they can manage, and free to apportion their resources subject to that limitation. If we look at the Bill in this light, if we recognise that we are not discussing the total amount of the grant but a Bill which is designed to invigorate and give more responsibility to local authorities, then we shall see it in a rather more kindly light than some hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to regard it.
  I should like to refer briefly to the relationship of the local authorities with the public they serve. Everyone agrees that if local government is to prosper there must be keen local interest in it, shown by the willingness of people to take up the work of the local councils and by their willingness to find out what the local council is doing and to vote on these matters at election time.
  I suggest that one thing not mentioned in the Bill could have a great bearing upon it, and that is the willingness of the local Press to report what goes on in the local council chamber and the willingness of local councils to give the local Press the maximum information and the facilities for reporting. There has been a movement in recent years to exclude the Press from many of the places where important decisions are
  1134
  taken and, in the last resort, I believe that that is a bad trend.
  We all recognise that there are times when a committee must go into private session—it may be a matter of personalities being involved, or when officials who are not elected representatives and whose position is rather different have to give specific advice. However, I suggest that the relationship of the Press to local authorities is considerably important to the purposes behind the Bill and I ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether anything can be done in that direction.
  Finally, I wish the Bill well and look forward to a vigorous debate when the sizes of the block grants come to be discussed. I wish that the educationists and hon. Members opposite had reserved their criticisms for those debates, which would have been the proper time for them.
  6.31 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: I have not viewed the advent of office of many Members of the Government with satisfaction, but when I recalled a speech which the present Minister of Education made from a place below the Gangway in a debate on education on a Friday. I thought that at last the Government had found a Minister of Education worthy of the great service he had to administer. After his performance at the Box this afternoon, I have revised that opinion.
  When he was floundering about in response to an interruption by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. D. Howell) and he said that if one kept one's schools under-staffed one would make a profit under the block grant, I wondered what justice between the central and local authorities for education there could be with a policy such as that. It means that the best authorities, those who give the most fervent service to the cause of popular education, will get a little of their extra expenditure out of the slight rise which they will give to the national average, while all the people with no enthusiasm will get at least an equal percentage, because the former authorities have been zealous in their work for the service.
  When the Education Act, 1944, was before the House, I had some slight association with it and I have always been

  1135
  proud that although my name is never mentioned in connection with the Act, there are some words in it which are mine. One of the words which is mine is "aptitude."
  I was recently in Copenhagen giving a lecture on the Education Act, 1944. I wanted to get Section 36 translated into Danish. That Section refers to the duties placed on parents to secure for their children full-time education suitable to their age, ability and aptitude. I was told that there was no one Danish word which would cover "aptitude" as I explained it to the Danish translator.
  When the right hon. Gentleman was sitting below the Gangway, he was a fervent advocate of the importance of "aptitude." The problem which confronts us today is that of educating and developing the inherent natural aptitudes of the great people to whom we belong. To develop the practical and scientific aptitudes is more expensive than developing those aptitudes which, up to the present, have had the highest value given to them in education.
  One could always find out what was the average cost of educating a child in the old elementary schools and the old secondary schools. Authorities were compared on that basis. National and local policies were guided by it. But no one ever asked—and this is most astonishing—what it cost to educate a youth in a technical school or college.
  Although I was never chairman of the education committee, I had frequently to defend the education policy of my county in debates in the county council. As I did not want anybody to spring a surprise on me by asking what it cost to educate a boy at a junior technical school, I asked for that information to be compiled. When I was given the figure, I told the official who had prepared it to burn it straight away, for I was certain that if it leaked out there would be an end to junior technical schools.
  Technical education today means something far greater than anything of those days of thirty years ago. It is far more expensive. One of the great hopes of the country is the zeal now being shown by the parents of children in secondary modern schools to keep their children at school beyond the school-leaving age.
  I was in Birmingham the other day formally opening a new comprehensive
  1136
  school. The headmaster and children had opened it two years ago and I rejoice that that sort of thing is now common. One is asked formally to open a school which is already a living institution. It was pointed out to me that one of the problems confronting the teaching staff and the education authority was the fact that all the original proposals about the number of forms in each year of school life had been completely destroyed by the determination of parents to keep children at school.
  About six weeks ago, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) telephoned me to ask me to be the principal figure at a speech-day at the comprehensive school in his constituency. It was obvious that I was not the first choice and that my hon. and learned Friend had been looking for someone whom he could lasso with ease to take the place of some far more distinguished person who had dropped out. I agreed to go, but the news appeared to have leaked out, because when I arrived I found the chairman of the London Education Committee, the leader of the London County Council and my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet), the chief whip on the London County Council. They were there to see that no heresies were uttered.
  The most impressive thing which was said at that gathering was the report of the headmistress that 80 per cent. of the children stayed for a full additional year. That is the kind of education for which I have hoped in a career that goes back to when my right hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Key) and I were pupil teachers together in London. We had hoped that there would be a zeal among the common people for education, a zeal which had nothing to do with the compulsory school-leaving age.
  I deplore what my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham revealed—and I hope that it will be investigated—that in some school a headmistress has turned children out when they have reached the age of fifteen and has not allowed them to continue. That is quite illegal. Any child up to nineteen years of age can stay at a secondary school if the parents wish to keep him there. I am sure that the Minister desires that all parents who are

  1137
  willing to make the sacrifice and forgo their children's earnings should have that willingness used to the best advantage of the pupil and, I believe, of the school as well.
  The hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. Hornby) said that he thought that there were two villains. The second villain was quite imaginary, but we have not seen the first villain either in the course of this debate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not turned up, but, of course, he is responsible for the policy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said with regard to a statement just previously made by the Minister of Housing and Local Government:
  "…we propose to introduce, among other measures, a general grant in substitution for a number of percentage grants. This should introduce a stabilising influence in the central Government's contribution to local expenditure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th February, 1957; Vol. 565, c. 210.]
  There was not much stabilisation in what the right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon. I gathered from what he said that we shall get more money under the new grants than under the old, and that nothing will be cut down. After all, they could hardly do that with school populations still coming from the primary into the secondary schools. If those words that I have quoted do not mean that a greater share of local government expenditure is to come from the rates in the future compared with what has happened in the past they do not mean anything at all. We object to the words:
  "a stabilising influence in the central Government's contribution to local expenditure."
  I believe that the Education Act, 1944, established on a firm basis a working partnership between the Ministry of Education and the local authorities in which each bore an agreed proportionate share of the expenditure roughly working out to 60 per cent. by the central Government and 40 per cent. by the local authorities. In future what will happen is this. The block grant is the Government's contribution. Having made it, they go to sleep. The local education authority carries on the service and has to meet everything that is incurred. That is the stabilising influence in the Government's contribution to a local authority.
  The Minister of Education will not count for very much in the future. He did not even understand his own position
  1138
  under Clause 3. He will not withdraw the grant if he thinks that a local authority has not come up to standard. "The Minister" in the Bill means the Minister of Housing and Local Government, according to the definition Clause. But there is another person in the Bill referred to as "the appropriate Minister", and the appropriate Minister is no better than, in fact, he is not as good as, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. The Minister of Housing and Local Government will go round the country, and say. "I do not think much of the children coming out of this school. The education being given here is not very good. I think we had better liven up this authority by telling them of our displeasure." He deducts the grant and then writes to the Minister of Education, saying, "Have you any objection to my deducting the grant?" That is the effect of the proviso in Clause 3 (1), which reads:
  "Provided that where the Minister is not the appropriate Minister he shall not act under this subsection except on the certificate of the appropriate Minister that that Minister is satisfied as aforesaid."
  Everybody will now know why the police do not appear in the Bill. Fancy the Minister of Housing and Local Government deciding that he will deal with the police grant. We may be sure that when the police grant is dealt with, then it is dealt with. The Home Secretary withdraws the lot. Every Home Secretary seems to do it once in the course of his career. I did it, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) did it. One of the Home Secretaries since I left office has done the same thing. Fancy writing to the Minister of Housing and Local Government! He is a mere—
  Mr. D. Howell: Bagatelle.
  Mr. Ede: No. He is a mere creation of the second half of the twentieth century writing to the successors of Cecil and Walsingham saying, "I propose to muck about with your grant". It is no good saying that there are technical reasons why the police cannot be brought in. The reason is that no Government, particularly one representing the property-owning class, will part with the most stringent control over the police services.
  That is one example. If there was a recalcitrant authority—we all know that

  1139
  they exist—when one was in the old Board of Education, one always said regarding approximately three counties, "They will always be the last to do anything proposed". It is said of one Welsh county that as soon as a financial crisis arrives they always present a most extravagant and grandiloquent development plan well knowing that it will be turned down and that they will get credit for the thought without having any of the responsibility for giving effect to it. So the Minister hopes that if he has to deal with a recalcitrant authority he will be able to write to the Minister of Housing and Local Government and say that such and such authority is giving him trouble and trusts that the Minister will deduct from its grant a sufficient amount to make it understand how severe is his displeasure.
  Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: With his great knowledge of the Act, the right hon. Gentleman will know that there are many other powers in the 1944 Act which have been more habitually used for, if I may use the phrase, the encouragement of authorities of the kind he mentions. I believe that the actual penal power of reducing the grant has been used only once in the history of the Act. Therefore, it is very much a question of being the last resort.
  Mr. Ede: Once was enough. But the Minister does not have the power now; it does not rest with him. The Minister of Housing and Local Government may well have regard to the general effect of the Minister's request on the relationship between himself and the local authority concerned.
  From his seat opposite me in the House yesterday the President of the Urban District Councils Association told us what his Association had decided about the Measure. I am President of the County Councils Association. It is unfortunate that this two-day debate comes before the meeting of the Executive Council which is being held tomorrow, but in July the Association, for whom I am not speaking in this debate—I am speaking for myself—said that it had no objection to going over to a block grant provided that it was told certain things before it happened.
  Correspondence has taken place between the Association and the Ministry on this
  1140
  matter and I want to read a paragraph from a letter submitted by the Association, together with the answer it received from a Ministry official. The Association says that the local government finance committee of the County Councils Association
  "would regard a very substantial removal and relaxation of existing controls as a condition precedent to acceptance of the proposals."
  The right hon. Gentleman made it quite plain that he was not going to make any very big reduction in controls. The list that he gave out was not one which he would expect to satisfy any association which had used the language that I have just quoted. The letter goes on:
  "As you know, talks are proceeding—having opened none too favourably—and beyond saying that we wish them to be ended sufficiently before the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill to enable the Association to take the result into consideration, I have no present comment."
  This is the answer that was received:
  "We shall be letting the Association have, in a very few days, a series of papers on control of investment, borrowing and loan transactions.
  Whether we shall be able to reach with the local authorities firm conclusions before the Second Reading debate I am doubtful—particularly if that debate comes before the Christmas recess as is possible. However, I hope that we shall have done enough by then to convince your members that the Government genuinely desires to increase the independence of local authorities as far as it is possible to do so in the world in which we live."
  The Association does not ask for guidance as to what it is to do in the next world. We shall meet none of the Ministers there. The reply goes on:
  "As I explained to you at our talk, it is no use hoping that the Government can, in present circumstances, relax control over capital investment; nor is it realistic to ask individual Ministers to abandon their overall responsibility for progress on particular services. The idea of 'minimum standards' seems to me to have only a limited application."
  I was once at a meeting to elect a new county councillor when the candidate addressing the meeting, who was a farmer, was asked, "Do you believe in minimum wages?" The farmer said, "I always pay them." The letter continues:
  "what 'minimum standards' could we apply, for instance, in the field of water and sewerage? There is no end to the improvements that could be justified; we are compelled to judge relative urgency. Meanwhile the Minister must be prepared to answer to Parliament for the

  1141
  rate of progress; he must be prepared (if necessary) to ask a local authority to get on with a scheme which he believes to be urgently necessary—maybe for industrial purposes—while at the same time telling others that work they would like to do must be deferred."
  This is freedom. As the French lady said:
  "O liberty… O liberty… What crimes are committed in thy name…"
  The letter ends:
  "The same must be true in many other services.
  We will do the best we can"—
  Fancy that lot opposite promising to do the best they can…
  Mr. D. Jones: They are doing their best.
  Mr. Ede: Then one would like to see their worst, sometimes, if only to compare the difference. The letter goes on:
  "We will do the best we can to free local authorities from any unnecessary controls, but we must ask the representatives of authorities to recognise the real limits to what we can do.
  We must also ask you to be patient. There is a great deal of ground to cover, and we must give priority to the Bill."
  Get the Bill, and then what will be the use of anyone complaining that the counterweight of freedom is inadequate?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) said yesterday that the Bill was the county councils charter. I do not see that myself. I do not see it as a charter for any local authority. We get back to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said at the beginning, about the need to stabilise the contribution from central Government sources to local government expenditure. The Minister of Education, of all Ministers, knows that if we are to catch up not merely with the Russians but even with the Americans—who are a long way behind the Russians—we have a very stiff and hard struggle. That struggle will be decided not in the universities and technological colleges; it will be decided in the primary and secondary schools, where alone we can prepare a generation which will have the minds capable of grasping the tremendous opportunities that await a well educated nation which makes the best use of all its aptitudes.
  6.57 p.m.
  Mr. Brian Harrison: I do not propose to detain the House for long, but I want to refer to some of the points
  1142
  which have been made and to the misinterpretations of the Bill in various quarters. Yesterday afternoon I was interested in trying to find just what the party opposite would do in the way of reorganising local government or altering it either financially or structurally. It was extremely difficult to discover any coherent suggestion, other than that industrial premises should be rated at 100 per cent., and that agricultural land should also be rated, as a financial contribution.
  Although an alternative may not really have been put forward yet, people realise that something must be done to introduce into local government organisation and finances a method capable of dealing with present-day conditions. Previously, the amount raised by rates was usually far in excess of the amount which came, by way of grants, from the central Government. The emphasis has now completely changed, so that by far the biggest amount of money spent by a local authority comes from the central Government. This means that the whole responsibility—especially when the expenditure of the money is earmarked, as it is, on a percentage basis—is being taken away from the people who are running local government. I have often heard complaints that they are just rubber stamps.
  I do not share the fears expressed by a number of hon. Members which can be based only on a very low opinion of the type of person who becomes a county councillor. The impression is created that these people are unable to appreciate the importance of education and of the various services which are the responsibility of the local councils. One would imagine that the councills proposed to do away with such services and to spend the minimum amount of money possible upon them. I find it difficult to believe that local councillors are so short-sighted and narrow-minded, particularly when we note the number of hon. Members who have had experience in local government work.
  The block grant method will make for more careful and less wasteful spending and that will prove an advantage not only at the local level, but generally. If by having the power to allocate money councillors are able to see how it is expended and that they get full value for it, it

  1143
  will be to the advantage of everyone. A speech made yesterday by an hon. Member opposite left one with the feeling that limitless expenditure always leads to limitless improvement, but that is a fallacy. What is required, and what this method of block finance will provide, is real value for money and thrifty expenditure, in order that the best possible services are available within the resources of the country.
  The point has been made about industry not being fully rerated. There is a sound reason for that. Previously industry carried 4·19 per cent. as its share of the rate burden. With the revaluation, plus an increase in the percentage that it must pay, the burden has gone up by 50 per cent. to 6·27 per cent. Such an increase at a time when industry is becoming a great deal more competitive is as much as we can expect it to absorb.
  Another matter to which I wish to refer is the reorganisation of the various areas. We in Essex will suffer from a long time-lag because it will not be possible for much to be done until the Report of the Royal Commission is available. That is probably a good thing, because there are some extraordinary problems in Essex by reason of the variety of local authorities. I was glad to see that under the terms of the Bill no county council may propose the abolition of a non-county borough. There are a number of small non-county boroughs which are very proud of their traditions and their contribution to local government. I ask that the Minister, where he can, will advise that these boroughs should not be pompous parish councils looking after a few people but be integrated by the county councils into a larger unit and form the peg on which to hang larger units within the county areas.
  It may be necessary for the Minister to use his powers to extend the special review areas to a much greater extent than is at present envisaged. There will be a certain amount of rivalry and jealousy within the county council areas which may make it difficult to arrive at a useful solution about reorganisation. We should remember the long time which has elapsed since the last big reorganisation, and that probably this one will have to last just as long. County councils must be given an opportunity to suggest how local government in their areas can
  1144
  be most efficiently organised. The Minister should lay down principles, or give some indication of the lines upon which he expects county councils to work, in a more definite manner. If it is not possible for a county council to bring a particular form of reorganisation into existence, it should be up to the Minister to establish a special review area and to create a form of organisation which will work.
  Knowing the number of councils that I do, and that the gross amount of finance coming from the central Government will not be less than they are receiving at present, I have every confidence that the block grant will be adequate, and, ultimately, that it will lead to better value being obtained for the money spent at county or local authority level so that people receiving the services will benefit. I welcome the Bill because of the plan to reorganise local government which it contains. I hope that some sound and long-lasting form of local government reorganisation can take place, because it is essential for loyalties to be built up in order that it may work successfully, and for there to be long periods of unity and stability.
  7.10 p.m.
  Mr. George Thomas: The hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) has revealed an unusual lack of faith in local government in this country. He has submitted that there will be more careful spending if local authorities have the present percentage grant taken away from them. I have far more faith in the work of the local authorities with the percentage grant than have the hon. Gentleman and his fellow Government supporters.
  This Measure has succeeded in uniting educationists in this country to an extent not achieved for many years. The last time we had employers and employees, local authorities and teachers, sharing the same campaign was when the 1944 Act was about to be introduced. Last week, I listened at a most remarkable meeting to Dr. Alexander, the General Secretary of the Association of Education Committees, to Sir Ronald Gould, of the National Union of Teachers, and Mr. Shearman, of the L.C.C., each of whom was able to speak on behalf of the great sector of the educational world to which he belongs.

  1145
  The campaign has brought support which crosses all party barriers, and that fact is not without significance. The Minister of Education will be aware that some of his leading critics in local government are leading Conservative councillors. In Cardiff, Alderman Robinson, the Chairman of the Education Committee, is a devoted member of that party. The Minister will also know that Alderman Robinson went on record publicly, along with Mr. Frank Barraclough, the Director of Education for the North Riding, who also publicly expressed his devotion to that party, as expressing profound disagreement with the educational policy which is being pursued.
  No Government have a right to ride roughshod over such unity among the people concerned for a great social service. The concern of these people is not political. Sir Ronald Gould and Dr. Alexander are not men of straw, blown with any wind of opinion. They are people to whom the country listens with respect. It ill becomes the Minister to brush aside the lifelong experience of such people in the manner that he has done.
  The Government have no mandate for the Measure. There was no mention of it in the last General Election campaign. The very opposite; for Sir Anthony Eden came to the wireless for the only broadcast talk of the campaign that I heard, and promised expansion of education. Expansion is possible under the percentage-grant scheme, but no one on the Government Front Bench can deny that the Bill is a death blow to an expanding education service.
  Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Yes, I can deny it.
  Mr. Thomas: The Bill is a breach of faith with the electorate. Nobody outside the House wants it, and I have observed that Government supporters who have spoken in support of the Bill have done so in a qualified way. They have all indicated parts of the Bill which they believed held dangers.
  Why has the Bill been introduced at all? Is it to tidy up local government? That is the smaller part of the Bill. The real aim of the Bill is to reduce the social service of education without the public's realising what is happening. The Government lack the courage to make a frontal
  1146
  assault on the education service; they hope to succeed with this indirect attack in halting expansion in the service.
  I can understand the teachers of the country being concerned about the service. They have been sending letters to hon. Gentlemen on both sides of this House. The teaching profession is non-party political. I would like to see them, for obvious reasons, more party political. I believe that the Tories are always the enemies of education and of educational advance and I wish that teachers would always agree with me on that point.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Nottingham, Central (Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux) has, in a burst of candour, revealed the real purpose of the Bill, according to his judgment. He told the teachers of Nottingham:
  "There can be no doubt that the adoption of the block grant will effect very great economy in the former sphere."
  The "former sphere" is local government expenditure.
  "I feel there is no doubt at all that local authorities, like everybody else, look very differently at a project for which they must foot the entire bill than at one for which somebody else will pay half, or even more of the cost."
  He maintains that this Measure is in the interest of economy.
  The percentage grant scheme was intended to encourage progressive authorities to raise rates to spend on education. After all, local authorities have not been spending Exchequer money without spending their own. For every £60 from the Exchequer they have had to get £40 from the local rates. There is no suggestion of gay abandon on the part of local authorities because they were having something for nothing. Not at all. Education is already the heaviest single item in the rates of local authorities. It ill becomes Government supporters to suggest that local authorities have been careless in the spending of money.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government, like a bad penny, keeps cropping up in all the unpopular Measures. He has indicated, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the aim of the Bill is to stabilise educational and local government expenditure. With his new found authority over the realm of education he is going to put technical education outside the Bill, but it is no

  1147
  good this House thinking that technical education can be isolated from the rest of education. It is only in the next few years that technical colleges, isolated by grant from the rest of the education service, will be able to rely upon a proper supply of adequately educated people from the rest of the service. When the block grant takes effect in the primary sector of education it will be bound to affect technical standards. I believe that the Minister will do grave damage to the educational system of this country.
  The Prime Minister has referred from time to time to the "Opportunity State." Apparently the cornerstone of the new "Opportunity State" is to be inequality in education, because in future the opportunity of children in matters educational will depend on whether they live in a wealthy part of the country or a poor part of the country. If they live in the poorer areas of the country, which cannot afford to add to the rates a little extra expenditure for educational advance, then, however gifted a young person may be, he will not have equality of opportunity to advance his talents. When we deny equality of opportunity to our young people in these islands we withhold from the nation its chief asset, because we do not know whom we are holding back. When we hold back the young people of working families, we may be holding back some of the most gifted members of the community.
  This Measure, introduced by the right hon. Gentleman, was the dream of other people before him, of Geddes, May and Ray and of all those who have sought economy in education. The case has been well made out on both sides of the House and what can be said in favour of this Measure has been said. A great many arguments have been brought against it. I want to address a few personal words, which I do not take any pleasure in saying, to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Education.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who speaks with authority in this House and who is the joint architect of the 1944 Act, hailed the speech of the Minister of Education on a Friday a little while ago. I believe that the Minister of Education was given a new stature and a new authority by the passing of the 1944
  1148
  Act. We had a President of the Board, then we had a Minister with new and added powers. The 1944 Act gave status to the Minister of Education because it gave him powers. This Bill takes away his biggest power. Any Minister with self-respect would resign rather than accept the humiliation of a Measure of this kind.
  The Minister of Education may laugh but I have a few more things to say which may help to take the smile away. Lord Hailsham, who left the Ministry just in time, made, during his brief tenure in the office which the right hon. Gentleman now holds, brave speeches. He said that he was spoiling for a fight with those who spoke of expensive frills in education. He could have a fight with a few of the hon. Members opposite who have spoken for their party. He maintained that the education service must expand and not be contracted. Those were brave words. They were his last words at the Ministry.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: Before the bell tolled.
  Mr. Thomas: Yes. It was clear that the noble Lord could not be kept at the Ministry of Education when this Measure was to be introduced. There would have been trouble in the party opposite. Clearly he would either have had to go back on all his public utterances or the Bill would have had to be modified considerably. What did the Government want in the place of the noble Lord? They wanted a Minister who was pliable, obliging and obedient; a Minister, in short, who would swallow anything and stay in the Ministry. The price of the right hon. Gentleman's office is too high for the nation to pay. It is rather a tragedy at the present time that when the Ministry of Education needs a fighter, it has the right hon. Gentleman.
  The tragedy of our education service is that the inheritance for which my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields and others have fought, a Ministry that counted in the Government, is being sold. The heritage is being sold by the Minister, who apparently feels that, whatever happens, he will not go again to the place from which he has just been rescued.
  In my judgment, the Bill holds a possibility of doing more grievous damage to

  1149
  the education service of the country than anything else in my lifetime. It is because of that that I have spoken as sharply as I have to the right hon. Gentleman, who ought not to be defending this Measure, but leading the campaign against it. In our hostility to this Measure we on this side of the House are speaking in the best interests of the future generations of this country.
  7.25 p.m.
  Mr. Nigel Nicolson: While the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) was speaking I was glancing at the Amendment which the Opposition have proposed against the Second Reading of the Bill. Having sat here throughout most of these two days, I have heard very little mention of any part of the Amendment except for the penultimate sentence. Hardly any hon. Member opposite has hacked up the complaint that the Bill does not fully re-rate industry and that that will have pernicious effects on the financial difficulties of local authorities.
  There has been very little mention of the alleged difficulties which will be met by the health services. The whole attack has concentrated, as did the hon. Gentleman's speech, on the effects, as hon. Members opposite see it, on the education service of the country. It seems rather strange that it should be assumed that any Minister of Education of either party should wish to leave the service in a more parsimonious or feeble state when he leaves office than when he entered it. Our education service at the moment is being carried out under an Act which bears the name of a leading Conservative Minister. It is popularly known as the Butler Act. What possible reason could there be for the Minister of Education or the Minister of Housing and Local Government, or of the Cabinet as a whole or of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to cut down this service which we regard as a basic one of the country?
  I truly believe that hon. Members opposite have placed themselves in a quandary. They do not really believe in this Amendment. They do not really dislike this Bill as much as they say they do. In six months' time they will have forgotten all about it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The average ratepayer will not notice any difference at all in the situation before and after this Bill becomes an Act.
  1150
  I wonder what the attitude of the Opposition would have been if the purpose of the Bill had been the very opposite, if instead of replacing a system based upon the percentage grant we were proposing to introduce a system based upon it.
  If we were proposing to introduce a percentage grant, having hitherto had a block grant, I feel quite certain the Opposition would have advanced precisely the same arguments. They would have said that we were striking at the root of local government. They would have said that we were not trusting the average councillor and alderman to make good use of the money at their disposal. They would have said it was outrageous for a Government to suggest that no money could be spent on any of these services unless the Government agreed, after investigation, to supply the other half of the money. They could have made a far better case that the services were being undermined if the Bill had suggested the opposite.
  I am rather surprised that hon. Members opposite, a large proportion of whom represent mining and industrial towns, should be so disturbed at these proposals, for it is their constituencies which on the whole are the better off from the point of view of Government grants both under the percentage and block grant system. It is no longer Cheltenham but South Shields which is the aristocrat; no longer Bournemouth but Cardiff.
  Mr. G. Thomas: We do not get anything.
  Mr. Nicolson: Those towns obtain through the rate deficiency grant and the rate product deduction advantages which are not open to the other type of towns which I have mentioned. The hon. Member said that it was the poorer towns, seeking to instance his own, which would be at a disadvantage, but it is the other way round.
  Mr. Thomas: I am sorry to interrupt, but I want to put it on record that Cardiff is one of the planning authorities which gets no help from the equalisation grant.
  Mr. Nicolson: I apologise to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West for taking his constituency as an example, but he knows very well the point I am trying to make. On the whole, at the moment and under the provisions of the Bill an attempt is being made to iron out those inequalities

  1151
  of income throughout the country and to provide roughly the same service in each of the categories of local government to each locality. What has hitherto been the object will be maintained under the provisions of the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) said that many of us on this side of the House while initially paying lip service to the Bill had introduced a note of grievance on behalf of our own authorities. That is exactly what I am going to do, because, while I welcome the Bill, I feel it is hard on a special category of towns, one of which I represent in this House. If we looked at the Bill, particularly the second part of the First Schedule, which sets out the formula by which the general grant will be sub-divided, we could easily discover what type of town stood to benefit least. It would be a town in which there was little industry, in which there were few children, in which there were many old people, a town to which there was a constant influx of non-ratepayers who made use of the services but made no contribution towards them, a town with exceptional burdens upon the rates, and, finally, a town where the properties were highly assessed compared with the average in the country.
  All those six disadvantages are found collected together in the type of town for which I now speak, resorts which attract both the holiday maker and the retired person. They have next to no industry, they have few children compared with the national average, they have an exceptional number of old people, they are subject to very heavy and totally exceptional rate burdens to maintain, for example amenities which for them are an essential while for other towns might be regarded as a luxury. They have to pay heavy charges in respect of coast erosion, and in the last few years they have had to be very concerned about the discharge of sewage into the open sea. They have to spend, if necessary, millions of pounds on relaying an entire sewerage system to draw sewage inland away from the bays. Finally, they are assessed exceptionally heavily because it is not so that the latest rating provisions have equalised assessments all over the country. If one goes to the south coast of England one finds that an average bungalow
  1152
  or boarding-house near the sea is rated considerably higher than the equivalent building or accommodation inland.
  My main grievance is connected with the education grant as it affects such towns. The formula allows for children three times over. First, there are the under-fives; secondly, the under-fifteens; and, thirdly, the number of schoolchildren per thousand in the particular locality. A town with comparatively few children is therefore at a triple disadvantage. But not only that. We have few children but have an exceptionally high number of old people. Old people take a disproportionate amount of money to maintain compared with the allowance made for them in the weighting formula.
  I wish to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to one particular item in the example which he gave in the White Paper. It is stated that only those local authorities which have more than 120 children per 1,000 population will qualify for any supplementary grant for education. There are four county boroughs, all of them resorts, and one county council—East Sussex—which have fewer than 120 children per 1,000 of the population. Those boroughs, of which mine is one, cannot understand why this figure of 120 was chosen. It does not matter whether one falls below it by a few hundred, a few thousand, or by one child, one still gets nothing. It could happen that the addition of a single child would make a difference of many thousands of pounds to what that borough received by way of supplementary grant.
  Although 120 per 1,000 is not specifially mentioned in the Bill, the formula which allows for such a figure is incorporated in the second part of the First Schedule. There it is said that the calculation will be based upon the total population of the boroughs multiplied by the figure by which the child population exceeds so-and-so per 1,000. I cannot see that the population of a borough is in the least relevant in that connection. It does not matter what the population of the borough is; what matters is the number of children. Could not that part of the Schedule be recast to allow more directly for the cost of educating the children?
  Taking the figures given as an example in the White Paper, we see that every borough which has a number of children

  1153
  in excess of 120 per thousand stands to benefit very greatly, receiving a great deal more than the cost of educating those children. It would mean about £60 per child, whereas, taking the last year for which I have figures, 1955–56, it cost only an average of £30 to educate a primary school child and £51 to educate a child of secondary school age. Thus, those boroughs which are fortunate enough to have a great many children are benefiting by a fantastically disproportionate amount from the formula as at present devised.
  I ask my right hon. Friend to look again at this figure during the Committee stage in order to see whether he could not take into account the peculiar difficulties of the resort towns, which may appear to some hon. Gentlemen to be of the richer type but which, in fact, stand to lose very greatly by the formula if it remains unamended.
  7.40 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Short: I hope that the hon. Member for East Bournemouth and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson) will forgive me if I do not follow his remarks except to make one observation. He said that, when the block grant started, the ratepayers would not notice any difference. That is probably quite correct. What we are afraid of, and what our battle is about, is what will happen when the block grant has been operated for two or three years. It may well be that, by that time, the ratepayers will be faced with an extra 7s. or 8s. in the £ in their rates because of the block grant.
  I am sorry that the Minister of Education has left the Chamber, because I wanted to put two things to him; perhaps his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will convey them to him. First, I wish to tell him that, if I had any doubt about the danger of the Bill before I listened to him, I have none whatever now. Secondly—a very minor point which I should like to have on the record—the Teachers' World, in ownership or control, has no connection whatever with the teaching profession. His quotation has nothing whatever to do with the teachers.
  I want to deal briefly with three points, on the first of which I am in general agreement with the Minister, on the
  1154
  second of which I am in general disagreement, and on the third of which I am in violent disagreement with the Minister. I will deal with them in that order.
  I agree with the Minister about the proposal for the special review areas. My constituency, Central Newcastle, is bang in the middle of the first review area. The whole area is about 15 miles long and 8 miles wide, and in the 15 miles, with the River Tyne in the middle, there are 15 local authorities, some county boroughs, some boroughs and some district councils. There is a tremendous duplication of services there. The whole area—which the Minister himself visited a few days ago—is, quite obviously, one physically, socially and industrially. Nevertheless, local government in a good many cases within the area still follows the old medieval boundaries. In this streamlined age, when the primary need in almost every phase of life is to make ourselves more efficient, we cannot justify this wasteful method of administration.
  Apart from the administration being duplicated and wasteful in an area such as my own, the present situation makes over-all planning extremely difficult. I know, for instance, that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) is very interested in the condition of the River Tyne. The Tyne is one of the most heavily polluted rivers of the country, but one of the great difficulties in bringing about any improvement is the multiplicity of local authorities concerned.
  Housing provides another example. I believe that the solution of the Tyneside housing problem would be found in the establishment of a new town, and that would be made very much easier if there were one authority. In many other ways, for example, in the development of the Tyne port facilities, the same argument is seen to apply.
  I welcome the Government's proposal, but I have two points to make about it. From what I have seen of the Bill, although there is a time limit for local authorities to make representations, there is no time limit for the Commissions' work in inquiring into the five special review areas. I should have thought that some time limit, even up to five years, let us say, would have been a good thing.

  1155
  Further, I implore the Minister not to allow any vested interests to stand in the way of some sort of reorganisation when something does emanate from the Commissions. I am quite sure that senior officials very often generate much opposition to proposals for local government reorganisation; they are concerned with maintaining their own small empires and, very often, they present difficulty in the way of reorganisation. I am glad that the Minister is not committed to any special pattern. For myself, I should like to see a new kind of local authority emerge in an area like Tyneside. What emerges there, obviously, might not necessarily be suitable for any of the other four areas, and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he is not wedded to any special type of authority. Here, my agreement with the Minister ends.
  I want to say a word now about the Exchequer equalisation grant, to which the hon. Member for East Bournemouth and Christchurch referred. The County Borough of Newcastle is one of such boroughs which does not receive the rate equalisation grant. Even with the extension of this grant, under its new name of rate-deficiency grant, to county districts and Metropolitan districts, our objections to the grant remain. So long as a large part of the Exchequer grant to local authorities is distributed according to rateable value, even if it be distributed according to rate product, the rate-deficiency grant cannot operate equitably.
  This inequity in the distribution of the grant will continue, it seems to me, so long as there is 100 per cent. derating of agriculture, 50 per cent. derating of industry and 20 per cent. derating of commercial premises, and so long as there is no uniformity, as the hon. Member for East Bournemouth and Christchurch pointed out, in assessment throughout the country, there being a disparity in rateable values for similar properties in different areas. Some authorities receive compensation for these factors under the rate-deficiency grant, but others, including my own, do not. I give the Minister notice now that many points about the position of authorities which do not receive a grant will be raised in Committee. I do not wish to pursue them now.
  1156
  I come now to my third point, on which I violently disagree with the Minister. He complained yesterday that the main opposition to his proposal in Part I of the Bill had come from the teachers and those concerned with education. But, since £9 out of every £10 of the grant will go to education, there is nothing very remarkable about that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) pointed out, the education world, both teachers and administrators, is united as it has never been before. Those of us who have been teachers spent a large part of our professional lives trying to create some professional unity among teachers. This is the first occasion I have ever known the N.U.T. and the National Association of Schoolmasters to fight shoulder to shoulder. Where we have failed during the whole of our professional lives, the Minister has succeeded.
  Mr. Lindgren: There will be unity in the T.U.C. before long.
  Mr. Short: The Minister of Housing and Local Government dealt with the objection of the teachers yesterday and said:
  "I realise that many teachers and others have been speaking from a genuine anxiety to see education continue to go forward, and with a genuine belief that education will go forward faster if each local education committee can feel that someone else will bear three-fifths of the cost of everything it decides to do. I respect their sincerity"—
  that is to say, the teachers' sincerity—
  "much more than I respect the moral quality of that last argument."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1957; Vol. 579, c. 912–3.]
  That is a really shocking thing to say.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): But is it not true?
  Mr. Short: No. It is shocking both in what it implies about local education authorities and in what it says about the arguments put forward by the teachers. I tell the Minister now that teachers throughout the country deeply resent the suggestion that they are resorting to some kind of immoral, dishonest argument to defeat the Bill and that they have lacked morals in this dispute with the Minister. The nation ought to be grateful—I think it will be grateful—that the teachers have put up this fight for education standards.
  Mr. Brooke: I did not say that the teachers were immoral. I said that the argument was immoral.
  Mr. Short: It was the argument used by the teachers. The nation will be extremely grateful to the teachers for putting up this fight for education standards against the most blatant and barefaced attack on education standards in this century.
  What a nerve the Minister has to say a thing like that. His own speech yesterday—I read it carefully this morning—was full of ambiguities, half-truths, evasions and synthetic arguments. He really has a bit of a nerve to say a thing like that about the teachers. Let me repeat part of the quotation from the Minister's speech. He said that many teachers believed that education would go forward quicker if every local education committee felt that someone else was bearing three-fifths of the cost of everything it did. Who else will bear the three-fifths of everything that the local authority decides to do? Who is the Minister talking about? The ratepayer is also a taxpayer, only the incidence of taxation is different and a good deal fairer than the incidence of rates.
  Does the Minister—he is a longstanding local authority man himself—really assert that, in the opinion of the Government, members of local authorities have a sense of responsibility towards the ratepayer as such, but none towards the taxpayer? I should have thought that the existence of 70,000 overcrowded classes and a deficiency of 50,000 teachers shows that some authorities have perhaps a bit too much sense of responsibility towards the taxpayer. There is certainly no evidence of extravagance there.
  The Minister must not imagine that because the Government themselves lack any sense of responsibility to the ratepayer in their concern for the taxpayer, the reverse is true of local councillors, because it is not. The right hon. Gentleman harped on the question of responsibility and an added sense of responsibility all the way through his speech. I could quote many examples of it. To give but one, he said that the financial provisions of the Bill would
  "strengthen the local character of local government through enabling local authorities to exercise greater responsibility over the
  1158
  spending of money in their own areas."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1957; Vol. 579, c. 906.]
  He went on to say that the present percentage grant "diminishes responsibility."
  Do the Government seriously base Part I of the Bill on the premise that local government lacks a sense of responsibility? That is what they say. I should have thought that the sense of responsibility in local government in this country was greater than anywhere else in the world. Indeed, my own opinion is that perhaps the British race's greatest gifts to the forward march of mankind have been our system of national and local government and our common law. We have made no greater gifts to mankind.
  Anyhow, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West pointed out, the local authorities have to find 40 per cent. from their rates. They have to go before the electors every three years. I am a former local authority man myself and I deny absolutely that there is anything but the highest sense of responsibility among local councillors towards both the ratepayers as such and the taxpayers as such. But not one word in the Bill gives more responsibility to local authorities.
  Some Government supporters have gone even further than the Minister. One supporter outside said that the block grant was a grant without strings. What utter humbug this is. Let me read what the Lord President of the Council said about this on 24th April:
  "But on one thing I will not compromise. Administration is for the local authority. Minimum standards are a question for me, and I will never surrender the duties of promoting education and of controlling and directing educational policy put upon me by Parliament. It must be my duty while making every allowance for variety of pattern to minimise so far as I can differences in standards of performance, differences that is in the quality of educational opportunity between locality and locality."
  What greater freedom is there to be for local authorities? The Minister himself, in discussing Clause 3 (3) said:
  "The Bill provides, in Clause 3 (3), for standards and other requirements to be prescribed by the Minister concerned, and this is in addition to powers which Ministers already have to lay down certain standards."
  This is not more freedom; it is less freedom. It is giving Ministers additional power. No liberty, no extra freedom, no extra responsibility is given to local

  1159
  authorities in the Bill which could not be given under the percentage grant system.
  When that argument is demolished, we are told that a second reason is that the block grant will import more uncertainty into the Exchequer's calculations. The Minister said:
  "The general grant will help the Chancellor to budget properly, to see where he is going…."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1957; Vol. 579, c. 911–3.]
  That would be quite an achievement. Are the Government seriously asserting that uncertainty about annual education estimates—and 87 per cent. of the grant is for education—has become a serious embarrassment to the Chancellor of the Exchequer? I look for an answer from the Minister who replies to the debate.
  That is the first we have ever heard of this argument. The percentage grant has been operating ever since Mr. Fisher's day, but this is the first time that we have ever heard this argument. The Government have for the first time discovered that they are seriously embarrassed by the uncertainty of the annual education estimates. Surely, there is no more uncertainty about them than about the Estimates of the Army, the Navy or any other Government Department.
  Mr. Lindgren: Far less.
  Mr. Short: Far less, I should have thought. What it will do is to replace certainty by uncertainty for local authorities. How can local authorities plan ahead if they do not know how much of a project will be covered by the grant?
  The Times has rallied in support of the Government on this issue, as it always does. Lloyd George, translated into modern terms, once said that it was the 4d. edition of the Daily Mail. Not recently, but when the White Paper was issued, The Times said that there was a
  "complaint … that the new system will introduce a large measure of uncertainty into local government finance, for the amount of the grant will be settled 'year by year by a process of haggling between the Chancellor and the local authority associations.'"
  The White Paper itself pointed to the need
  "to improve financial relations between central government and local government."
  It also talked about the need
  "to reduce the dependence of local authorities on Exchequer grants."
  1160
  That one rather lets the cat out of the bag.
  What is wrong with the present relationship? Is there anything reprehensible in the Exchequer contributing 60 per cent. to a national service which is administered locally? I should have thought that the 60–40 ratio just about reflected the distribution of power in the educational system. Even if the Government felt that the balance of charge was wrong, they could have adjusted it within the percentage grant system. The truth is that the issue about responsibility and the issue about improving the relationship between local and national government are purely synthetic arguments. Any person making an objective examination of the Bill and the prospects would be forced to that conclusion.
  The Government must be aware that progressive authorities wanting to do a little extra will have to meet practically the whole of the cost—as my right hon. Friend for South Shields (Mr. Ede) pointed out, not quite the whole, but practically the whole of the cost—from their local rates. The Minister of Education today talked about the shortage of teachers in Birmingham, and he revealed the whole thing when he said that Birmingham would make a profit if it still had a deficit of 500 teachers. There are two implications of that statement. The first is that a backward authority wanting to economise will not appoint the right number of teachers and will so save money.
  Mr. Lindgren: And have larger classes.
  Mr. Short: Yes, of course. That is the first implication.
  The other implication is that a local authority wanting to go above the national mean and do really well will have to bear the whole extra burden upon the rates.
  I come to a matter which has not, I think, been referred to in the debate yet. In Clause 2 (1, a) it is laid down that new development cannot be counted in fixing the grant, except with the consent of the Treasury. So the Treasury is to decide the rate of educational advance. I would point out to the Minister, and the teachers here will agree with me, that almost everything in the school curriculum was started as a little extra, a novel little thing done by a progressive teacher or a progressive local authority. Things like that

  1161
  are to be barred in future except with Treasury consent. We know what that means. One effect of this sort of regulation will be a sterile, moribund system.
  One of the main objectives of the 1944 Act was uniformity throughout the country. One of the great scandals of the education system was the obstruction to educational opportunity. I do not think anybody in the House would deny that in the last twelve years there has been a bigger advance towards equality of educational opportunity than in any other twelve years in our history. Does the Minister deny that the block grant will halt that and, after a few years, will reverse that?
  Sir E. Boyle: I doubt whether the percentage grant has led to the degree of uniformity that the hon. Member is asserting. I quite agree that in some things, for example, the ratio of grammar school places, a much greater degree of uniformity of standards has been attained, but there are many respects in which it has led to exactly the opposite.
  Mr. Short: I do not want to pursue that now, because there are many other hon. Members who want to take part in the debate, but I would ask the hon. Gentleman to read, if he has not done so, Mr. Fisher's speech, in 1918, on the introduction of the percentage grant.
  The better authorities will probably be faced—this is their calculation—with an extra educational rate of 7s. in the £ because of the block grant within five years. That is not my figure. It is theirs, and they are experts. The Minister knows full well the limitation of rates as a source of income.
  I do not think this has been expressed sufficiently in the debate either. Let us face the fact that for most people living today in normal-sized houses the rates are simply a poll tax. In so far as they vary at all they vary on a criterion which is very often irrelevant to income. Therefore, because of this limitation on the amount which can be got from the rates educational advance must inevitably be slowed down. I see no alternative.
  The Minister said yesterday:
  "There is no intention whatever of using this change of system as a surreptitious means
  1162
  to cut down the standard of provision of education or any other service."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1957; Vol. 579, c. 911.]
  I am very much afraid that no one who has made an objective examination of the Bill and its probable effects can accept his assurance. I am sorry to say that, but that is the conclusion I am forced to. Bearing in mind that the only source of income available to local authorities to raised money is the rates, I can see no alternative to halting progress. That is really quite inevitable.
  Mr. H. Brooke: The hon. Member has given no reason at all for that. That is just another of the quite unfounded allegations of which we have heard far too many in the last few months.
  Mr. Lindgren: We are unable to believe the right hon. Gentleman on any occasion.
  Mr. Short: In the last ten minutes I have been tracing out an argument. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is incapable of following an argument. If he is I cannot help it. I would ask him to read my speech when it has been printed I have spoken of the difficulties, and of the difficulty of the limitation of rates, and I drew a conclusion from those premises. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to read my speech tomorrow.
  Is not this why the police have been excluded? Is not this another synthetic argument, about not being able to work out a formula for calculating police grant? Is not the real reason that there are different standards in the police forces throughout the country?
  The Minister also said this:
  "I fancy that those who argue that education should be excluded from the scope of the greater financial responsibility given to local authorities by the Bill are really saying that local authorities should not be responsible for the education service and that it should be run from London. That is a view which we on this side of the House cannot share."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1957; Vol. 579, c. 913.]
  What utter nonsense. What a rotten case the Government must have to resort to such a demonstrably false argument.
  The Labour Party in this House and throughout the country is steeped in the local government tradition. We believe as much in municipal Socialism as we believe in Socialism generally. Scores

  1163
  and scores of hon. Members on this side of the House have served, and a great many are still serving, on local government bodies. The teachers would be the last people of all in the country to advocate the complete centralisation of the education system into the hands of a Government Department—and for very obvious reasons.
  There is nothing new about block grant proposals. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West pointed out, in 1901 the minority of the Committee on Local Taxation stated that it was
  "to bring home responsibility to local authorities and to ensure economy."
  It went on to say that the block grant
  "obliges those who administer services to raise at their own cost every pound in excess of a fixed sum and thus gives them a direct interest in economical administration."
  Geddes in 1921, May in 1931, Ray in 1932, all economy committees, all advocated block grant for economic reasons. Can anybody in his senses doubt that economy is the objective?
  Mr. Lindgren: They know they are not telling the truth.
  Mr. Short: I draw attention to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Nottingham, Central (Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux). That lets the cat out of the bag.
  Part I of the Bill has no necessary connection at all with the rest of the Bill. Even at this late hour I appeal to the Minister, although I am only a back bencher, to think over it and see whether he cannot reconsider the whole thing. Do the Government realise the relevance of education to the economic dilemma of the country? It is absolutely 100 per cent. relevant to our economic problem. There is no other way. Trained, efficient people can alone compensate us for our lack of resources and our lack of manpower. We have seen in Russia recently that a totalitarian State can focus all its resources on any given objective. We know that democracy cannot do that. As I see it, what is at stake is not merely the country's education standards. What is at stake in the long run is our democratic way of life.
  8.8 p.m.
  Captain F. V. Corfield: Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government said that the financial provisions of the Bill were based on the assumption that local authorities could continue to draw the bulk of their revenue, apart from such items as rents and the like, from rates on the one hand and Exchequer grant on the other. Later, in talking about the new general grant, he said that this principle would put the Exchequer contributions on the same footing as rate revenue for use by local councillors in the best interests of the areas for which they were responsible.
  I welcome that principle because, unlike the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short), I believe it will increase the sense of responsibility of locally-elected councillors to those who elect them, and the health of local government depends also on the interest of the electors in those they elect and in what goes on in the council chamber. I would say we have still a long way to go if we are to attain that ideal.
  I should have thought that most Members of Parliament were constantly aware of cases being brought to their notice which were properly cases for their local authorities only to find that the constituent concerned did not know even the name of his local councillor. It seems to me that these measures should stimulate the interest of the electors in the elected as well as the sense of responsibility of the elected for the electors.
  Most of us would agree that if in the House there was no direct connection between expenditure and the raising of the necessary revenue, we should not have preserved the democratic form of government over the many centuries during which it has been preserved. Although, of course, one cannot have the same connection in local government, as reliance on Exchequer grant shows, I should have thought it absolutely necessary that we should reduce the sphere in which there is no direct connection to the smallest possible extent.
  I find it difficult to reconcile a genuine belief in local democracy with the opposition to this general principle. I very much agree with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston) yesterday. I feel that

  1165
  the health of local government has an enormous part to play in the battle of ideas which rends the world at the moment and in which we are so very determined to secure the preservation of our way of life. But I am very disappointed that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has not been able to find either a substitute for or a complement to rates as a source of local revenue.
  In his reference to rates, my right hon. Friend said that the Government could not find any other source of revenue that would satisfy the test of being easily collected, readily assessable and proportionate to need. I very much question whether that is a proper, suitable or adequate test for a system of taxation. My right hon. Friend went on to refer to the necessity that occurs from time to time to adjust the proportion of rate burden borne by various types of property. As the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central has said, we have had a series of reductions, of 100 per cent. in favour of agriculture, 20 per cent. in favour of shops, 50 per cent. in favour of industry and absolute chaos under Section 8 of the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955. That is an appalling reflection on the efficacy of the rating system as a proper means of taxation.
  I welcome what my right hon. Friend has forecast about the investigation into the workings of Section 8. If that Section is to produce any sort of sense, the Government must pay a great deal of attention to defining much more clearly the type of hereditament which it is intended to cover. I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind that, however successful the Government might be in carrying out that intention, they have left the door open for an enormous number of anomalies by reason of the discretionary power given to individual rating authorities under Section 8 (4) of that Act. We shall never get any real uniformity in the rating of charities unless something much more explicit is laid down and that discretionary power is withdrawn.
  My main objection to rates is that they are in no sense levied with any relation to the ability to pay. In addition, they constitute a tax on initiative and improvement. We have been passing housing
  1166
  Acts for the last fifty years to encourage people, particularly in the rural areas, to improve their property and to live on a higher plane of housing. Then we have had a system by which when a householder installs a bathroom or makes some other improvement we immediately charge him more for it. That seems to me ridiculous.
  I suggest that even if rates must remain as the basis of local Government revenue, there is a great deal to be said for tying them to the site value rather than to the premises on the site. We should then have precisely the opposite effect and we should encourage people to make the best possible use of sites. In addition, we should have a very great advantage in that rates would be related directly to any benefit of development value in the neighbourhood. Therefore, it would operate as a tax on improvements carried out at the public expense. This is a problem not yet satisfactorily solved. A rating system based on site value might well produce a very much better answer to it than we have had in the past.
  Moreover, the very acceptance by the Government of the idea of the general grant shows that there is no sacred relationship between the proportion of revenue to be raised by the rates and the proportion of revenue to be raised by other forms of taxation administered through central government. I cannot see, therefore, that it is a sound argument to reply that if we changed the rating system to a system based on site value, rather than the occupation of premises it would reduce the amount raised by the rates. It almost certainly would, but there is nothing sacred in the proportion of revenue from rates to that from Exchequer grant, and during the past century the proportion has altered steadily in favour of the Exchequer grant.
  As to the general grant as a whole, I entirely approve of this innovation. I think it is true that the bulk of the opposition to this proposal has come from those people who are primarily interested in education. As the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central has said, that is probably very natural. Nevertheless, it seems to me that teachers in particular, and indeed most of us, would deplore any suggestion that education should be run as a nationalised service from the centre. But, if we cannot have

  1167
  really responsible local government, that, it seems to me, would be the logical result of the opposition to this proposal.
  I should have thought that no service in the country depends to a greater extent on really efficient and responsible local government than does education. I view the opposition to this proposal with some concern, because if our educational system is not producing a responsible citizen aware of his responsibilities in his local politics and in his selection of his local representatives it is failing in the major part of its purpose.
  We have seen all too clearly how the Russian totalitarian system of education can so well provide technical and scientific skill, but that is not enough. Our educational system should not fail in that respect. Surely, this proposed general grant is a challenge to the educational profession to ensure that we produce that live interest in local government.
  Finally, I make one plea on behalf of the small ancient boroughs. If the smallest of them are to derive nearly all their power as delegation from a rural district or an urban district, many of them will be in the position of being, in effect, parish councils. I know one ancient borough which has a population of under 3,000. Therefore, it would be in effect nothing more or less than a parish council. If the panoply of the mayoral chain, and so on, is retained for a council of that size and power, we should make it slightly absurd instead of adding to its dignity.
  History shows that nearly all these ancient boroughs have served a very wide rural area. Admittedly, their powers may not have extended beyond their boundaries, but socially, culturally and commercially they have been the centre of a wide rural area. Surely, therefore, the answer is to make that the basis of the new unit and let the man who would normally be chairman of the district council be the mayor, with the panoply and dignity which go with that office. That would preserve something which is well worth having, without having cast upon it the aspersion of something slightly ridiculous, a very small local authority with very little power going about with all the panoply normally associated with, say, Birmingham or the City of London.
  1168
  In conclusion, I hope that my right hon. Friend and his right hon. Friends will look once more at the question of rates. It seems to me to be a thoroughly bad method of taxation as it stands, and although I agree with my right hon. Friend that it has been tried, I cannot agree that it is satisfactory. I welcome the general principle of the block grant. I believe it should be regarded as a challenge to educationists rather than as the subject of opposition to the Government, and I hope that the ancient boroughs will preserve something which has real meaning and not something which is slightly absurd.
  8.21 p.m.
  Mr. G. A. Pargiter: I hope the hon. and gallant Member for Gloucestershire, South (Captain Corfield) will forgive me if I do not follow him into the ramifications of the evils of the present rating system, which are not really relevant to this Bill. I want to return to certain aspects of it because, fortunately or unfortunately, I happen to be one of the few people in this House who has taken part in the negotiations between various associations which have led in some measure to certain parts of the Bill. Whether it was a privilege, or what it was, I am not yet certain. When I look at the Bill, I become even less certain about the results of our labours and what is likely to be achieved.
  It should be borne in mind that Parts II and III are essentially compromises between differing points of view. This should be recognised at the outset, because I have no doubt that there will be many interests devilling for their particular interest during the Committee stage. I hope the Minister will stand firm because, as soon as he begins to lean too far one way against those parts of the Bill which are an agreed compromise, there will be an equal pull the other way.
  For instance, there are the population figures. There is little room for latitude on the question of the 60,000. If someone wants to substitute 80,000 for 60,000 there will be a row with the A.M.C. Equally, if someone wants to substitute 40,000 for 60,000 there will be similar difficulties the other way with the County Councils Association. Therefore, I commend the particular figure, not because of its import, but because it happens to

  1169
  be the best compromise which could be reached between all the parties concerned.
  I cannot help feeling a little disappointed when I look at the Bill and when I remember what the former Minister said about his intentions for local government reorganisation. I am not now referring to Part I of the Bill. I am slightly disappointed after what was said, and how certain the Minister was that, unless there was agreement between the authorities on the question of delegation of functions and so on, the Government would have to impose their own solutions.
  Their method has been to include those things upon which there has been some, if not complete agreement. Many other functions which we understood were to be included in the Bill, and which would have done the job once and for all, are now to be left to some future time. So quarrelling and wrangling will go on between various types of authorities about those other functions, and we have been promised that these will be introduced in a Bill in the "sweet bye and bye". It remains to be seen whether this Government will introduce a further Bill on local government. My view is that this will not be done in the life of this Parliament and they will probably have no opportunity in the life of the next one.
  So the Bill still leaves problems to be solved, and I am wondering just how urgent Parts II and III would have been regarded by the Government had it not been for the cardinal factor for which they wanted this Bill, that is Part I. There is no doubt that it was Treasury pressure as regards Part I which caused the introduction of a truncated Bill at this stage instead of one dealing with the whole problem. It is obviously because the Government have to get it on the Statute Book if something is to be done about block grants the year after next. I admit the genuineness of the Minister, who wanted to do something about local government, but the essential feature of the Bill is the financial part. It is because of this and because I think that many other things could have been better dealt with had there been a little more care and thought, that I will refer to certain questions of principle.
  Take the question of supplementary grants. These are to be paid where there
  1170
  is a decline of population, in other words a decline of rate income. What about the authority which gains in population? In that case it is usually many years before the authority concerned recovers the costs which the additional population involve. They have to wait a long time, but they will not get any supplementary grant for increased population. This is a matter to which we might ask the Minister to direct his attention and make some Amendment to the Bill during the Committee stage.
  I would also like to know more about the general question of the sparsity and density figures. Some hit-and-miss figure has been introduced in this respect. I speak feelingly coming from Middlesex, which, as far as we can estimate, will receive no benefit. This provision will certainly benefit London considerably, which is better off than Middlesex in this respect. There are parts of Middlesex which are as densely populated as London but, because we are a dormitory of London, we have far less rateable resources than London with its large mass of office and other accommodation of that type. I give the Minister advance notice that I shall ask him to look at this figure again.
  Then there is the question of normal expenditure. From my point of view, this is academic for Middlesex. We do not get the deficiency grant anyway, but there is an important point in this connection. The rate-deficiency grant is to be payable only for what is regarded as normal expenditure. Will the Minister give some indication of what will be regarded as normal expenditure? Let us assume that for a long time a local authority with a large school building programme or with housing problems has been unable to proceed very far because of the Government's policy of restriction of capital expenditure. Supposing that authority suddenly decides to proceed with that work. Would that be regarded as normal expenditure in this context? As we see it, it would not and such an authority would face increasing discrimination.
  Several hon. Members have asked why the police, remand homes, approved schools and magistrates' courts cannot be included under this all-embracing grant. We have been told that the only reasons are technical difficulties, but we were told in our discussions with the departmental

  1171
  representatives that there were no technical difficulties. Perhaps the Minister will explain that situation. We look with some degree of suspicion on the fact that we have a paring of education, but not of police and similar expenditure.
  There is no valid reason, if the block grant principle is sacred, why local authorities should not exercise their financial responsibilities over the whole range, not merely over those things which the Government perhaps believe may be subject to deduction without touching those things upon which the Government will take care to see that expenditure is maintained.
  I want to refer to percentage grants. Hon. Members will recollect the circumstances in which percentage grants were introduced. They were introduced at a time when there was considerable expansion in responsibilities placed on local authorities by the central Government because of the expansion of social services, which were demanded by the people after the war and which were recognised by the Government of the day as being right and proper.
  The then Government recognised that the decision meant that local authorities would have to undertake the work whether they liked it or not and said that because they recognised certain services as being a responsibility equally shared by the central and local authority those services would be subject to a 50 per cent. grant. I have some experience of this matter, and I have yet to learn exactly what lack of freedom there was in the actual administration of those services. That brings me to the subject of administration.
  What local authorities have had to do has been to submit administrative schemes and so on for approval by the Minister. I am not aware that the expenditure incurred by authorities in the administration of the schemes was subjected to this so-called meticulous examination which we are now told is an essential feature of the percentage grant system. It has just not worked that way. I wonder how far we shall be released from the irksome restrictions to which hon. Members opposite have referred.
  The most irksome fellow in local government is probably the district auditor.
  1172
  It is he who has a close look at the expenditure to see whether it is in accordance with Statute and whether it is proper and reasonable expenditure. One must assume that this brand new freedom which we are to get will mean the abolition of the system of the district auditor—or will it? We shall be interested to see what happens.
  I want now to deal with freedom of policy. What freedom will be given in our control of policy? When taking office, the former Minister of Education, who has now taken up the occupation of bell-ringer, said that irrespective of where the money was found or what system of grants was operated he would insist on maintaining the standards of education. That is all right, but what freedom will local authorities have to go below or above those standards? There will certainly be central control in that respect.
  Another service which is subject to only a 25 cent. grant but which should have a larger grant is the fire service. It has been left to local authorities to run the fire service until there is a state of emergency, when the Government will take control again. Can we imagine that the standards upon which the Home Office has insisted, irrespective of the grants, will be allowed to deteriorate and that councils will be allowed to do what they like with their fire services and will be permitted to allow those services to run down when we want them maintained in a high state of efficiency in case of national emergency? What sort of freedom will we get there?
  Above all, what sort of freedom will we receive regarding capital expenditure? Here, of course, is the essential rub, because neither this Government nor any other Government will give up control of local authority capital expenditure. Let us face it. The whole question of one's freedom to do what one wants to do comes back in the last analysis to capital expenditure. If we have not freedom to spend the capital we can safely say that any other freedoms we receive are completely illusory. I would be very glad to hear from the Minister what he proposes to do. That will go on in the very same old way that we complain about. We shall send our plans for schools and so on and the Minister will say, "I do not think I will approve this. It looks as though the cost is a few pounds more than it

  1173
  ought to be." This will be capital expenditure upon which the screw can always be put.
  Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Member would agree that it is largely through this control of capital expenditure that we have been able to obtain greater uniformity of grammar school places about which the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) spoke. The manipulation of school building programmes has helped a great deal.
  Mr. Pargiter: The hon. Gentleman is arguing the case for freedom on that basis, but I am arguing it on the basis that we shall be as closely controlled in the future as in the past with the disadvantage that the Government will pay less towards it. There can be no question about that. The statement in the White Paper was explicit, that Government expenditure in the proportion of six against five from rate borne expenditure was unhealthy and they intended to rectify it. By that they must mean to increase the proportion of rate borne expenditure in relation to expenditure from central Exchequer funds. If they wish to do that, let us be clear as to how they intend to do it. I hope the Minister will go a little further in reply regarding the grant for education. It has been touched upon, but I am not sure whether the position is clear.
  The grant, so far as staffing is concerned, will be based on the average of the country. In the average of the country there must essentially be some below and some above regarding staffing. I know a little about a number of education authorities, but I do not know of any authority that is overstaffed. There may be a few public schools which have good staffing arrangements, but in the case of the service administered by local authorities I do not know of one authority which is overstaffed.
  The authority which has the proper staff will be penalised on the basis of the average. If there is a top and bottom there must be something in between, and if we are to take away from the top in order to keep the average we must take away from the proper staffing arrangements now existing. I am sure that education authorities will be interested to know that if they have
  1174
  proper staffing arrangements in accordance with standards agreed by the Ministry they will be penalised. If they do not come up to those standards whether through desire or inability to obtain teaching staff, they will gain. The question requires an answer.
  I want now to come to another aspect of education which has not been touched upon. The Minister has said that local authorities will have greater freedom, but it is proposed under the aegis of this Bill that as far as higher technological education, certain technical education and certain other further education subjects are concerned there shall be a pooling of expenditure over the whole country. Who will control that? Will the local authority control it? If so, how? If we are to have a pooling of expenditure—and this is implicit in the proposals—we shall have not a pooling of grants or anything of that kind. It will be a pooling of expenditure. That expenditure will presumably fall, equally or unequally, upon all local authorities, quite out of proportion to the amount of service which they are to provide out of the pooling arrangement.
  I should like to know how the Minister squares up a national or even a regional pooling of some parts of the education service with greater freedom for individual local authorities to control their own services. Perhaps we could have an answer, because we shall certainly want to know more about it at a later stage.
  Sir E. Boyle: I can give an answer now. I am sure that the pooling of expenditure in this part of the education service would have been necessary sooner or later as part of the Government's policy for bringing the White Paper on Technical Education into effect. I do not believe that the intra-authority payment scheme could be said to represent a permanent solution.
  Mr. Pargiter: I am not complaining about the pooling as such but about the Government's statement of their intention to give local authorities greater freedom. The Government are taking money from local authorities in order to give them greater freedom, and are then also withdrawing certain services. Out of the remaining money local authorities must provide for services, but the money will be pooled and the Department will

  1175
  very largely direct affairs, with local authorities having very little say indeed. It does not make sense.
  Reference has been made to the views of local authority associations. I know what they are. They said that they appreciated the prospect of additional freedom, if the Government really meant it, but they are very sadly and rapidly coming to the conclusion that the Government do not mean it. They said that they required assurances before the Second Reading debate, but those assurances have not been fothcoming. Most local authority associations are very anxious to work in conjunction with the Government of the day. They will do their level best to conform and to carry out the policy devised by the Government, but having been consulted and having pointed out that if certain changes are to be effected, they will accept those changes in principle, with certain safeguards, they are being treated rather cavalierly at present, especially when the Minister says that they are generally in favour of the block grant system.
  If we examine some of the safeguards, we will see that not one of the associations will give unqualified approval to a block grant system on the basis already propounded, and in their capacities as education authorities they are at sixes and sevens. They are pulled in one direction by those who want the block grant system, with the necessary safeguards, and in another because of their position as education authorities.
  I still have bitter recollections of the block grant system. I am a member of an authority which, under the terms of the old block grant system, had to make a rate contribution to the Exchequer in order to get its benefit back. The authority was threatened that if it did not agree to pay back something to the Treasury the grant formula would be altered in order to make sure that the Treasury got something. I am not very much in love with the block grant system.
  There may be a honeymoon period—a short period when the Treasury will cushion the effect of losses to local authorities—but in my view the protestation that local authorities are not necessarily going to lose does not square up with the provision made for the losing period. It is recognised that there will be a period of loss, and the Government realise that
  1176
  there will be a great scream if the loss comes all at once. But when that honeymoon period is over it will be possible to know what the ratepayers will have to pay in addition out of the total as between the Exchequer and the rate-borne contribution.
  In Middlesex, the ratepayers will have to find no less than £4,200,000 a year more. That represents the extent of the Treasury equality of contribution so far as that county is concerned. It is not a question of a rate deficiency grant or anything like that, because that is a luxury unknown in Middlesex. This is the actual difference—£4,200,000 a year—on the basis of last year's expenditure, and, of course, an increase in the expenditure is inevitable. It is made inevitable because of the need to provide services which have long been delayed. There is, therefore, bound to be an increased expenditure; so that the figure of £4,200,000 is a minimum figure and in all probability the ultimate figure will be very much more. It is not to be wondered at that even the Middlesex County Council, which is Tory-controlled and has leaned over backwards to support the Government, is feeling a little alarmed about the prospect of giving this Measure its undivided and loyal support.
  My interest in Parts II and III of the Bill is somewhat academic because of the decision to appoint a Royal Commission to report on the Greater London Area. I consider that a wise decision. One can only express the hope that the Minister will indicate to the Commission that there is a degree of urgency about the matter, so that Greater London will not be left completely alone when a system involving the rest of the country is being gradually worked out. The effect on changes in the Greater London Area will be felt in the neighbouring counties of Essex, Kent, Surrey, and Middlesex. No proper review of these counties can take place until the Royal Commission has reported and the Government have dealt with the Report. So it is important to impress upon the Royal Commission the urgency of reporting as quickly as possible in the interests of all those counties, and something should be done to expedite its work. We remember the length of time the last Royal Commission took to report on London, and no doubt the problem is greater now than it was then.

  1177
  Criticisms have been made about the county councils undertaking the review of county districts. The County Councils Association accept the criticism that many counties did not carry out a proper review on the last occasion, and it is content that the Minister should possess the necessary powers to deal with county councils who do not do the job properly. It is not a bad idea that people who have an intimate knowledge of a particular area should be considered the right people to do something about this matter, provided that they give proper effect to the decisions implicit in the Bill.
  If the Minister would drop Part I of the Bill and consider the problem of the financial relationship between the Exchequer and the local authorities on the basis of a proper system being devised, there might be some possibility of arriving at an agreed Measure. Local authorities do not spend money for the sake of spending it, and they have as great a responsibility as the central Government for the provision of such social services as they are called upon to administer. A system should be devised to obtain a proper balance between local government and central Government expenditure and not devised on the basis of saving the taxpayers' money at the expense of the ratepayer. One may express the hope that such a system will be devised, but I am afraid that it is not very well founded. Under those conditions, I shall be glad to go into the Lobby to vote against Part I of this Bill.
  8.50 p.m.
  Mr. G. R. Mitchison: We have had a debate on the White Papers previously; today, we have had what I can only call a most enlightening debate, in which the whole weight of experience, eloquence and sincere, even emotional, feeling has been on this side and not on the Government side. I have rarely heard a debate in which there was a more obvious difference.
  We were told by the Minister of Housing and Local Government at the beginning of his speech the other day that the one thing to which almost everybody has assented since the war has been the need for Parliament to tackle a comprehensive Measure of reorganisation of local government. At that point, the right hon. Gentleman picked up the Bill rather
  1178
  gingerly, because he has found that Bills bite him sometimes, and held it in his hand. He wobbled it gently to and fro. It was obvious that he was trying to do a little bell-ringing, but the bell had not any clapper and nothing whatever happened. The House was singularly unimpressed.
  I regard the Bill as having one main purpose. I will say a word or two about areas and functions, in Parts II and III. The outstanding thing about areas is that the Local Government Commissions are expected by the Minister to have laid down for them what he called, at one point,
  "basic provisions which are of fundamental importance",
  and at another
  "basic principles, where basic principles are essential."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1957; Vol. 579, c. 906 and 907.]
  The only guidance the Commissions find in the Bill for what they are to do is in the few words
  "…in the interests of effective and convenient local government."
  Those words appear in the White Paper. They were lifted from the Regulations for the Boundary Commission in 1945, where there were many other directions than that. The effect of this part of the Bill is to leave the whole business to the Commissions with practically no guidance at all.
  This provision was referred to by the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) as
  "a flexible idea in my right hon. Friend's mind, when he appointed the Commissions."
  It is reported slightly differently in HANSARD, and without any reference to the right hon. Gentleman's mind. I took the words at the time, and they are what was said.
  It is a remarkably flexible idea; no idea at all, or something so flexible that it has no shape whatever. What is interesting is that the Commissions are to make their proposals, which include the conurbations, or special review areas, if hon. Members prefer that language. Though at the Commission level there will be investigation, consultation, representations and the rest of it, at Ministerial level there will be representations, and a local inquiry unless the Minister is satisfied that he has already been sufficiently

  1179
  informed. That is the case at the lower levels.
  At the Parliamentary level there is only an affirmative Resolution to deal with proposals about conurbations and such other matters. Less important than the conurbations is the disappearance of Rutland. I agree with the comment of the hon. and gallant Member for Rutland and Stamford (Sir R. Conant) that on an affirmative Resolution of that kind it was quite possible that no one but he would be interested.
  I regard this as a most unsatisfactory method particularly as regards conurbations. The Commissions have no guide as to what line they are to take in a matter which is new from this point of view, which is of vital importance to a large part of the population of this country, and upon which they, having done their work, pass the matter on to the Minister. After that, all that comes before the House is an affirmative Resolution, incapable, as always, of amendment of any sort.
  I do not call that Parliamentary control of any effective kind whatever in a matter of this sort. I simply say that that is because the Minister has no idea, as indeed appeared from the White Paper, what sort of directions, what sort of objective, what sort of guidance he ought to give to these local authority Commissions, and he therefore shifts the whole thing on to them and says, I suppose, that this is a new brand of Tory freedom.
  It is not as though the Government always paid attention to the Reports which they get from Commissions. We have seen the Gowers Report. Parts of it went down the drain. We have seen the Wolfenden Report, which is likely to go down the drain. Even the Royal Commission on Divorce has gone down the drain to a large extent, too. What will happen to these local government commissions? No one knows how long they will operate, they have no guidance whatever and, at the end, there is no effective Parliamentary control.
  These directions are specifically directed to conurbations. I quite agree that for some of the smaller tasks there may well be a case for doing that, and indeed it was done with some considerable
  1180
  success, but not in relation to the conurbation problem, by the 1945 Boundary Commission. Indeed, when we come to smaller matters, I agree with what has been said by one of my right hon. Friends and by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) from this Box, that the county councils are not the right bodies to do county reviews. There can be very little doubt about that.
  The history of this matter is that the county councils were given powers under the 1933 Local Government Act and when the Boundary Commission was set up by the Coalition Government, that is to say by a Government which included the predecessors of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, they transferred to the Boundary Commission those powers of review, and they were restored to the county councils when the Boundary Commission was dissolved. Why have the Government changed their minds about it? Particularly, why have they done so when their own account of the history of the matter in Cmd. 9831, paragraphs 49 and 50, is that
  "The extent of this problem varies from county to county."
  It refers to the
  "differing manner in which the county councils carried out their reviews in the years before the war"
  and it points out that although in some counties quite a lot was done, in others there was
  "…strong opposition from interests concerned to maintain the status quo, and the proposals put forward were inadequate."
  They were the pre-war reviews.
  During the period I have mentioned of the Boundary Commission there were, of course, no county reviews and very little indeed, if anything, has been done since the powers of review were restored to the county councils. Why in those circumstances are the county councils to be left to conduct these reviews? To put the matter briefly, they are far too close to the questions which they will have to investigate, and there are plenty of opportunities not only for
  "strong opposition from interests concerned to maintain the status quo",
  but also for conflicts between the interests of the county councils themselves and those county districts with which they will have to deal. I would therefore much

  1181
  sooner have seen those matters dealt with by the Boundary Commission. I repeat that I take no particular objection to the Boundary Commission dealing with the smaller matters. It is the entire absence of authority or direction and the lack of Parliamentary control in this vitally important matter of the conurbations to which I object.
  There is a further argument about this county review business. Under Clause 28 (2) it is quite clear that the county review cannot proceed until the Local Government Commission has dealt with or renounced dealing with the area in question. No one knows—no one can tell us unless, when he replies, the Parliamentary Secretary can—how long the Local Government Commission will take and how it is to function. Therefore, the whole question of county reviews is postponed to a quite indefinite period because of this defect in the machinery. Moreover, if one of the objects of the Bill really was to get rid of some small authorities—there has been a great deal of support for getting rid of small and rather unworkable authorities—why put them right at the end of the queue, as is done by postponing the matter to the Local Government Commission operation?
  About functions I have even less to say. Functions, originally, were quite a formidable list. Now there is delegation of some health and welfare functions and a question about the excepted districts which relates to 55 out of the much larger number of local authorities because they have a population of 60,000 or more or to "special circumstances". In due course we shall have to see what the right hon. Gentleman considers to be "special circumstances", but a great deal of matter that was difficult and objectionable to many local authorities, including the whole question of divisional executives has been dropped or deployed. It is always nice to know that this is another instance of the flexible idea in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. It is so flexible that it has now been compressed to about half of what it was when he first mooted it.
  So much for the less contentious part of the Bill. I now come to the financial provisions. It seems quite incredible that any person endowed with the most elementary common sense can have any doubt whatever but that the object of
  1182
  the block grant is to define and limit the Treasury contribution to certain local authority services of which seven-eighths is for the education service. I find all the rest of this wholly unreal and absolutely unsupported by any evidence or practice, or, indeed, any sense. It is perfectly obvious what has happened. We actually had the Minister of Education telling us that we could not have a block grant—I think that was his phrase—without including the educational expenditure in it. I wonder if he really meant that. Has he forgotten the history of the matter?
  There was a block grant introduced in 1929 and it did not include education. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman why it did not include education. It did not include education because the Board of Education took a very strong line indeed against being included. A Committee was set up under Lord Meston to consider the balance of advantage between percentage grants and block grants. The Committee sat for some time, and it is perfectly clear, from a number of leaks afterwards—I am being topical about this, of course—that the Committee reported strongly in favour of percentage grants and the Government of the day, being a Tory Government, did not publish the Report. The Ministry of Education came out on its own and published the evidence which it had submitted to the Meston Committee. I have it here. The right hon. Gentleman ought to look up some of the archives in his own Ministry before he makes statements such as the one he made today. Here, in Command 2571, the Board of Education Memorandum with regard to the existing grant system, is the evidence which was submitted.
  What made the Ministry change its mind? Has it, indeed, changed its mind? The objections in this Memorandum are just as applicable today as they were then. The objections on educational grounds which induced the Board in those days strongly to oppose the applicant of a block grant, general grant—call it what one will—to education were objections of principle and objections related to the character of the service. Those objections applied then and they prevailed on Lord Meston's Committee and prevented the Tory Government of the day, though the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have liked to do

  1183
  it, from applying the block grant to education. Those objections are just as sound now as they were then.
  I say quite frankly that I do not believe that the Ministry of Education has changed its mind in the least in this matter. I had the impression when the Minister was speaking that, for every educational reason, he would infinitely have preferred a percentage grant, but he had fought and lost a battle with the real author of the Bill, who is neither of the two right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench tonight but is the Chancellor of the Exchequer—or, if they prefer it, the Cabinet as a whole. There is not the faintest doubt that that is what happened.
  I come now to some of the arguments which have been advanced. There have been suggestions of extravagance, suggestions that local authorities have been spending unwisely and might spend more wisely if they had only a fixed amount. That occurred in the White Paper as a criticism of percentage grants, which were called
  "an indiscriminating incentive to further expenditure."
  Commission after Commission has considered this matter and held the directly opposite view. The suggestion is wholly untrue It was supported by no single case, and I am quite certain that, whatever generalisations he may make on the matter when he comes to reply, the Parliamentary Secretary will be entirely unable to substantiate the suggestion that there has been any undue or extravagant expenditure by education authorities as a result of the percentage grant.
  The explanation, after all, is simple enough. The control of the Ministry does not depend only, and will in the future depend not at all, on the form of the grant. It depends on half a hundred other things. It can be varied infinitely. Those who listened to the very well-informed and clear speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. D. Howell) yesterday will find in that speech a complete answer to the suggestion that the reason for removing the percentage grant is to free authorities from controls. I shall come back to that in a moment.
  Next, it is suggested that the block grant proposed will give local authorities
  1184
  greater responsibility and greater freedom. How can one reconcile that suggestion with the argument to which I have just referred? If local authorities in the past have spent too much, showing extravagance and carelessness—whatever the suggestion is—how can it be right to take that as the occasion for giving them greater freedom and greater responsibility?
  The fact of the matter is that their freedom and their responsibility have existed all the time within certain limits and will continue to exist, but restricted as to their expenditure, when the Bill is passed. I shall come also to what that means. When I say that it has existed all the time, surely it is perfectly clear that the proper relationship between the education authorities and the Ministry is that laid down, in plain English and simple terms, in the very opening words of the Education Act, 1944, according to which there is to be
  "the effective execution by local authorities"—
  under the Minister's control and direction—
  "of the national policy for providing a varied and comprehensive educational service in every area."
  Do right hon. and hon. Members opposite not stand by that? That was a Coalition Bill. That was the statement in it of a principle so obvious and so clear that without it the educational progress since then would have been greatly hampered. Is it proposed that there shall no longer be a national policy or that it shall not be carried out on the lines suggested in that Act?
  It is complete nonsense to correlate in any way the question of a percentage grant with the balance, as it were, of authority between the education authorities, on the one hand, and the Ministry, on the other hand, just as it is complete nonsense to correlate it in any way with the particular spending in the past or the responsibility of local authorities on financial matters.
  The fact is that as regards control and as regards the carrying out of a national policy through local authorities, these matters do not come in. Where they do come in is this. It is perfectly obvious that if the Government are stabilising the Treasury's share, they do not mean that they are stabilising it at any higher figure than it is at present. As was said on

  1185
  26th November, 1928, by the late Mr. Arthur Greenwood, when the former block grant was introduced, not in that case including education—this is plain English and it applies now:
  "The block grant is really a Treasury device for saving the money of the taxpayer. If it does not do that, it fails in its purpose."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1928; Vol. 223, c. 114.]
  Surely, right hon. and hon. Members opposite know perfectly well that that is the intention of the Bill and that the victims are the education services and the education authorities throughout the country, because seven-eighths of the expenditure in this general grant is educational expenditure.
  But it is not only expenditure on education. It includes child welfare, health, Part III accommodation—smaller services as a matter of expenditure, but things which represent the most intimate and the most necessary services both from a local and from a national point of view, things which are national responsibilities—as, indeed, is education—and have to be carried out by the local authorities.
  Before I leave the expenditure on education I want to say a word or two about the assurance given by the Minister of Education. He really had a difficult task today and he finally, with a great flourish, produced an assurance. His assurance was that it was no part of the Government's policy to reduce or to freeze—we must take, I think, the present expenditure on education—but to have a proper increase in accordance with Clause 2 of the Bill which, as was pointed out to the Minister in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond), provides that the sole judges of what is and what is not reasonable are the Government themselves. They are to decide what is a proper increase and what is not.
  Mr. A. E. Cooper: Has that not always been the policy, even under a Labour Government? Did not the Labour Minister of Education always have the right to say to a local authority that this or that expenditure should not be incurred?
  Mr. Mitchison: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. That is exactly what I was going to say. What is the value of this assurance? Absolutely
  1186
  nothing. It simply says, in effect, "We are not going to cut it. We are not going to freeze it. We are going to allow development on the lines and to the extent that any Government have always allowed before." It comes to absolutely nothing whatever, and it comes to nothing whatever in a growing service, and that is the point which the right hon. Gentleman did not face.
  During the period 1954–55 to 1957–58—the last year being, of course, a matter of official estimate there has been or will be a general increase of about 50 per cent. in the expenditure upon education in the country. One reason is perfectly obvious, and that is the growing number of children. Another is the passage of the "bulge," as I believe it is usually called, from the primary to the secondary schools.
  Another is the admitted deficiencies at present in the system, the number of schools, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) told us, which are still in use in the rural areas and which ought to have been replaced years ago. It is the deficiencies of the system, the strain upon it, and the realisation that if, after all, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said, we cannot get a sound primary education it will be extremely doubtful whether this country can survive, which make an increase in the expenditure upon education not only large but necessary. I should find it very difficult indeed to believe, if the evidence of this Bill did not show it to me, that even the Tory Party could think of cutting education at the moment. But there we are.
  I am still talking about finance, and there is one other financial matter I want to mention. It will not take more than a moment. There is one other financial provision which reflects—I was going to say on the good faith of the Government but I would rather say on the morals of the Treasury because notoriously it has not got any. That is the increase in the rating of industry, the increase from 25 per cent. to 50 per cent., and the fact that out of £30 million so obtained the Treasury takes £20 million.
  I would point out only one thing—although it hits anyone in the eye. When

  1187
  the concession was made for just about the same amount in respect of shops the result was that the local authorities lost and the Treasury gained, because the shopkeepers were unable to deduct for Income Tax so large an actual payment of rates. The local authorities asked for help from the Treasury. Nothing doing, Now it is the other way round. Something is to be gained for the rates, and the Treasury would lose if nothing were done. "Heads I win, tails you lose." The Treasury is to be indemnified this time and the local authorities can go hang for all it cares. That kind of thing by ordinary citizens, whatever we may say about public authorities, would be a bit doubtful as a bit of business. But there it is, and this from the Government and the party who believes so strongly in helping local authorities—but not when it comes to letting them have any money.
  Mr. Alan Green: Who from?
  Mr. Mitchison: I do not really know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about.
  Mr. Green: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether he believes that the local authorities have any money but the ratepayers' and the taxpayers' money? Does he confuse the ratepayers with the taxpayers or separate them?
  Mr. Mitchison: I am much obliged to the hon. Member. How helpful I find hon. Members opposite. Even after a short visit to the Chamber the hon. Member is able to help me.
  I was about to say that in that respect, as in the far more important respect of the substitution of a block grant for a percentage grant, what we are getting is the transfer of the burden from the taxpayer to the ratepayer. That is the ultimate business. I do not know what the hon. Member's views are about that, and I am sorry to tell him that I am not very interested. I know very definitely what mine are. Taxes are a much better method of levying for revenue than are rates. If one considers their incidence, rates come down on the poor man out of proportion, whereas taxes are, to the best of our wits and knowledge, more or less progressively distributed.
  Mr. Rippon: is the hon. and learned Member therefore suggesting that we ought not to rate industry even 50 per cent.?
  Mr. Mitchison: On the contrary. Surely, the hon. Member does know what I am talking about. It is perfectly clear that industry ought to be fully rerated. The point is that when local authorities would take advantage of the fact, the Treasury takes its whack, two-thirds in this case, and the result is to relieve the taxpayer at the expense of the ratepayer. And such also is the effect of the substitution of a general grant for a percentage grant. They both have the same effect, and rates are a tax which comes down hard on the small householders and the comparatively poor people. Income Tax is a far more progressive tax and therefore a much better one—and that goes for taxation generally as against rates.
  Now I come to the position of local authorities in relation to the whole Bill. The Bill, and the way it has been treated, verges on the fraudulent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If the Minister can talk about immoral arguments I can tell him that his Bill is really fraudulent. The Government have been altogether too smart with the local authorities. Let us look at what has happened. The local authorities have been asked to concede the whole of the Government's case and the whole of the Government's machinery for substituting a block grant for a percentage grant, with the object of stabilising and limiting the Government's contribution towards local expenditure. At the same time, the Bill is presented and it has the priority which has been referred to in the letter written to the County Councils' Association.
  Local authorities do not know how much the block grant will be and how it will be worked out, other than on the principles in the Bill. They do not know, for instance, what the length of the period of the grant is to be. That is left at large. They do not know all kinds of things. They do not know, for example, how local differences will be dealt with under the Bill.
  Again they have been offered this Tory freedom. Tory freedom means, "If you have enough money to do something you are at liberty to do it, and if you have not,

  1189
  you are not." It has just as much application to local authorities as it has to private individuals. This is the power of the purse in relation to local authorities, just as a great many other Measures brought in by the Tory Party have made the power of the purse the effective control over private people's expenditure, too. That is exactly what it is. This is the freedom that the local authorities are to have.
  As to the decontrol which the local authorities are to have, that is a matter which is now under negotiation. We do not know what it will be. We have no doubt that it will amount to something, and so on and so forth, but the net result of this extraordinary proceeding is that the local authorities have been sold the Bill on two complete uncertainties—how much they will get and what, if any, decontrol they will get. And I would not give much for their hopes on either of these two questions.
  I repeat that this is a thoroughly reactionary Bill in its relation to all the expenditure proposed. Its real object is to cut tax expenditure and to put more on the rates. Its object, too, is to attack the education service without incurring the public odium of doing so. That is what these two right hon. Gentlemen between them are responsible for doing.
  Mr. N. Nicolson: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman really believe all that?
  Mr. Mitchison: There is no need to ask that type of question. I do not say things in this House in which I do not believe.
  9.26 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): Although I do not agree with all that has been said by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), we can at least agree that we have had a helpful and, I think, promising debate during the last two days. May I say on behalf of my right hon. Friend and myself how grateful we are that not a single voice has been raised from the benches on this side of the House against any major aspect of the Bill.
  Mr. James Griffiths: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that?
  Mr. Bevins: The right hon. Gentleman invites me to say whether I believe that. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, my right hon. Friend and I have heard practically every speech made in this debate. Although, naturally, in a free party, certain of my hon. Friends have expressed reservations, I repeat that none of my hon. Friends has expressed hostility to the major provisions of the Bill.
  Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the House if I attempt to reply to some of the rather more detailed points that have been raised before I address myself to the terms of the Amendment. I was asked, first, about the special problems of the Principality. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins), supported by the hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George), asked whether it would not be possible to have written into the Bill a provision for a Welsh-speaking member of the Commission for Wales rather than leave this as an undertaking by my right hon. Friend.
  As the House knows, my right hon. Friend has given the assurance that, if at all possible, there will be a bi-lingual member of the Commission, and he adheres to that assurance. At the same time, I do not think that it would be appropriate to write that provision into the Bill.
  Mr. S. O. Davies (Merthyr Tydvil): Why not?
  Mr. Bevins: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Brecon and Radnor thought that the Bill should guarantee the existing boundaries between England and Wales. He quoted the White Paper dealing with the status of local authorities, which reflected the general local authority view that there should be no major change in the English-Welsh boundary, and not even, for that matter, any minor change except where there was local agreement. It certainly is the intention of my right hon. Friend to adopt this approach when considering any proposals which the Commission may make, but it is not a matter which could properly be covered by a veto and prohibition in the Bill itself.
  The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor and the hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen rightly pointed out that special financial problems affected local

  1191
  authorities and the county councils in Wales. They indicated that the costs of local government services generally are higher in the scattered areas of Wales than they are in the United Kingdom as a whole. That, of course, is perfectly true, but I assure them that the factor of dispersion and low population in many areas of Wales is taken into account in the Bill and under existing arrangements.
  There is a factor for low density of population in the general grant, and the rate-deficiency grant provisions, which are still continuing under the present arrangements, provide that if the rate product per head of population is below the national average then that will be made up to the national average through the Rate-deficiency Grant. All the Welsh counties at present are receivers of equalisation grants and I think that all the Welsh counties will continue to be receivers of rate-deficiency grants. The factor for sparsity of population is also increased in the rate-deficiency grant formula and that is a change from the present financial pattern. Therefore, those hon. Members on both sides of the House who sit for Welsh constituencies can feel that the Government have certainly tried to make due allowance for the various authorities in the Principality.
  Several hon. Members thought that the boundaries of the special review areas, the conurbations, had been drawn too narrowly. On the other hand, my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) took the opposite view, that they had been drawn too widely. Obviously, there is room for argument about what the precise areas should be, but the Bill provides machinery whereby those areas may be varied on the initiative of either the Commission itself or my right hon. Friend.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Sir R. Conant) expressed the fear that under the Bill the Commission might conceivably recommend the abolition of a county and there appeared to him to be no obligation on my right hon. Friend to hold a public inquiry in that event. I can assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend would certainly not contemplate asking Parliament to abolish a county without holding a full public inquiry into objections.
  1192
  The right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley), whom we welcome to the arena of local government in the House of Commons, also expressed the fear that there were no powers in the Bill to form a county borough out of an area like Rochester, Chatham and Gillingham taken together. I am advised that the Bill is wide enough to do that as it stands, but if there should prove to be any dubiety on that score we should certainly be prepared to see that that was put right when the Bill comes under more detailed examination at a later stage.
  The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor) inquired yesterday about the stand-still period following a review of county districts by a county council. The position is that after the first review there will be a standstill period of at least ten years in that particular county, corresponding to the standstill of fifteen years in other circumstances.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chester asked whether, under Clause 17 (1), the words:
  "effective …local government"
  could be taken to mean economic and efficient local government. That is precisely what the expression is intended to mean.
  There were also questions asked about functions. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochester and Chatham rather suggested that the original intention was to confer direct services to district councils, but my right hon. Friend has changed his mind and now decided upon delegation. That is not so. For health, welfare and education it is still a matter of delegation. The hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) will be glad to know that local authorities which were excepted districts for the purposes of the Education Act will continue to be excepted districts.
  The hon. Members for Hastings (Mr. Cooper-Key) and Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) urged upon me that seaside towns should receive greater financial consideration, partly because they do not qualify for rate-deficiency grants and partly because many of the seaside resorts now include a large strata of elderly people. The suggestion was that the rate deduction factor in the general grant should be rather less than 12d. This factor can be considered, of course, when

  1193
  the Bill goes to Committee and what the amount should be when my right hon. Friend is drawing up the first general grant order. I ask my hon. Friends to bear in mind that in part the general grant is in substitution of a collection of previous percentage grants and that one of those grants was the percentage grant for education, which included a rate deduction factor of 17d. We are obliged to bear that in mind.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Chelmsford (Mr. Ashton) and for East Grinstead (Mrs. Emmet) put forward the view that the first grant should cover a period of one year instead of two years as proposed in the Bill. One of the main advantages of the general grant is that it provides a stable financial basis for the planned development of services, because each local authority will know in advance, within very narrow limits, what grant it will receive over the next two years. That advantage would be lost if the grant were fixed for a period of only one year ahead.
  I now turn to the terms of the Amendment—
  Mr. Mitchison: I shall not keep the hon. Gentleman long. He has referred to the Committee stage of the Bill. I earnestly hope that the Bill will be taken in the House in Committee. It makes a change of immense importance regarding the block grant. I am reminded that when the 1949 Bill was sent upstairs the hon. Gentleman's party voted against it being sent upstairs. The Boundary Commission Bill, in 1945, was taken on the Floor of the House.
  Mr. Bevins: Whether the Committee stage of the Bill is taken on the Floor of the House or upstairs is not a matter for me. What is a matter for me and my right hon. Friend is to make sure that it secures a Second Reading. It was for that reason that I proposed to examine the Amendment in a little detail.
  First, the Amendment criticises Her Majesty's Government for declining fully to rerate industry. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) and one other hon. Member opposite went rather further, and urged that the derating of agriculture should also be abolished. The right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham observed rather blithely that he
  1194
  saw no reason why industry should not pay full rates. He simply left it at that, without any further argument.
  It really is not quite so simple as all that. The effect of the revaluation of industrial properties on the basis of current values, together with the 50 per cent. rerating proposed in the Bill, would be to increase the proportion of rates paid by industry to about three times what it was before revaluation. If, as the Amendment suggests, we had a complete rerating of 100 per cent., that proportion would rise to about five times what it was before revaluation.
  I frankly concede to hon. Members opposite that there may well be some industries and some firms which could take that added imposition in their stride, but there are others who might find it necessary to take account of that increased imposition in the prices which they charged to the consumers, either here or abroad.
  Mr. A. G. Bottomley: One of my explanations was that they could afford full rating because they could claim tax relief. I gave several other reasons, but to be kind to my hon. Friends I did not develop them.
  Mr. Bevins: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. It is worth while pointing out that although the incidence of rerating of industry would obviously vary from industry to industry and from firm to firm, the industry which would certainly be more affected than others would be that of food manufacturing. There the incidence would inevitably be reflected in the level of prices and the cost of living.
  As the House knows, the Local Government Act, 1948, dealt very largely with valuation for rating, but it did nothing whatever about the rerating either of industry or of agriculture; indeed, when the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), who was in charge of that Measure, was asked why derating was not abolished either in whole or in part at that time, he said that it was too difficult to put the eggs back into the shells then. That was in 1948. At least my right hon. Friend has made an attempt to do that difficult thing. We are certainly not prepared to look at this question of abolishing derating solely within the context of local government reform. We must have regard to its probable economic consequences.
  Mr. John Diamond: The Minister yesterday gave us an undertaking that the hon. Member, in replying, would answer our questions. The question I now wish to ask him is that which I asked his right hon. Friend yesterday. How much is involved? What is the cost of rerating fully, as opposed to 50 per cent., either per £ of sales or in terms of the profit of the industry in question?
  Mr. Bevins: As my right hon. Friend said when he dealt with the hon. Member's intervention yesterday, the percentage which full rerating would bear to industrial costs would vary widely from industry to industry and also from firm to firm. As I said before, the industry which would find complete rerating the biggest burden would be that of food manufacture. It would be such a burden that almost inevitably it would be reflected in prices.
  The Amendment complains that we are not giving the local authorities
  "the full benefit of partial rerating."
  I wish that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite would look at the record, and particularly at the speech of the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland in the debate on the Valuation and Rating Bill, on 21st May, 1953. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman said:
  '… Is anyone simple enough to believe that, if de-rating is done away with, the Exchequer assistance to local authorities will remain wholly unchanged?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st May, 1953; Vol. 515, c. 2369.]
  The right hon. Gentleman's comment on that statement was, "Not at all." I suggest to the House that in putting that phrase in the Amendment right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are either being disingenuous or politically naïve.
  The major criticism of the general grant is that general grants mean reduced grants and, therefore, reduced expenditure on the various services for which local authorities are responsible. What hon. Members opposite are saying is that the total amount of the grant is smaller than the total of the percentage grant which they replace. I consider that to be a fair summary of the arguments advanced by hon. Members opposite. Clause 2, which deals chiefly with the calculation of the grant, imposes a duty on my right hon. Friend to take account of five separate factors. Two of them, the total expenditure of local authorities in the last year and the present level of costs,
  1196
  are not matters of conjecture or speculation. They are matters of ascertainable fact. The remaining three, changes in costs, changes in demand for services and the need to develop the services, can be measured with reasonable accuracy.
  This afternoon my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education dealt with the intentions of his Department about the development of education services. I wish to say a word about future changes in costs, a matter which, I think, is genuinely exercising the minds of hon. Members and others in the country. Yesterday, we were told by the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham that it was quite possible that this grant would be "eroded away by inflation." I feel that a great deal of the hostility to the general grant springs from the fear, sincerely felt in some quarters, that inflation will continue and the extra cost of education and other local government services will fall on the local authorities and not on the Government.
  This fear was voiced in Manchester the other day by the Secretary of the Association of Education Committees. He said that if the block grant was introduced, and the rates of Manchester did not go up, he would return to Manchester and publicly eat his hat. Some people have swallowed so many far-fetched propositions in recent times that they would not have a great deal of difficulty in swallowing their hats. It is a fact that many hon. Members opposite have come to accept inflation as part of the natural order of things—like Income Tax, three-line Whips, and the rest.
  The Leader of the Opposition is an exception to the rule. Speaking recently to a public gathering in Cheshire he used these words:
  "There is reason to believe that the cost of living will now be stabilised."
  We believe that for once in a while the right hon. Gentleman was making an accurate forecast, that the fears of further rises in costs are unfounded and that on this, as on other scores, the opposition to the general grant is misconceived.
  It has been implicit in practically every speech of the Opposition today—it was stated specifically by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart)—that the working of the general grant must cause local authorities to behave parsimoniously. There is no evidence to support that view. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

  1197
  Some hon. Gentleman may feel that that is likely to happen; all I am saying is that there is no evidence as yet to support the view.
  The House may remember what happened during an earlier period when a block grant was in operation. During 1931–39, local government expenditure on rate fund services rose by about 22 per cent. Some of the increase was due to housing expenditure. Hon. Members will recall that a housing drive was in progress at that time and that housing expenditure rose by 31 per cent. during the period. The point to which I would draw the attention of the House is that the expenditure on services which were assisted by specific grants increased by a lesser percentage than the services which had a general Exchequer grant. Education expenditure, helped at that time as it is now by a specific grant, rose by 16 per cent. and police expenditure by 18 per cent. Other services, which were not aided by specific grants, rose by as much as 24 per cent.
  Yesterday, my right hon. Friend referred to the nuisance of the accounting controls which are inseparable from the payment of percentage grants. On more than one occasion local authority associations have brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend and his predecessors the many disadvantages which flow from that system, and how they inevitably result in delays of payments due to local authorities—at least, payments the local authorities thought were due to them—because of disputes over admissibility of particular claims.
  Over and over again it has been alleged in the debate, outside the ranks of Government supporters, that the general grant has not a friend outside this House. If this were true it would be a serious allegation. But is it true? As my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston) very rightly pointed out yesterday, the Urban District Councils' Association has already agreed in principle with the general grant. The Association of Municipal Corporations has agreed to it in principle and so has the County Councils' Association.
  I have read the terms of the Amendment with very great care. Apart from the rerating of industry and retention of percentage grants, what does the party opposite really want? What are its views
  1198
  on areas, conurbation and functions? If it has any views on those vexed questions it has been very clever in concealing them in the last two days. I have been trying to find out.
  The other day I was reading the Labour Party's Local Government Handbook for 1951. In it there is an article entitled "Labour's Impact on Local Government", by a gentleman named Mr. Morgan Phillips. He said:
  "The outstanding political event of this century was the birth of the Labour Party in the year 1900."
  Indeed, it would be ungracious of me to attempt to contradict a statement of that sort coming from such an authority. He went on to say:
  "Ever since that time the Labour Party has always taken a far more genuine interest in local government than any other party."
  All I want to do is to invite the House to consider how the party opposite demonstrated this superior interest in local government when it had the chance. Between 1945 and 1951 it took away from local government many of local government's most cherished functions. In 1948, it introduced the Local Government Bill, which was concerned mainly with rating and valuation, and several of the provisions of that Act affecting valuation were so administratively unworkable—tagging along behind—that it had to be amended by the Government which followed.
  Since the Election of 1951, we have had policy statement after policy statement by the party opposite. In "Challenge to Britain", "Forward with Labour", and all the rest, they say:
  "Labour will investigate the functions and structure of local government …"
  and
  "We shall review local government finance …"
  and
  "All this will take time."
  Is it any wonder that in 1955 when the annual conference of the party opposite took place at Margate—a place so fond to the heart of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering—the first speaker who went to the rostrum to talk about local government had this to say:
  "Once again we are lagging behind. We are waiting for the Tories to put forward their views and we are going to tag along behind."
  That is what the party opposite has been doing during the last two days.
  Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 309, Noes 252.

  Division No. 17.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Erroll, F. J.

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Aitken, W. T.

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

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

  Finlay, Graeme

  Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

  Forrest, G.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

  Ashton, H.

  Fort, R.

  Kaberry, D.

  Astor, Hon. J. J.

  Foster, John

  Keegan, D.

  Atkins, H. E.

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  Kerby, Capt. H. B.

  Baldook, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

  Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Freeth, Denzil

  Kershaw, J. A.

  Balniel, Lord

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Kimball, M.

  Barber, Anthony

  Gammans, Lady

  Kirk, P. M.

  Barlow, Sir John

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Lagden, G. W.

  Barter, John

  George, J. C. (Pollok)

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Baxter, Sir Beverley

  Gibson-Watt, D.

  Lambton, Viscount

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Glover, D.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Glyn, Col. R.

  Langford-Hott, J. A.

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Godber, J. B.

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

  Leavey, J. A.

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Leburn, W. G.

  Bidgood, J. C.

  Gough, C. F. H.

  Legge Bourke, Maj. E A. H.

  Biggs-Davison, J. A.

  Gower, H. R.

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

  Bingham, R. M.

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Lennox Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Grant, W. (Woodside)

  Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

  Bishop, F. P.

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

  Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

  Black, C. W.

  Green, A.

  Linstead, Sir H. N.

  Body, R. F.

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Llewellyn, D. T.

  Boothby, Sir Robert

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

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

  Bossom, Sir Alfred

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

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

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

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Gurden, Harold

  Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

  Braine, B. R.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

  Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

  Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

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

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  McAdden, S. J.

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

  Macdonald, Sir Peter

  Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

  Bryan, P.

  Harvey, Sir Arthur (Macclesfd)

  McKibbin, A. J.

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

  Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Harvie-Watt, Sir George

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Hay, John

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)

  Campbell, Sir David

  Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Carr, Robert

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

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

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Channon, Sir Henry

  Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hesketh, R. F.

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston

  Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

  Maddan, Martin

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Hill, Rt. Hon Charles (Luton)

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

  Cole, Norman

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

  Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

  Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Cooke, Robert

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n)

  Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Marshall, Douglas

  Corfield, Capt. F. V.

  Hope, Lord John

  Mathew, R.

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Hornby, R. P.

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

  Mawby, R. L.

  Crowder, Petre (Ruislip-Northwood)

  Horobin, Sir Ian

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

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

  Medlicott, Sir Frank

  Dance, J. C. G.

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

  Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Howard, John (Test)

  Moore, Sir Thomas

  Deedes, W. F.

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

  Mott Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

  Hurd, A. R.

  Neave, Airey

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)

  Nicholls, Harmar

  Drayson, G. B.

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

  Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

  du Cann, E. D. L.

  Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

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

  Duncan, Sir James

  Hyde, Montgomery

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Duthie, W. S.

  Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.

  Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Elliott, R. W. (N'castleuponTyne, N.)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

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

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

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

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

  Osborne, C.

  Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Partridge, E.

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

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

  Peel, W. J.

  Sharples, R. C.

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  Shepherd, William

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

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

  Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Soames, Christopher

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Pitman, I. J.

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Pitt, Miss E. M.

  Speir, R. M.

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Pott, H. P.

  Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

  Powell, J. Enoch

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

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig, O. L.

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

  Profumo, J. D.

  Steward, Sir William (Woolwich W.)

  Wall, Major Patrick

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)

  Redmayne, M.

  Storey, S.

  Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

  Webbe, Sir H.

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Whitelaw, W. S. I.

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Ridsdale, J. E.

  Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Rippon, A. G. F.

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Wood, Hon. R.

  Robertson, Sir David

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Woollam, John Victor

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Teeling, W.

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Temple, John M.

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Russell, R. S.

  Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

  Mr. Oakshott and Mr. Wills.

  NOES

  Ainsley, J. W.

  Donnelly, D. L.

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Albu, A. H.

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

  Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Dye, S.

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

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Edelman, M.

  Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

  Anderson, Frank

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Baird, J.

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Kenyon, C.

  Balfour, A.

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

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

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  King, Dr. H. M.

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

  Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

  Lawson, G. M.

  Benson, G.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Ledger, R. J.

  Beswick, Frank

  Fienburgh, W.

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Blackburn, F.

  Finch, H. J.

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Fletcher, Eric

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Blyton, W. R.

  Foot, D. M.

  Lewis, Arthur

  Boardman, H.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

  Lipton, Marcus

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

  Gibson, C. W.

  Logan, D. G.

  Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

  Gooch, E. G.

  MacColl, J. E.

  Bowles, F. G.

  Greenwood, Anthony

  MacDermot, Niall

  Boyd, T. C.

  Grey, C. F.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  McGovern, J.

  Brockway, A. F.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  McInnes, J.

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  McLeavy, Frank

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Hamilton, W. W.

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Burke, W. A.

  Hannan, W.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

  Mahon, Simon

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Hastings, S.

  Mallalieu E. L. (Brigg)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hayman, F. H.

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

  Callaghan, L. J.

  Healey, Denis

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

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

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Champion, A. J.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Mason, Roy

  Chapman, W. D.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Clunie, J.

  Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Coldrick, W.

  Holman, P.

  Messer, Sir F.

  Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

  Holmes, Horace

  Mikardo, Ian

  Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

  Holt, A. F.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

  Moody, A. S.

  Cove, W. G.

  Howell, Denis (All Saints)

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  Craddook, George (Bradford, S.)

  Hoy, J. H.

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

  Cronin, J. D.

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Mort, D. L.

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Moss, R.

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Hunter, A. E.

  Moyle, A.

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Mulley, F. W.

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. C. A.

  O'Brien, Sir Thomas

  Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

  Janner, B.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Deer, G.

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

  Oram, A. E.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Orbach, M.

  Diamond, John

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

  Oswald, T.

  Dodds, N. N.

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Owen, W. J.

  1202

  1203

  Padley, W. E.

  Royle, C.

  Usborne, H. C.

  Paget, R. T.

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Viant, S. P.

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

  Short, E. W.

  Wade, D. W.

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Shurmer, P. L. E.

  Warbey, W. N.

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Watkins, T. E.

  Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Weitzman, D.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Parker, J.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Parkin, B. T.

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

  West, D. G.

  Paton, John

  Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Peart, T. F.

  Smith Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Film)

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Snow, J. W.

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Prentice, R. E.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Wigg, George

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Sparks, J. A.

  Wilcook, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Probert, A. R.

  Steele, T.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Willey, Frederick

  Pryde, D. J.

  Stonehouse, John

  Williams, Rev. Llwelyn (Ab'tillery)

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Stones, W. (Consett)

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Randall, H. E.

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Rankin, John

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

  Willis, Eustace, (Edinburgh, E.)

  Redhead, E. C.

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Reeves, J.

  Swingler, S. T.

  Winterbottom, Richard

  Reid, William

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Rhodes, H.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Woof, R. E.

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. A.

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Yates, W. (Ladywood)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Zilliacus, K.

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Thornton, E.

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Tomney, F.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Ross, William

  Ungoed Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Pearson

  Bill read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Bowden.]
  The House divided: Ayes 251, Noes 308.

  Division No. 18.]

  AYES

  [10.12 p.m.

  Ainsley, J. W.

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

  Albu, A. H.

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  Holman, P.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

  Holmes, Horace

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  Holt, A. F.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

  Anderson, Frank

  Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

  Howell, Denis (All Saints)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Deer, G.

  Hoy, J. H.

  Baird, J.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Balfour, A.

  Diamond, John

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

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

  Dodds, N. N.

  Hunter, A. E.

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

  Donnelly, D. L.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Benson, G.

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

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Beswick, Frank

  Dye, S.

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Blackburn, F.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Edelman, M.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

  Janner, B.

  Boardman, H.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Nees (Caerphilly)

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

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Jeger, George (Goole)

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

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

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

  Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Bowles, F. G.

  Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Boyd, T. C.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Fienburgh, W.

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

  Brockway, A. F.

  Finch, H. J.

  Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Fletcher, Eric

  Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Foot, D. M.

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Burke, W. A.

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

  Kenyon, C.

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Gibson, C. W.

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Gooch, E. C.

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Kirk, P. M.

  Callaghan, L. J.

  Grey, C. F.

  Lawson, G. M.

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Ledger, R. J.

  Champion, A. J.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Chapman, W. D.

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Clunie, J.

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Coldrick, W.

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Lewis, Arthur

  Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

  Hannan, W.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

  Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Hastings, S.

  Logan, D. G.

  Cove, W. G.

  Hayman, F. H.

  MacColl, J. E.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Healey, Denis

  MacDermot, Niall

  Cronin, J. D.

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

  McGhee, H. G.

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  McGovern, J.

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  McInnes, J.

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Paton, John

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

  McLeavy, Frank

  Peart, T. F.

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Swingler, S. T.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Popplewell, E.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Mahon, Simon

  Prentice, R. E.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Mallalieu E. L. (Brigg)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

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

  Probert, A. R.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  Proctor, W. T.

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Pryde, D. J.

  Thornton, E.

  Mason, Roy

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Tomney, F.

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Randall, H. E.

  Ungoed-Thomas, sir Lynn

  Mellish, R. J.

  Rankin, John

  Usborne, H. C.

  Messer, Sir F.

  Redhead, E. C.

  Viant, S. P.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Reeves, J.

  Wade, D. W.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Reid, William

  Warbey, W. N.

  Moody, A. S.

  Rhodes, H.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

  Weitzman, D.

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

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Mort, D. L.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  West, D. G.

  Moss, R.

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Moyle, A.

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Mulley, F. W.

  Ross, William

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Royle, C.

  Wigg, George

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)

  Short, E. W.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  O'Brien, Sir Thomas

  Shurmer, P. L. E.

  Willey, Frederick

  Oliver, G. H.

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Williams, Rev. Llwelyn (Ab'tillery)

  Oram, A. E.

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Orbach, M.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Oswald, T.

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

  Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

  Owen, W. J.

  Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Padley, W. E.

  Smith Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Winterbottom, Richard

  Paget, R. T.

  Snow, J. W.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

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

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Woof, R. E.

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Sparks, J. A.

  Yates, W. (Ladywood)

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Steele, T.

  Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Zilliacus, K.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Stonehouse, John

  Parker, J.

  Stones, W. (Consett)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Parkin, B. T.

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

  Mr. Pearson and Simmons.

  NOES

  Agnew, Sir Peter

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

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  Aitken, W. T.

  Campbell, Sir David

  Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

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

  Carr, Robert

  Freeth, Denzil

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Channon, Sir Henry

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Gammans, Lady

  Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Ashton, H.

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  George, J. C. (Pollok)

  Astor, Hon. J. J.

  Cole, Norman

  Gibson-Watt, D.

  Atkins, H. E.

  Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

  Glover, D.

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

  Cooke, Robert

  Glyn, Col. R.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Cooper, A. E.

  Godber, J. B.

  Balniel, Lord

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

  Barber, Anthony

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Barlow, Sir John

  Corfield, Capt. F. V.

  Gough, C. F. H.

  Barter, John

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Gower, H. R.

  Baxter, Sir Beverley

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

  Grant, W. (Woodside)

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Currie, G. B. H.

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

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Dance, J. C. G.

  Green, A.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Bidgood, J. C.

  Deedes, W. F.

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Biggs-Davidson, J. A.

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. C.

  Bingham, R. M.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Gurdon, Harold

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Bishop, F. P.

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

  Black, C. W.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Body, R. F.

  du Cann, E. D. L.

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Boothby, Sir Robert

  Duncan, Sir James

  Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

  Bossom, Sir Alfred

  Duthie, W. S.

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

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

  Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

  Harvey, Sir Arthur (Macclesfd)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Elliott, R. W. (N'castle upon Tyne, N.)

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

  Braine, B. R.

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Harvie-Watt, Sir George

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

  Erroll, F. J.

  Hay, John

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Finlay, Graeme

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

  Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Bryan, P.

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Forrest, G.

  Hesketh, R. F.

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Fort, R.

  Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Foster, John

  Hill, Rt. Hon Charles (Luton)

  1206

  1207

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  McAdden, S. J.

  Ridsdale, J. E.

  Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

  Macdonald, Sir Peter

  Rippon, A. G. F.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

  Robertson, Sir David

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  McKibbin, A. J.

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n)

  Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Hope, Lord John

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Russell, R. S.

  Hornby, R. P.

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Horobin, Sir Ian

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

  Sharples, R. C.

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Shepherd, William

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

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

  Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

  Howard, John (Test)

  Maddan, Martin

  Soames, Christopher

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

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

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

  Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

  Speir, R. M.

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Hurd, A. R.

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

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

  Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)

  Marlowe, A. A H.

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

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

  Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

  Marshall, Douglas

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Hyde, Montgomery

  Mathew, R.

  Steward, Sir William (Woolwich W.)

  Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Mawby, R. L.

  Storey, S.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

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

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Medlicott, Sir Frank

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

  Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Moore, Sir Thomas

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Teeling, W.

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Temple, John M.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. sir Lancelot

  Neave, Airey

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Kaberry, D.

  Nicholls, Harmar

  Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

  Keegan, D.

  Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Kerby, Capt. H. B.

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

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

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

  Kershaw, J. A.

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

  Kimball, M.

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

  Kirk, P. M.

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

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Lagden, G. W.

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

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Osborne, C.

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Lambton, Viscount

  Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Lancaster, Col. C. C.

  Partridge, E.

  Vaughan Morgan, J. K.

  Langford-Holt, J. A.

  Peel, W. J.

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  Vosper, R. Hon. D. F.

  Leavey, J. A.

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

  Leburn, W. G.

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

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

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Wall, Major Patrick

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

  Pitman, I. J.

  Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)

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

  Pitt, Miss E. M.

  Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

  Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

  Pott, H. P.

  Webbe, Sir H.

  Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Whitelaw, W. S. I.

  Linstead, Sir H. N.

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Llewellyn, D. T.

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

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

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

  Wood, Hon. R.

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

  Profumo, J. D.

  Woollam, John Victor

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.

  Redmayne, M

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Mr. Oakshott and Mr. Wills.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT [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 make further provision with respect to grants to local or police authorities, rating, changing the area, status and functions of local authorities, and other matters, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

  (a) the expenses of the Minister of Housing and Local Government incurred in paying general grants under the said Act,

  (b) any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under Part I of the Local Government Act, 1948, or under the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1954, as amended by the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956.

  (c) any expenses of the Minister of Health incurred in the exercise of default powers conferred by the said Act of the present Session,

  (d) the expenses of any Minister incurred under the said Act in the payment of compensation for loss of employment or diminution of emoluments,

  (e) any administrative expenses incurred under the said Act by any Minister,

  (f) the expenses of the Local Government Commissions established under the said Act, and the salaries, fees and allowances of their members, secretaries, officers and servants.—[Mr Bevins.]

  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow.

  LAND DRAINAGE (SCOTLAND) [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 make provision with respect to the drainage of agricultural land in Scotland, it is expedient to authorise:—

  A. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred under the said Act by the Secretary of State—

  (i) in making grants towards any expenditure incurred by persons empowered by
  1210
  an order made under the said Act by the Secretary of State to execute works specified in such order, being grants amounting to not more than one half of such expenditure so far as approved by the Secretary of State as having been reasonably incurred for the purpose of, or in the course of, the discharge by the said persons of their functions under such order or the said Act other than expenditure incurred for the purpose of, or in the course of, maintaining any works executed in pursuance of the order;

  (ii) in executing or maintaining any works specified in such an order;

  (iii) which are administrative expenses.

  B. The payment into the Exchequer of any sums received tinder the said Act by the Secretary of State.—[Mr. Maclay.]

  10.21 p.m.
  The Chairman: Mr. Fraser.
  Mr. Thomas Fraser: I do not know whether you have called me, Sir Charles, to move the Amendment on the Order Paper, in line 2, to leave out "agricultural."
  The Chairman: It is out of order. It raises the charge.
  Mr. Fraser: In the circumstances, I am obliged to ask the Secretary of State whether he will take this Money Resolution back and reconsider it. Clearly, it does not commit him to do what he wishes to do in terms of the Land Drainage (Scotland) Bill. Concluding our Second Reading debate in the Scottish Grand Committee on Thursday last, the Joint Under-Secretary said:
  "It is quite true that there may be cases where nothing very useful can be done unless the works start from the mouth of the river."
  That was said by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee during the debate, which lasted two forenoons. The Joint Under-Secretary went on to say:
  "We cannot contemplate making improvement orders to enable groups of owners to solve their own immediate problems by increasing the problems of others. I hope that that relieves the anxiety of my hon. and gallant Friend."
  He was referring to the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan)—
  "In some cases the difficulty may be overcome by the provision in this Bill for the carrying out of protective works to prevent damage to other land."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 5th December, 1957, c. 80.]
  Other land means land other than agricultural land—
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay)The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay) indicated dissent.
  Mr. Fraser: I see the Minister is dissenting, but I gave examples, as did other hon. Members, of damage caused to land other than agricultural land, down river from areas that might be dealt with under the provisions of the Bill.
  I have ascertained that the county councils are willing to make a contribution from rates for the protection of river banks for the avoidance of flooding to agricultural land and to other land. All I am asking is that this Committee will not pass a Money Resolution tonight which will prevent us from having land drainage legislation that gives us anything like comparable protection to that enjoyed in England and Wales. We want to enlarge this Bill to take account of some of the recommendations made by the Duncan Committee when it reported in 1950. As I see it, we shall be prevented from amending the Bill in the way that every hon. Member on both sides of the House who spoke in the Second Reading debate wanted to see it amended.
  I would have thought that the Secretary of State would want to keep the promise made by the Joint Under-Secretary in winding up the debate the other day. I would have thought that he would want to make it possible to have those works carried out for the avoidance of flooding from the river mouth upwards. That can only be done if we protect land other than agricultural land.
  I could give many examples, but I will not do so tonight, as the hour is late. I beg the Secretary of State to take this Money Resolution back. We were assured only last week by the Lord Privy Seal that it was the policy of the Government to draw Money Resolutions wide enough to allow us to make reasonable Amendments. This is the first Measure since then, but we find that the Money Resolution is so tightly drawn that Amendments to the Bill will not be possible, Amendments referred to in the course of the Second Reading debate by every hon. Member on the Government side of the House who participated in our discussions.
  We had a unanimous recommendation from the Duncan Committee on this
  1212
  matter in 1950. More than 20 hon. Members spoke in the debate and all, except the Secretary of State and his Joint Under-Secretary, wanted this Bill to give effect to the recommendations of the Duncan Committee. I ascertained at the week-end that the county councils in Scotland are willing to make their contribution to enable those recommendations to be given effect. Therefore, I beg the Secretary of State to take back this Money Resolution tonight and give us another one which will enable us to make a Bill of which Scotland can be proud.
  10.30 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I have followed as closely as I could the argument of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and have looked again at the words used by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland in the recent debate, but, as far as I can judge at this short notice, what my hon. Friend said about other lands and about powers given under the Money Resolution is strictly correct.
  I would add only this, because I am very anxious not to trespass beyond the bounds of proper order on a Money Resolution. I have said, and so has my hon. Friend, that we realise that the Bill does not do a great deal to meet the full recommendations of the Duncan Committee. I have explained, and my hon. Friend has explained, the reasons why we cannot go further, and I would suggest that the Bill is a great deal better than no Bill at all. It makes real progress and gives a substantial advantage.
  The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) laughs, but the argument which we have had on this in another place would imply that we ought to take the thing away and drown it. The fact is that we have a useful Bill which can be a very real advantage within the terms of the Money Resolution to the improvement of agricultural land in Scotland.
  I assure the hon. Member for Hamilton that within the scope and purpose of the Land Drainage (Scotland) Bill the Money Resolution is sufficiently widely drawn and drawn in full consciousness of what the Lord Privy Seal said last week about Money Resolutions and what I myself said about them. It is drawn within the

  1213
  deliberate scope and purpose of the Bill for enabling proper discussion to take place, and I sincerely hope that the Committee will give unanimous approval to the Money Resolution in the full knowledge that if it does not it will be implying that we ought not to do something which both the Scottish landowners and the National Farmers' Union have both agreed is very well worth doing. Therefore, I sincerely hope that we shall get the Money Resolution in its present form.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question raised by my hon. Friend? Will he tell the Committee where it permits money to be spent on these other works not within the scheme area?
  Mr. Maclay: This was all very fully explained before. I could not, within the bounds of order, go through what was said before. It was made very clear that protective works which might prove to be necessary arising out of schemes could be part of the schemes, and that would be land other than the land included in the schemes. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will realise that that is completely correct.
  Mr. William Ross: It seems very difficult to ask us to accept the explanation given by the Minister, who tells us that all the purposes for which we wish an extension of the Money Resolution are covered by the present Resolution.
  Mr. Maclay: I did not say that.
  Mr. Ross: There will be plenty of time for the right hon. Gentleman to reply later.
  In view of the fact that our original Amendment was ruled out of order because it would raise the charge, I find it very difficult to believe what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. I do not see how we can possibly accept the Money Resolution as it stands in view of the speeches made by every Conservative Member in the Scottish Grand Committee.
  I think I am right in saying that in the closing remarks of his speech the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland)—I am quoting from memory—said that unless we have such power to amend the Bill it makes idiotic nonsense. In other words, the Bill will do little or
  1214
  nothing unless we have the power to extend it to land other than agricultural land.
  The right hon. Gentleman has just told us that people will be able to build protective works and get grants for them. He has not explained that at present everything is tied by this Money Resolution to the fact that the benefit must accrue to the agricultural area. It is to be for the benefit of the agricultural area, otherwise it is not done at all. To suggest that we do not need this kind of thing is utter nonsense. I am wondering whether the Minister knows his own Bill; we shall probably find out on Tuesday, 17th December.
  Will the Minister explain the meaning of lines 10 and 11 of the Money Resolution. I will give him time to read it—or I will read it out myself. It says:
  "for the purpose of, or in the course of, the discharge by the said persons of their functions under such order or the said Act other than expenditure incurred …"
  What does the second "or" mean? Does it mean "of"? Is this another example of the slovenly drafting we are now getting so used to from the Scottish Office, or is it the Treasury that is to blame? Can the Minister explain what those lines mean, and what the word "or" means; and what function it performs?
  Further, it refers to expenditure
  "other than expenditure incurred for the purpose of, or in the course of, maintaining any works executed in pursuance of the order …"
  and then, in paragraph A (ii), to
  "executing or maintaining any works specified in such an order …"
  What is the difference between the two things? Why does one have to be specifically provided for and the other not provided for?
  I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give me ready and intelligible replies to those three small questions.
  Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member has asked me to give some explanations, and his first question concerned the word "or". I should have thought that it would have been clear to anyone reading the Money Resolution. It says:
  "the discharge by the said persons of their functions under such order or the said Act …"

  1215
  I cannot put it any more clearly than that, and I do not see what is puzzling the hon. Member. It is perfectly good English, and perfectly well expressed.
  Mr. Ross: Nothing can be done under the Act without an Order—and we cannot have an Order without the Act. Why are the two things necessary?
  Mr. Maclay: For the purpose of absolute clarity. I have every confidence in the ability of the parliamentary draftsmen to make an important point absolutely clear.
  If the hon. Member wants to know precisely what the Money Resolution does, I can tell him that it authorises the payment of
  "any expenses incurred under the said Act by the Secretary of State … in making grants"
  in respect of the costs incurred by authorised persons in discharging their functions in executing or maintaining any works specified in the order made under the Bill. That is absolutely clear. Secondly, the Minister can exercise his default powers in regard to executing or maintaining any works specified in such an Order in certain circumstances.
  Thirdly, in regard to administrative expenses, if the hon. Member would carefully study the Resolution, and what I have said, I am certain that he would agree that it is an admirably drawn and clear Resolution.
  Mr. Ross: Paragraph A (i) provides that money may be paid for particular purposes
  "other than expenditure incurred for the purpose of, or in the course of, maintaining any works executed in pursuance of the order …"
  But paragraph A (ii) says that money may be provided by Parliament for
  "any expenses incurred …in executing or maintaining any works specified in such an order…"
  The two provisions contradict each other. We are entitled to a clear explanation of these two points.
  Mr. Maclay: I am always willing to be as helpful to the hon. Member as I can, in his difficulties. I am saying that the explanation I have given of what the Money Resolution does is absolutely
  1216
  accurate, and that the way in which it is drafted is obviously a necessity of parliamentary draftsmanship. If the hon. Member will study it I think that he will find that it is as clear as it can possibly be.
  Mr. Douglas Johnston: May I put three questions to the Secretary of State? First, is it his understanding of this Money Resolution that it is competent under this Bill to make grants for drainage of any land? Secondly, is it competent to make grants only for the drainage of agricultural land? Thirdly, is it competent to make grants for agricultural land and any expenditure consequent on the drainage of agricultural land? If there is any doubt about the answer, will the Secretary of State undertake to bring in the necessary Amendment or new Resolution? I ask that because he is not the ultimate authority upon what this Resolution means. The ultimate authority is the Chairman.
  Mr. Willis: I think that we should have an answer from the Secretary of State about the important contradiction pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). Under paragraph A (i) we are excluded from voting money for the purpose of maintaining works executed in pursuance of an Order. But under paragraph A (ii) it becomes admissible to give money for that purpose. The right hon. Gentleman might answer that by giving a reply to this question. If we put down an Amendment to the effect that grants should be made for the maintenance carried out in connection with any of these schemes, would that be in order under the Resolution?
  Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member has asked an hypothetical question which far be it from me to answer and thus presume on the proper functions of the Chair.
  The hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) asked whether this Measure was confined to agricultural land and gave three possibilities. The purpose of the Bill, and the Money Resolution relating to it, is to deal with agricultural land. It also covers consequential work in the prevention of difficulties in relation to a scheme which must be for the benefit of agricultural land.
  Mr. T. Fraser: You, Sir Charles, have given us more advice than has the Secretary of State. You said that my Amendment was not acceptable to the Chair, because it would increase the charge. You have made it perfectly clear that we cannot amend this Bill to extend its provisions to land other than agricultural land. The Secretary of State was not
  specific, but you have made the position clear. I call on hon. Members opposite who spoke against the Bill on Second Reading to support us in the Division Lobby.
  Question put:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 197, Noes 160.

  Division No. 19.]

  AYES

  [10.44 p.m.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Medlicott, Sir Frank

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

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Gurden, Harold

  Moore, Sir Thomas

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Nabarro, C. D. N.

  Ashton, H.

  Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

  Neave, Airey

  Atkins, H. E.

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Nicholls, Harmar

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

  Harvey, Sir Arthur (Macclesfd)

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

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Balniel, Lord

  Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Barber, Anthony

  Heald, Rt. Hon, Sir Lionel

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.

  Barlow, Sir John

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

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Barter, John

  Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

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

  Baxter, Sir Beverley

  Hesketh, R. F.

  Osborne, C.

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

  Partridge, E.

  Bidgood, J. C.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Peel, W. J.

  Biggs-Davison, J. A.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Bingham, R. M.

  Hobson, John (Warwick& Leam'gt'n)

  Pitman, I. J.

  Bishop, F. P.

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Pitt, Miss E. M.

  Body, R. F.

  Hope, Lord John

  Pott, H. P.

  Bossom, Sir Alfred

  Hornby, R. P.

  Powell, J. Enoch

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

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

  Profumo, J. D.

  Braine, B. R.

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Redmayne, M.

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

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)

  Rippon, A. G. F.

  Channon, Sir Henry

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

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hyde, Montgomery

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston

  Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

  Sharples, R. C.

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Shepherd, William

  Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Speir, R. M.

  Cooke, Robert

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Cooper, A. E.

  Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Kaberry, D.

  Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

  Corfield, Capt. F. V.

  Keegan, D.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Kershaw, J. A.

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Kimball, M.

  Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

  Dance, J. C. G.

  Kirk, P. M.

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Deedes, W. F.

  Langford-Holt, J. A.

  Teeling, W.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Leavey, J. A.

  Temple, John M.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

  Leburn, W. G.

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

  Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

  du Cann, E. D. L.

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

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Duncan, Sir James

  Linstead, Sir H. N.

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

  Elliott, R. W. (N'castle upon Tyne, N.)

  Llewellyn, D. T.

  Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

  Errington, Sir Eric

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

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Finlay, Graeme

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Forrest, G.

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Macdonald, Sir Peter

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

  Gammans, Lady

  Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  George, J. C. (Pollok)

  McKibbin, Alan

  Wall, Major Patrick

  Gibson-Watt, D.

  Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)

  Glyn, Col. Richard H.

  McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

  Webbe, Sir H.

  Godber, J. B.

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Whitelaw, W. S. I.

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

  Gower, H. R.

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Woollam, John Victor

  Grant, W. (Woodside)

  Maddan, Martin

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

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

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Green, A.

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Mathew, R.

  Mr. Brooman-White and

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Mawby, R. L.

  Mr. Hughes-Young.

  NOES

  Ainsley, J. W.

  Howell, Denis (All Saints)

  Peart, T. F.

  Albu, A. H.

  Hoy, J. H.

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Popplewell, E.

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Prentice, R. E.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Hunter, A. E.

  Probert, A. R.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Pryde, D. J.

  Baird, J.

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Randall, H. E.

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

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Redhead, E. C.

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

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

  Rhodes, H.

  Beswick, Frank

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Blackburn, F.

  Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Blyton, W. R.

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

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

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

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Ross, William

  Bowles, F. G.

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Short, E. W.

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Kenyon, C

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Brockway, A. F.

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Lawson, G. M.

  Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Burke, W. A.

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

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

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

  Callaghan, L. J.

  Logan, D. G.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Cattle, Mrs. B. A.

  MacColl, J. E.

  Snow, J. W.

  Champion, A. J.

  MacDermot, Niall

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Clunie, J.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Steele, T.

  Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

  McGovern, J.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  McInnes, J.

  Stonehouse, John

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Stones, W. (Consett)

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

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

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Mahon, Simon

  Swingler, S. T.

  Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Deer, C.

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

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Diamond, John

  Mason, Roy

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Mellish, R. J

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Thornton, E.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Fernyhough, E.

  Moody, A. S.

  Usborne, H. C

  Finch, H. J.

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  Watkins, T. E.

  Fletcher, Eric

  Moss, R.

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Mulley, F. W.

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Gibson, C. W.

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Grey, C. F.

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Wigg, George

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  O'Brien, Sir Thomas

  Willey, Frederick

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Oram, A. E.

  Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Orbach, M.

  Winterbottom, Richard

  Hannan, W.

  Oswald, T.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

  Paget, R. T.

  Woof, R. E.

  Hastings, S.

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

  Yates, V. (Ladywood)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Zilliacus, K.

  Healey, Denis

  Palmer, A. M. F

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

  Parker, J.

  Mr. J. T. Price and Mr. Wilkins.

  Holmes, Horace

  Parkin, B. T.

  Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

  Pearson, A.

  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow.

  TRANSPORT (CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEES)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Oakshott.]
  10.53 p.m.
  Mr. Julian Snow: I desire to raise tonight the question of the transport consultative committees, which were established originally under the 1947 Transport Act. Before getting on to the main argument, I should like to make it clear that I have no desire to "have a go" at British Railways or at the area consultative committees or the Central Consultative Committee. This matter arises out of certain correspondence which the Parliamentary Secretary knows I had with the Minister earlier in the year and correspondence which I had with the West Midlands Area Consultative Committee.
  I am convinced that these area consultative committees and the governing body, the Central Consultative Committee, are vitally essential both from the point of view of the British Transport Commission and the point of views of users, whether trade or passenger users. I assume that the rôle of these committees remains as it was originally established under Section 6 of the Transport Act, that is to say, to make recommendations to the Minister or to consider matters referred to them by the Transport Commission or the Minister.
  I am beginning to wonder whether, in the light of experience, the rôle of these consultative committees should not be changed from one of acting as an advisory body to the Minister and the Commission to one of acting as watch-dog on behalf of the users. I understand that such a change in rôle would be quite in order, should the Minister see fit to accept it, as a matter to be dealt with by Order.
  It seems to me that, broadly speaking, the activities of the consultative committees are concentrated on the industrial and commercial aspects of transport and, to a much lesser degree, are devoted to the interests of the passengers. One of the things which I find rather remarkable, though I suppose it stems from the original Act, is that, whereas the reports of the Central Consultative Committee are
  1222
  published and placed before Parliament, and, in the same way, the reports of the Scottish and Welsh Transport Users' Consultative Committees are published and placed before Parliament, the reports of the area consultative committees are not so published. In fact, they are embodied in the general report submitted to the Minister by the Central Transport Consultative Committee.
  Why should this be so? I can understand that, on grounds of—if I may use the expression without offence—regional sentiment, there should be separate committees for Scotland and Wales, but, economically speaking, there seems to be no justification for separate reports not being published by the area committees, by, for instance, the area committee responsible for the West Midlands. The economic potential of the West Midlands is certainly as large as that of Scotland, and it is a great deal larger than that of most other areas of the country.
  I fully accept that it would be wrong to suggest that the area consultative committees should usurp the function of the British Transport Commission in dealing with day-to-day administration, but I wonder exactly what scrutiny is given by the consultative committees to the evidence from frustrated users and to the incidence of categorical complaints. I fully realise also that these area committees are made up of part-time people appointed by the Minister because of their experience, and they have a very small staff. But, at the same time, if their job is not a useful job at present—and I shall hope to provide some evidence about that—and if their rôle could be improved and made more important, the cost of additional staff, in my judgment, would be quite trivial.
  There seems to be a widespread view that these area committees are somewhat ineffectual and very remote. In support of that view, I should like to quote from paragraph 49 of the Report of the Central Transport Consultative Committee for 1956, which, in part, reads:
  "We still feel that the travelling public do not yet sufficiently appreciate that by virtue of Section 6 of the Transport Act, 1947, the Consultative Committees were set up to receive representations from transport users and to make recommendations on any matter, including charges, affecting the services and facilities provided by the British Transport Commission…"

  1223
  If there is this misgiving on the part of the Central Committee, what must be the feelings of the ordinary travelling public?
  I emphasise again that it would be wrong continually to criticise British Railways for the quality of their service or for the efforts they are making towards providing better service. It is fashionable to cite in support of criticism of British Railways what is done on the Continent, notably in France. Whereas I have great admiration for the French State railway system and other nationalised systems, nevertheless the figures which were published a few years ago about the new rolling stock put on the railroads of this country by the British Transport Commission show that we have made an effort which is second to none in Europe.
  I was rather sorry that, following the last debate we had in this House on transport, when I made a speech part of which was devoted to the functioning of this area committee, no commentary was made by the West Midlands Committee and no letter was received by myself, as I had expected, from the Central Consultative Committee. I think that, perhaps, in view of the paucity of opportunity we have for debating the interests of the users of our railways, it would be a good thing if the Minister would draw to the attention of the area committees and the Central Committee the need to keep in somewhat closer touch with Members of Parliament.
  Passengers' complaints largely fall, as I see it, under two main headings, the unpunctuality of trains and the amenities for the public. I do not propose to go into the question of amenities now. I have done so previously. I would not go into the question of punctuality were it not for the fact that the Central Committee has made continual reference to this in its Reports for 1955 and 1956. In both those Reports the timekeeping of the main line trains was referred to, and it was also the subject of a special section in the Commissioners Report for 1956. However, in none of these publications was there any sort of analysis of the main line punctuality performance.
  I spoke during the last debate on transport of a publication, issued by the French State railways, which, I think, has certain advantages over any of the publications issued either by the British
  1224
  Transport Commission or by British Railways or by the consultative committees. I again draw the attention of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to Table 10 of the report of the French State railways for 1956, which gives statistics for several years of the regularity of the trains and the incidence of breakdowns. I think the public is entitled to see some such analysis for our main lines and also for local service timekeeping. I feel that there is a serious lack of what I can only describe as a public relations sense on the part of these consultative committees. I ask the Minister to consider what inconvenience is caused to the travelling public by the late-running trains.
  Sympathy is not exactly enhanced by reading in the 1956 Report of the Central Committee that timetables at different periods of the year cannot be adhered to for various seasonal reasons. I wonder whether something can be done to make the timetables more flexible and to see that the public is better informed. Again, for the Committee to report that there is a lack of punctuality due to signalling difficulties, in turn due to a shortage of signalmen, seems to me interesting in fact; but nothing appears in the Report as to what is to be done about it. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary may say that is a matter for the Commission, but though it is referred to in the Report for 1955, there is no reference in the Report for 1956 of positive action having been taken.
  I very much doubt whether inter-Regional competitions in punctuality mean very much. Where the regions contact, it may be so; but surely the real yardstick of punctuality is the measure of adherence to effective timetables.
  On the question of public relations, I accept in advance that I can be accused of talking about something which chiefly affects British Railways; but I emphasise that area committees have a responsibility here. Why cannot the travelling public be given a service of information over the loudspeaker systems installed in a large number of stations? Without wishing to cause embarrassment, could not the attention of these area consultative committees be drawn to the practice at London Airport of informing the travelling public by a minute-to-minute commentary of the arrival and departure of

  1225
  planes and, where delays are imminent, of warning the public of the consequential implications so far as communications and the catching of planes at the other end are concerned?
  I want to give an example of this sort of thing which happened to me recently at Stafford. I found that a late-running train may he known to the telegraph staff but that it is not notified to the men on duty on the platform. On the occasions I have had to make inquiries the staff have always been extremely courteous, but I have had a little difficulty in finding out what has happened to a train which, on one occasion, was 35 minutes late. Could not the possibility of having a more up to date commentary on the running of trains be examined?
  Secondly, now that the Conservative Government have adopted a policy of absorbing to a large extent the economy into Europe—I do not wish to be controversial, because I am in substantial support of this—should not area committees and the Central Consultative Committee interest themselves in seeing that there shall be, when the legislation is passed, such an efficient service for goods and passengers as will place them in competition with our continental competitors? I see that the Government have published details of a new trunk road to the Channel ports. That must imply that transport of freight and passengers from our industrial areas must be brought up to the very highest possible efficiency.
  Thirdly, I think it would be a pity if the question of integration of road and rail transport should remain a political matter. As a matter of fact, the integration of road and rail could not be political, because the licensing system of road transport is a perfect weapon, even for the most dogmatic Conservative. There is a great deal to be done still about the integration of these two services.
  Fourthly, I suggest that area committees and the Central Committee should consider instituting some form of statistical control of complaints received by British Railways. It seems to me that by instituting some form of analytical control it should be possible for area committees and the Central Committee to pinpoint inefficiencies in the service provided by British Railways, and thereby to look after the interests of the travelling public.
  1226
  Lastly, I emphasise to the Minister that the work of these area committees is very little known indeed. Could not British Railways provide advertising space on platforms so that the travelling public and the freight-using public can know what are the local activities of their committees and who are the people on them? I tried to find out who was on the West Midlands Consultative Committee and failed. The committee seems to be shrouded in secrecy. Why is that so? Why cannot the public be told the composition of these consultative committees and what work of a local nature they are doing? I have written to the Minister and told him of an important industrialist in my constituency who did not know of the existence of the area committee.
  So far as the travelling public are concerned, it may well be that organisational representations to the area committees are not necessary, because the railway travelling public are not, largely speaking, organised. Members of the public feel frustrated when they arrive at the end of a long journey and the train is late, for perfectly justifiable reasons, and they have nobody they can ask or to whom they can make complaint and thus find out whether their complaints are justified or not. I ask that something should be done so that the composition and functions of these area committees may be locally understood.
  11.11 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I welcome the chance to say a few words about the transport users' consultative committees. Although the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) had some criticism to make of them, it can only be helpful for them and the functions which they perform to be referred to in the House. The hon. Member referred to the set-up under the 1947 Act, and he spoke in general terms of what the committees did.
  As to their composition and function, these committees are essentially representative of all consumer interests, passenger, freight, and so on. Their membership consists of a number of public-spirited people who, in one way or another, use the services of the British Transport Commission. These people are willing to serve in a voluntary capacity on

  1227
  these committees. In the nature of things, their representative character could not be replaced effectively by full-time paid members. It follows, therefore, that to preserve the value of their function, which is considerable, we have to avoid swamping them with either exacting procedure or a large volume of small complaints. The hon. Member, of course, is fully aware of these considerations, but it does no harm to mention them to start with, because they put the whole matter in perspective.
  It is, of course, the fact that the Commission has its own public relations staff and, as the hon. Member rightly said, it is the function of that staff to deal with day-to-day business and complaints and to cultivate good relations and do the utmost to give satisfactory services. The transport users' consultative committees are advisory bodies and are the safeguard to ensure that the Commission's response to consumer needs is adequate in a general way. Finally, my right hon. Friend the Minister is responsible to Parliament for the general function of the Commission.
  The structure of the transport users' consultative committees involves a central committee. Nine area committees report to it. There are Scottish and Welsh committees also reporting and making direct recommendations to the Minister. The central committee itself reports to the Minister and makes its annual report, to which reference has been made in this debate. These committees normally function by consulting with the affected interests and sending copies of their minutes and recommendations direct to the Commission and to the Central Committee. The Commission always pays the closest attention to them. Finally, there is the safeguard that the Minister, if he thinks it wise and necessary, can give a direction to the Commission, following a report or recommendation from the central committee.
  I will think about the point which the hon. Member has made about whether the area committees' reports should come to us in the Ministry and to the Minister. I am a little doubtful about that, but I will certainly consider whether it would be a valuable additional provision.
  In regard to the need to make these committees less remote, I agree that we
  1228
  want them to be in touch with all transport users, but at the same time we must take care to avoid burdening them with too much. We must also take care to see that by any arrangement which is made to improve their contact with the general public they are, in fact, independent of the Commission.
  The existing publicity arrangements are that all booking and rail freight offices can give the name of the committee locally to anyone who inquires. I noted what the hon. Member said about this, and I should be pleased to take the matter up if he tells me of the case where this arrangement failed. Curiously enough, in every post office the address is also posted up. It is also mentioned and described, and all individual committees, with their addresses, are given in the pamphlet The Village Bus, which has had a wide circulation. There are frequent reports of the work of the committees in the Press, and the Central Committee is considering bringing out a pamphlet on the lines of The Village Bus, with the names of local bodies, and so on, to do just what the hon. Gentleman wants. This Adjournment Debate may also help; there is no doubt that all this must have some effect.
  Then there is the point about posting notices on station platforms. I think that that might associate the committees in an undesirably close way with the Commission and reduce, to some extent, the independence of their status. It might also encourage very minor complaints to be sent in with which they could not deal. This is an aspect of our need to choose between a voluntary body and a full-time body which could deal with more work, but which would not have the same personal touch and contact.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke of an analysis of complaints. It is true that the committees do not see all the complaints. It would be a most formidable undertaking to submit all complaints to them, and I doubt whether they could go through them all. But there is a member of the Commission on the committees who will supply all the information which is wanted.
  Mr. Snow: Does the Parliamentary Secretary say that British Railways do not have an analysis of complaints?
  Mr. Nugent: They have a record of complaints, but I would not like to be completely definite as to an analysis. I therefore think it is unwise to go beyond the measures which I have stated, particularly in view of this new pamphlet which is being prepared.
  The Central Committee has made a study of the question of unpunctuality, and the hon. Gentleman will have seen in the 1956 Report that there is reference to the causes of this. The Commission makes quarterly returns on unpunctuality, and The Railway Magazine has a monthly record of main line cases of it. So the information is there for anyone to buy; anyone who is interested can have a complete picture of how time-keeping is going on our main lines. So far as bad time keeping is concerned, the 1956 Report makes it clear that this is largely due to old fashioned and out of date equipment, and also, of course, to something quite the reverse—the modernisation work now going on. Track work interferes with running and proper time keeping. So the mere business of modernisation, of which we are gradually getting the benefit, is for the time being making for great irregularity.
  The shortage of signalmen is, of course, rapidly being overcome by the system of coloured light signalling. That is a great economy as well as giving greater efficiency. In some cases it is a problem to find jobs for men who have become surplus. It is a matter of evening them out. That particular shortage to which reference was made in the 1956 Report will therefore disappear.
  I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion about changing the function of the transport consultative committees from an advisory one. I think it would be impossible to do that with the present structure and personnel. I feel that we have about the right balance there, that these committees should be the watchdogs of the services provided by the British Transport Commission rather than the watchdogs of the efficiency of the Commission itself.
  There is, of course, a continuing problem to find a really effective alternative
  1230
  to the commercial incentive in a nationalised industry. But I believe that we are making progress by the devolution of autonomy to the area boards which are functioning very well indeed. They themselves are devolving down the line greater responsibility to the men actually in contact with the transport users.
  I believe that just as the Commission is modernising its mechanical and motor side so it is modernising its administrative structure in an endeavour to do just the things for which the hon. Gentleman is asking. These consultative committees can play their part in this matter, but the actual business of improving the relationship between transport users and the Commission itself, and, what is even more important, improving the standard of the service, is something which can only come about gradually. We are doing all what we can in the Ministry to encourage this. The transport committees are doing what they can, but there is no simple answer to the matter.
  The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the point in asking the 64,000 dollar question, which is what modernisation is about. Of course, to make us feel competitive with our European neighbours in a Free Trade Area it is essential to have an up-to-date and efficient transport system. We are gradually moving towards that position, but I doubt very much whether the consultative committees can be greatly strengthened as a weapon to that end. We can gradually make them better known. We will certainly do that, but I doubt whether they themselves can be used as a more powerful lever. They are now performing a useful function. If we wanted them to do so in a more precise fashion we should have to alter their membership and structure. I do not think we could replace them with something which would do the job better. I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept the assurances I have given him.
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-three minutes past Eleven o'clock.

SCOTLAND
  Health Service Employees (Pay Dispute)
  Health Service Employees (Pay Dispute)
  Housing (Old People)
  Housing (Old People)
  Direct-Grant and Fee-Paying Schools
  Direct-Grant and Fee-Paying Schools
  ANGLO-AMERICAN DISCUSSIONS
  ANGLO-AMERICAN DISCUSSIONS
  AIRCRAFT (NUCLEAR WEAPONS)
  AIRCRAFT (NUCLEAR WEAPONS)
  CONTROLLED THERMONUCLEAR FUSION
  CONTROLLED THERMONUCLEAR FUSION
  HEALTH SERVICE EMPLOYEES (DEPUTATION)
  HEALTH SERVICE EMPLOYEES (DEPUTATION)
  MINISTERS (PERSONAL ASSISTANTS)
  MINISTERS (PERSONAL ASSISTANTS)
  SOUTH AFRICA (URANIUM SUPPLIES)
  SOUTH AFRICA (URANIUM SUPPLIES)
  N.A.T.O. (PARIS MEETING)
  N.A.T.O. (PARIS MEETING)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Deferred Planning Schemes
  Deferred Planning Schemes
  London Theatres
  London Theatres
  West Sussex Development Plan
  West Sussex Development Plan
  Commissions (Membership)
  Commissions (Membership)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Capital Issues Committee (Pure Scrip Issues)
  Capital Issues Committee (Pure Scrip Issues)
  National Gallery
  National Gallery
  Under-developed Countries (Aid)
  Under-developed Countries (Aid)
WELSH AFFAIRS
  Flags
  Flags
HOUSING
  Bootle
  Bootle
  Requisitioned Dwellings
  Requisitioned Dwellings
  Falmouth and Camborne
  Falmouth and Camborne
FIJI
  Mr. J. E. Thornton
  Mr. J. E. Thornton
NYASALAND
  Loans (Africans)
  Loans (Africans)
  Travelling Libraries
  Travelling Libraries
NORTHERN RHODESIA
  Land, Houses and Shops (Leases)
  Land, Houses and Shops (Leases)
THE HAUD
  British Protected Persons
  British Protected Persons
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Scholarships (Review)
  Scholarships (Review)
  Agriculture Act (Disciplinary Powers)
  Agriculture Act (Disciplinary Powers)
  LEGAL AID AND ADVICE
  LEGAL AID AND ADVICE
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Earth Satellites
  Earth Satellites
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  CHEQUES ACT AND RECEIPTS
  2.35 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN: 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 of a growing practice among tradesmen not to give stamped receipts on account of the alleged operation of the Cheques Act, and what steps they propose to take to stop this loss of revenue to the Exchequer.]
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE:My Lords, in general, the recipient of a payment is under no obligation to give a receipt if none is demanded, but he must give a stamped receipt for a payment of £2 or more if the payer asks for it. This has always been the position and nothing in the Cheques Act has altered it. But that Act contains a provision to the effect that an unendorsed cheque which appears to have been paid by the banker on whom it is drawn is evidence of the receipt of the sum payable. This, again, has always been the position so far as endorsed cheques are concerned, but the Act now makes it clear that the same thing applies to unendorsed cheques. As your Lordships are aware, the Cheques Act was based on the Report of the Mocatta Committee, and that Report drew attention to the fact that a paid endorsed cheque is as good evidence of payment as is a simple receipt.
  As the noble Lord suggests, this will no doubt lead to a reduction in the number of receipts and some loss of stamp duty by the Exchequer, but I am afraid that no precise estimate of the amount of the loss can be made at present. The Mocatta Committee recognised that their proposals would be likely to cause some loss of revenue, but expressed the view
  956
  that such a loss would not be unreasonable in relation to the benefits to the community from the changes taken as a whole. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is aware of all these matters.
  I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for putting this Question, because it is evident that there is a degree of confusion, and I hope that the answer that I have been able to Rive to the noble Lord will help to dispel any confusion that at present exists.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, is the noble Marquess aware that his Answer will not dispel any confusion? On the contrary, it sems to me that it will create more confusion. Is he further aware (I am sure he is not) that, in my own case out of thirty payments that I made recently, only one person sent a stamped receipt, whereas previously I should have had thirty? Is not that a serious state of affairs, both from the point of view of the person who pays the bills but has no real evidence that the money has been received, and also from the point of view of getting accounts properly audited? One is not in a position to give the accountants all the receipts, and this causes infinitely more work than previously. Would not the noble Marquess ask his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to be so complacent about the loss of revenue and even more about the inconvenience that is being caused over this matter?
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask one question? Is not the meaning of the noble Marquess's Answer just this: that a receipt, whether stamped properly or not, is evidence of payment of money in respect of goods and services as shown by the receipt, but that a cheque, whether it has been endorsed or not, which has been duly encashed, is merely evidence that money has been paid in exchange for that cheque, without any reference to the reason for payment, whether for goods or services, by the receiver?
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, if I may take Lord Silkin's question first, I think that it is not proper to suggest that there is any complacency on the part of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The thought is that there is a considerable

  957
  benefit to the community as a whole. I am in agreement with the noble Lord. Lord Silkin, that it is possible that there may be personal inconvenience on what I may call a domestic scale, but, despite what he has said, I think, with all due respect, that it is conceivable that the Answer I have given may help to dispel a certain amount of confusion, which I believe exists, quite unnecessarily, in the public mind.
  I can give your Lordships an example of this confusion. This morning I received a note (I have picked it up out of my own wastepaper basket, so it is rather crumpled) which reads in this way:
  "Cheques Act, 1957.—In view of the provisions of the above Act in regard to evidence of payment, this Company has decided that as from October 17, 1957, no receipts will be issued against payment by cheque unless a specific request for a receipt accompanies the cheque."
  What the note says is perfectly in order, but, of course, it is a complete non sequitur, because the Cheques Act has no bearing on the situation whatsoever.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Marquess is aware that I have received a statement in identical terms, and that it seems to be the widespread practice to-day to send out something of this kind, which obviously originates from one source?
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, do I understand the noble Marquess correctly as saying that refusal to give a stamped receipt for payment is an illegal act only if a demand has been made for it? May I ask him to confirm whether the matter could not be cleared up by asking business houses, every time they make payment by cheque, either against an invoice or statement, to type at the bottom of the invoice or statement, "Please return this, together with a properly stamped receipt." That would prevent all the happenings that have been pointed out by my noble friend and by the writer of an excellent letter in The Times of this morning.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I think that perhaps there is a slight confusion. Receipts for payments of £2 or more can be demanded, and if a receipt is sent it must be stamped. That is the law. If the receipt is not stamped when it is sent, the payee is liable to a fine of £10. If you ask
  958
  for a receipt and the receipt is refused, then, again, a fine of £10 may be incurred,
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I should like to ask two questions of the noble Marquess. First of all, was not the whole purpose of the Mocatta Committee's Report and of the Cheques Act to facilitate the paying of cheques into the bank, which was a great con, venience both to bankers and to firms? I would ask whether there was anything in the Act which gave anybody the faintest impression that this was going to affect the ordinary custom of sending a receipt when anybody paid a bill. I quite understand the law, that if you send a receipt for a sum over £2 it must have a stamp on it. But this is a great inconvenience, not only to domestic people—and, after all, the mere voter is entitled to some consideration—who now have to get the cheques back from their bank and file a cheque with every bill that has been paid (and very often the bill is not sent back), but also from the point of view of firms. In the ordinary way, a firm has receipted bills; the accountant goes through them, and the auditors take a check on a certain number of things. If you have to hunt up cheques, which may or may not be endorsed, and marry them up to some account, it will make things twice as hard for the accountant in any business, and for the auditors; and I suppose that our auditors' fees will go up. If the noble Marquess wishes to keep—
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: I beg your Lordships' pardon. Would the noble Marquess consider this suggestion: that it should be lawful for a firm, when an account of over £2 is being paid, to send back a simple receipt without the 2d stamp upon it?
  LORD SALTOUN: My Loris, may I repeat my question in another form? Is it not the case that if I pay my tailor his bill by cheque, and he does not send me a receipt, and sends me the bill again, and I have to go to court, then he is able to say that he cashed me a cheque as a favour? There is nothing to show that I paid him the £15, or whatever it may be, in payment of his bill. Unless I have a proper receipt I cannot say that I have

  959
  paid that £15 to settle the account. Is that not still the position, as it always has been?
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I think it would be inappropriate for me to be led into the realms of the law, but I will certainly take careful note of the question put by the noble Lord. As regards the question (I think it was a question) put to me by the noble Earl. Lord Swinton, I can only repeat that there is nothing whatever in the Cheques Act which changes the arrangements for stamped receipts. So far as the suggestion of the noble Earl is concerned. I should like to be allowed to consider that, and to refer it to those concerned.

TARIFF LEGISLATION CONVENTIONS
2.47 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, having regard to their recognition of the advantages of an internationally accepted common terminology in the field of tariff legislation and practice, they have sought the co-operation of other countries, in particular the United States of America, to this end, and with what result.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government took a leading part in the work which led up to the signing, in 1950, by thirteen Western European countries, of three Conventions dealing with customs matters. Two of these Conventions, one establishing a Customs Co-operation Council and the other dealing with Valuation of Goods, have been ratified by Her Majesty's Government and have come into force. The third is the Convention on Nomenclature for the Classification of Goods in Customs Tariffs. If the Import Duties Bill, which is now before Parliament, is passed, Her Majesty's Government propose to ratify this Convention and to adopt the tariff classification, known as the Brussels Nomenclature.
960
Information about the Brussels Nomenclature and the countries which signed the Convention, was given in a White Paper published last month.
The Customs Co-operation Council is open to world-wide membership. The Council now includes seventeen European countries, plus Egypt, Indonesia and Pakistan. Observers from a number of countries (including the United States of America) and international organisations have attended sessions of the Council and shown great interest in its activities.

ARMY ACT, 1955 (CONTINUATION) ORDER, 1957
2.48 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT rose to move, That the Draft Army Act, 1955 (Continuation) Order, 1957, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of the draft Order in Council which is now before the House for approval is to continue the Army Act, 1955, in force next year. It has been duly laid in accordance with those provisions of the Act which provide that the Act shall expire twelve months after it came into operation, which was on 1st January last. The Army Act may be continued by Order in Council for a year at a time, subject to the approval of the draft Order by both Houses of Parliament. A further provision is that, unless Parliament otherwise determines, the Army Act cannot be continued by Order in Council beyond the expiration of five years of its coming into force; that is, after the end of 1961. Thus, in the ordinary course, this Order in Council procedure will recur in each of the next three years. But in 1961 a new Army Act will be required for operation in 1962.
Your Lordships may recollect that the old Army Act, which was passed in 1881, had to be continued in force annually by the passing of the Army (Annual) Act. Since the birth of the Royal Air Force, this was entitled the Army and Air Force (Annual) Act. This procedure, of course, made it possible to make amendments to the Act, but under the new Order in Council procedure it is not possible to amend the new Act. It must either be continued as it is for another year or be allowed to expire at the end of this month. In that event, the Army would,

961
for all practical purposes, pack up, since there would be no legal sanction for the enforcement of military discipline.
This new procedure was devised by a Select Committee which was set up in another place in 1952 to bring up to date the old Army Act. Despite the fact that it had had over 900 Amendments made to it since 1881 (and it seemed like 9,000 Amendments to those of us who had to stick them in our copies), the Act was outmoded and required radical revision. The Select Committee considered whether the new Act should be a permanent one, like the Naval Discipline Act. They decided against this course. They recommended, instead, the new procedure which I have outlined. It is proposed, when the new legislation is introduced in 1961, to refer it to a similar Select Committee. Thus, my Lords, one of the means by which Parliament controls the Army has been preserved. Each year the consent of Parliament will still have to be sought to the continuance of the legislative sanction for the discipline of the Army, without which it could not live.
I am glad to be able to inform your Lordships that the transition from the old Act to the new took place without hitch and with remarkable smoothness. The interval between the passing of the new Act in May, 1955, and its coming into operation in January last allowed sufficient time for the issue of all the relevant regulations and instruments (the Act itself required no fewer than 100 to be made), and the adequate instruction of the officers and authorities whose duty it is to adminster military law.
The new Act has now been in force for almost a year, and there is no doubt that it has worked well. Only one alteration has been required. The enlistment provisions were modified, by the passing of the Army (Conditions of Enlistment) Act, in July last. There have been no major difficulties in administering the new Act. Its operation has not led to any increase, either in the number of courts-martial or in the number of cases going to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court. The disciplinary code of the Army is now an up-to-date one, which is being well and impartially administered by courts-martial and these authorities whose duty it is to dispense military law. I accordingly recommend your Lordships to approve the draft Order in Council. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Army Act, 1955 (Continuation) Order, 1957, be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
2.52 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, I gather that the new Army Act is working satisfactorily. It must be a great convenience to those who have to administer it no longer to have the old Army Act, with a mass of small pasted interlineations, additions and amendments that we used to have before the war and, in fact, during the war.
While the new Army Act is an improvement, it is, I think, important for us to know whether there will be an Army for it to administer, because if the recruiting figures go on as they seem to be going at the moment it faces the country and Parliament with a serious problem. I wish to refer your Lordships to the debate in this House which took place on July 31 last, when the noble Lord, Lord Man-croft, with his usual optimism and enthusiasm, gave us far too rosy a picture of the future of the voluntary Army. In the course of his speech, the noble Lord said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 205 (No. 99), col. 505]:
"If there should be some panacea, some new idea, which would bring in recruits, then we should like to know about it. But I do not believe that such an idea exists. I believe that only a combination of all these things, carried out with vigour and enthusiasm, will give us the results."
I interrupted the noble Lord and said:
"If there is no panacea, and if the other measures have not been successful in the past, is it not dangerous for the Government to pin their whole policy on the fact that we intend by recruiting to get a voluntary Army?"
The noble Lord replied:
"I do not agree with the noble Lord. These things have not been tried vigorously enough in the past, and they have not been tried with an Army that is going back to an entirely voluntary basis."
Of course, they were tried with an Army which was on a voluntary basis before the war.
Let us look at the position to-day, having regard to that optimistic statement in July last. According to the figures for October this year—the latest figures we have—the total Royal Navy and Royal Marine recruiting figures are 747, as compared with 904 for the corresponding period in 1956. For the Army, they are 2,123, as compared with 3,663 in October,

963
1956. For the Royal Air Force they are 1,942 as compared with 2,703 in 1956. For all Services, they are 4,812 as compared with 7,270 a year ago. I mention the other arms because it was said that the possible effect of the ceasing of National Service would be that people would flock into the Navy and Air Force and that the Army might not benefit as the other Services would. As we see from these figures, all the three Services are deficient in recruits, and the numbers are lower than they were only a year ago.
I should like to ask two questions. First, does the noble Lord now seriously maintain that we are going to get a sufficient Army for our purposes by voluntary recruitment? May I say that no one is more anxious than I am that we should do so. I believe in a voluntary Army. I know that not only does National Service have a grave effect on industry, but it is also difficult to run a highly technical force, whether it is an Army, a Navy or an Air Force contingent, when you have National Service. In these days of technical Services, it is very difficult to carry on with a purely National Service organisation. We do need volunteers, but it is no good blinding ourselves to facts. On the Government's own figures—the figures I have quoted—those who are best able to judge have told me that this will mean a Regular voluntary Army of some 80,000 men instead of an Army of 160,000 men, which is, I think, the minimum that we need for our purposes. That is what the House and the country ought to be told. Is this so? If it is so, what are the Government going to do about it? It is no good coming to the end of National Service and finding that we have not sufficient forces to meet our commitments. I think we should be told the situation.
The second point is a more technical point, but it has a great bearing on the first, and it is this: how many of the men on three-year engagements are likely to convert to six years or nine years? This is important, because in October of this year 1,020 had engaged for three years. If those men are taken out—if they do not re-engage—it will mean an enormous difference to the numbers in the Regular Army. Therefore we want to know how many of them are likely to convert into six or nine year engagements. I have been
964
told that the percentage is likely to be very small indeed, but I hope that that is not so. These are vital questions. The whole future of our Forces is at stake, and it is right that we should know from the Government what the actual situation is.
3.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord who has just sat down will forgive me if I do not allow him to lead me into temptation and talk about recruiting. To a considerable extent I share his fears, and I very much hope that we may have a day to talk about all these matters. I rise merely to say that, from what I have seen, I feel sure that my noble friend Lord Mancroft is absolutely right when he says the new court-martial procedure has got off to a good start. I think we ought to be able to run for the full term of this new Act without having to try to amend the disciplinary clauses of the Act, though I would not be quite so certain about the enlistment clauses, which have been amended once. I will come back to a suggestion I have made more than once in this House. The present Army Act procedure is not right. There should be an Army Discipline Act, which should be the one for which Parliamentary sanction is obtained every year, and an Army Enlistment Act which can be amended from time to time as conditions alter.
Meanwhile, I feel certain that no one will regret the step that was taken in presenting the new Army Act. As my noble friend Lord Mancroft, said, the revision of the old Army Act was entrusted to a Select Committee composed entirely of Members of another place. When my noble friend said that revision of the new Act, after a certain time, would be entrusted to a similar Select Committee. I was not quite certain whether he was indicating that Members of this House would be permanently excluded from any inquiry of this sort into the future Army Act. If so, of course, then the words "Parliamentary control" which he used would not be entirely correct what would be correct would be the control of another place. I certainly hope that at this stage of the proceedings the Government have not already pledged themselves to exclude this House from any part in the Select Committee in two or three years' time.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and gallant friend Lord Bridgeman for his intervention. I remember that, at the time the Spens Committee was set up, the point he has raised gave rise to misgivings in your Lordships' House. I shall have to refresh my memory as to what was decided, but I appreciate the importance of the point and I wilt certainly look into it. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, is quite right in saying that recruiting is hardly the principal subject which arises out of the Order now before the House. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, is perfectly well aware of that.
I will certainly attempt to answer Lord Ogmore's questions, however—for this reason: it would look ill, if the matter went by default in your Lordships' House and no reply was given to the points raised by the noble Lord. Your Lordships must forgive me if I am not able fully to give him the figures he requires. They are important figures, which he will be given at an early moment. I can tell him, since he has drawn attention to the importance of long-term recruiting, that the figures for long-service recruits for October, 1957, show an increase of over 116 per cent. on those for October, 1956. That is only an isolated figure, and I do not attach more importance to it than the noble Lord does himself.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: 116 per cent. of what figure?
LORD MANCROFT: Over the equivalent figure for last year. The increase is a figure of 347.
LORD OGMORE: There is a decline, as I read it; there is no increase; there is a decline in the really long-term, the nine-year, figures. There is no increase at all. The number has gone down from 193 to 156. There is an increase in the six-year figures, it is true.
LORD MANCROFT: The noble Lord and I are reading from different tables of figures. Let us not bandy figures about unless we are quite certain of them. Those figures can be gone into at the right time.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: This is the right time.
LORD MANCROFT: I do not think the noble Viscount has any right to
966
accuse me of not producing the figures he wants on a subject not immediately relevant, though admittedly very important. I am not trying to shirk this matter in any way. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that I stand by every word I said in the debate he quoted. It is a very difficult matter indeed, and nobody—certainly nobody on this side—has pretended for one moment that to get the recruits is going to be an easy task. We are committed to it, as indeed are noble Lords opposite. They are publicly in evidence as having said that they wish to do away with National Service. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, say that he supported this, and that they would try to do everything possible to get these men. Nor is there a panacea or a "gimmick" to increase recruiting. We are taking a large number of steps, several of which have been put before your Lordships' House and the country, and there are more to follow. The figures may get worse before they get better. They may get worse until the pattern of the new Army is clear and the new Army settles down on a Regular basis. I can tell your Lordships one way in which we shall not get the Regular recruits we want, and that is to go around telling everybody we are not going to get them.
LORD OGMORE: Has it not been our point of view—it is certainly mine—that while we should welcome a voluntary Army, we doubt whether, under present conditions, it is possible to get one in the time in which Government hope to get it. Is it not also the fact that we are now reaching the position when the Government, on their own figures—these are the Government's figures and not ours—will have only half the Army which they say is necessary.
LORD MANCROFT: We have no intention whatever of admitting defeat at this stage. We stated quite frankly and clearly in the White Paper that certain alternative action would be required if we could not get the numbers we want. But it is not a good way of achieving your objective to go round proclaiming from the house-tops what you propose to do if you do not succeed.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I take great exception to the kind of statement made

967
by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that the consideration by your Lordships of this draft Order before us is not an occasion for dealing, in detail if necessary, with recruiting figures for the Army. This procedure has certainly achieved certain savings of time and economy in other directions, but it has never been intended to take away from either House of Parliament the right to criticise the present position of the Army in dealing with an Order for continuation of the revised Act. That has been made perfectly plain in the attitude which has been taken on this matter by the Opposition in another place. I should have thought it was quite reasonable, if any noble Lord in this House wished to raise details in regard to the Army on this Order, that the Minister in charge should be prepared to answer—as has usually been the case in discussions on such matters. The details which have been given by my noble friend are not new; they are established; they have been in the Printed Paper Office, most of them, for weeks, and the noble Lord ought to have been able to answer any one of the different questions put thereupon. That is the kind of treatment that Her Majesty's Opposition have a right to expect on such an occasion as this.
The other thing I would say is this; that, of course, chickens do come home to roost to all kinds of political Parties. I must say, with great regret, that many Members of the House—including, in the years gone by, some from the other side of the House—felt that there ought to have been years ago a really big and roving inquiry into the defence expenditure and the condition of the Army and the other Services. More than five years ago Members of your Lordships' House were asking for this, and we have now gradually got to the position where we are steadily, and even rapidly, disarming and leaving a feeling of insecurity in the minds of a great section of the population.
The figures given by my noble friend in regard to this Order, which applies to the Army in particular, show how the downward trend in recruiting figures continues. It seems to me—and perhaps I have longer experience than the noble Lord who has been handling this matter—that on the present trend it will not be possible to obtain by voluntary service the minimum forces required for security
968
purposes, even on the revised military programme of Her Majesty's Government. Let us face that fact frankly now as it ought to have been faced years ago. If that is so, the nation is entitled to be told whether or not some form of National Service is ready to be continued so as to meet the minimum requirements of security. That is the kind of assurance that the country needs. I am not concerned about whether this Party or the other or a section of a Party have declared in favour of a voluntary service. Voluntary service is the ideal thing, if we can get it. It would have been ideal in 1946–47, when I had to introduce the National Service Bill: but it would have been quite impossible without that Bill to meet the commitments of the country. The position, therefore, ought to be faced and we should not be fobbed off with answers which are insufficient and incomplete.
3.12 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords. I do not mind the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, being unreasonable, but I do object to his being unfair; and he really must not criticise my noble friend Lord Mancroft for not answering questions on this Order, which does not raise the question of recruiting for the Forces at large, when no notice had been given to him. I know of no Minister who has taken greater care to inform the House on all subjects than my noble friend has on all occasions. I feel that the noble Viscount has been the more unreasonable in view of the fact that we have agreed to have a debate on the subject of Defence as soon as we resume in January, when we can spend the whole day discussing recruiting, if the noble Viscount so wishes. I hope, therefore, that the slight outburst of which the noble Viscount has been guilty will not be repeated, at any rate at the expense of my noble friend, Lord Mancroft, who has always taken such great trouble in these matters.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I have no sense of guilt, but I have certain duties to perform as Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, and to make sure that at such times as the House requires information, and is entitled to have it, the House gets

969
it. Although we have a full day set aside—and we are much obliged for it—that is to be on January 22, weeks and weeks ahead. Surely we, as an Opposition, are entitled to expect from Her Majesty's Government, as we go along, all the information that we can possibly get, at every opportunity, so as to build up the basis of debate for that day.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, on a matter of fact, the noble Leader of the House charges my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, with not having given notice. I do not think that that was necessary. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, speaks for the Minister of Defence, and I do not know that it is necessary to give notice to a Minister on such an important matter. Such matters ought to be in the mind of that Minister and every Minister all the time, and the fact than; they have not got it in mind alarms me; but that is no answer. I did tell the noble Lord, not long before, that I proposing to raise this matter and he said that it was all right. If he had thought it was not all right, then, since we on this side are always quite ready to help, would have seen my noble Leader and no doubt other arrangements would have been made. Though it was not long before, I did in fact tell the noble Lord that I was going to raise this matter; and I did so, I should have thought, in time for him to get any facts he needed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AIR FORCE ACT, 1955 (CONTINUATION) ORDER, 1957
3.14 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I do not want to quarrel with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and I would say no more than this. He did indeed give me notice, and I attempted 'to answer the question he put and to do so in such a way as to make perfectly clear to the noble Lord and to the House the importance which I, as spokesman for Her Majesty's Government, attached to the matter he raised. It is not for me to tell him or to advise him whether or not it is in order, for that would be impertinence on my part. I attempted to answer the general point raised by the
970
noble Lord, and I answered it as fairly and clearly as I possibly could. I feel that to try to quote from memory figures from papers on a subject about which I was given only five minutes' notice (although I am quite familiar with them and aware of their importance) would not be a service to your Lordships, to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, or (not that that matters) to myself.
As your Lordships may by now have guessed, the new procedure for prolonging year by year the life of the Air Force Act is precisely the same as that applicable to the Army Act, some aspects of which we have just been considering. I hope that your Lordships will not expect me to rehearse the matter again. I will make it my business to have at my finger tips, when required, every available figure. But precisely the same considerations apply here, save that the Air Force Act has only 224 sections to the Army Act's 226 sections. I beg to move.
Moved. That the Draft Air Force Act, 1955 (Continuation) Order. 1957, be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, in order to preserve the rights of this House, and of the Opposition in this House, may I say this? As I understand it, the Motion to approve these Orders provides the only opportunity, very often, which private Members have to discuss Army affairs. If this occasion is now to be "written off," so that all we can discuss on the day on which the Army Act is considered are merely technical details as to how many sections there are in the new Army Act and how many there were in the old, then another right of Parliament 'has gone. I should have thought that a word on that aspect might have come from the massed ranks opposite, and that some objection might have been taken by some Parliamentarians opposite. But since they have not spoken out, I will speak out.
I will say once more that in my view the situation as regards the Royal Air Force also calls for comment. I cannot speak with any authority on the Royal Air Force because I know very little about it, so I will merely say this. On their own figures (which, as my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough has pointed out, have been in the Printed Paper Office for at least a week, though obviously they have not yet reached the

971
Ministry of Defence, or at any rate the Ministers), a serious situation arises, because recruiting has gone down from 2,703 in October, 1956, to 1,942 in October, 1957. The three-year engagements have fallen from 1,013 to 533; four-year engagements from 201 to 117, and five- to eight-year engagements from 536 to 235. Nine-year engagements have gone up, with a slight increase from 249 to 301. So, while there is a slight increase in the nine-year engagements, all the other figures have fallen disastrously.
Here again, while I do not wish to detain the House at any length, there is a matter of most important inquiry. Do Her Majesty's Government think that the Royal Air Force will be able to fulfil its duties when National Service has expired? If they do not, what are they going to do? It is of no use to complain of "crying from the house-tops." We want to know what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take to provide the Armed Forces with the men who will be required when National Service ends. That is the question.
The fact is that recruiting for these Forces is seriously diminishing. I am not "crying from the house-tops", but I am asking, in Parliament, a perfectly pertinent question. What are you going to do to stop the drift? What are you going to do to get the recruiting that we need in order to have a voluntary service in the Army, Navy and Royal Air Force? Surely that is our duty. Anybody would think that we were traitors trying in some way to prevent people from going into the Services. We are doing nothing of the kind. We say we should like a voluntary service if we can obtain it, but there does not seem to be any chance of doing so. What are you doing to obtain that voluntary service? That is the question the Government have not answered. All that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has done is to emit a lot of steam—the old type of Parliamentary answer that was given when a Minister did not know what the answer was. That is the way he has treated us. It is really not 20th century Ministership, and it does not answer us on this most important question, about which we are very worried.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am sorry but I cannot accept that rebuke. I will not allow a Parliamentary tactic,
972
which, if I may say so, does not do the noble Lord a very great deal of credit, to permit the suggestion to get abroad that Her Majesty's Government do not take the recruiting situation extremely seriously. They do, and well the noble Lord knows it.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: With what results?
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL
3.22 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move that the Public Works Loans Bill be read a second time. During the short time that I have had the honour of sitting on the Government Front Bench of your Lordships' House, it has seemed to me that Lords in Waiting share with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor the privilege of hearing more of your Lordships' speeches than most other Members of this House. But although we share this privilege, we naturally do not so often have the compensation, so to speak, of "getting our own back". This is the first occasion upon which I have had the honour of being entrusted with the Second Reading of a Bill, and if I address your Lordships on it in some detail, let me assure noble Lords at once that it is in no spirit of retaliation that I do so, but simply in an honest attempt to give the House all the important facts contained in this Bill.
The main structure of the Bill is already familiar to your Lordships from previous Bills of a similar kind. The purpose of the Bill is to make available to the Public Works Loan Commissioners, funds which they can lend to local authorities, housing associations, river boards, harbour boards and other such bodies. Your Lordships will recall that previous Bills of this kind have been introduced whenever the provision made by the last Act has been nearing exhaustion. The last Public Works Loans Act received the Royal Assent on August 2, 1956, and empowered the Commissioners to make loans up to a total of £300 million. By November 29 last the

973
Commissioners had lent £183·4 million; and at the average rate of lending that has ruled since last July the resources made available to the Commissioners would be likely to be exhausted early in July, 1958. The rate of lending has been at about £3 million per week, on average. It will therefore be necessary to make a further provision during this Session.
Clause 1 of the Bill authorises advances up to £300 million from the time the Bill becomes law, and, at the same time, it cancels the existing authorisation. In other words, any unused balances when this new Bill receives the Royal Assent will lapse automatically. Provisions of this kind do not determine the amount of money lent by the Commissioners. They simply renew the Commissioners' powers at intervals convenient to Parliament. At the rate of lending since last July the provision of £300 million will keep the Commissioners in funds for about twenty months. Your Lordships may care to know for what purposes the £183·4:million, to which I have referred, has been lent by the Commissioners up to November 29 last. The breakdown is as follows: £138·4 million have gone on housing; £9·5 million on education; £13·6 million on public health; £2·5 million on redemption of debt; and £19·4 million on transport and water, land drainage and other purposes. Local authorities, in Scotland drew £15·8 million of this total, which is in line with the average Scottish drawings for the previous eight or ten years.
Clause 2 enables the Commissioners to incur commitments to lend over and above what they have actually advanced. It provides that the total commitments, together with advances actually made, shall not exceed at any one lime a total of £400 million. The limits in the present Bill are the same as those written into its predecessor, and the policy under which the Board are operating has undergone no change since the last Act was passed. Prior to December 2, 1954, the practice was for the Public Works Loan Board to approve loans which the borrower could take up at an unspecified later date, and he might even not take them up at all. This, of course, meant that commitments to lend could accumulate on the Commissioners' books to an unlimited extent. In December, 1954, by agreement with local authorities the loan
974
procedure was revised so that the Board's approval was sought only if it was virtually certain that the money would be taken up. In October, 1955, further new lending procedure was introduced whereby borrowers were required to take up loans approved by the Board within approximately one month of approval. In March, 1956, all unexercised loan approvals given by the Board before December 31, 1954, were cancelled. The resulting reduction in outstanding commitments amounted to a sum of £213 million.
As I have already outlined to your Lordships, since October, 1955, approvals have been translated into loans within approximately a period of one month, so it is no longer necessary for the statutory limit for commitments to lend to be substantially greater than the limit for advances. The arrears of commitments incurred since 1954, together with current commitments, amount to about £60 million. It has therefore been thought that £100 million is a reasonable margin to propose above the limit for actual advances.
Clauses 3 and 4, which I will take together, deal with three loans that now prove to be irrecoverable. The method of dealing with these is governed by the requirements of the Public Works Loans Act, 1875, and the National Debt and Local Loans Act, 1887. When a loan made by the Commissioners is irrecoverable it has to be dealt with in two stages. The first stage is to write it off as an asset of the Local Loans Fund; this is what Clause 3 does. But the loan still remains as a debt due from the borrower, not as before to the Local Loans Fund, but to the Exchequer. To write the loan off completely it is then necessary to extinguish it altogether. This is what Clause 4 does. The House will see that these two clauses are only the formal steps by which we clear from the books loans which can now never be repaid. Similar steps have frequently been taken since the Public Works Loan Commissioners were reconstituted in 1875; the last occasion was in 1952.
Before I sit down I should like to take the opportunity of expressing, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, thanks to the Commissioners themselves, who receive no emoluments for their

975
highly responsible work. We owe gratitude to them for the public spirit that they show in exercising their experience and judgment in the service of the community. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
3.30 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am sure the whole House will wish to congratulate the noble Marquess on his debut this afternoon and on having what appears to him to be the unusual privilege of speaking instead of listening. I hope he will not think I am impertinent or patronising if I say that he spoke exceedingly well. I wish that the subject matter of what he had to say was as agreeable as the manner in which he said it. The Public Works Loans Bill, for all its technicality, is a very important measure for the local authorities of this country. The noble Marquess, in going through the history of the work of the Board, did not explain to the House how the local authorities were getting on as regards loans. Until a certain date, they were able automatically to go to the Public Works Loan Board, to borrow whatever they needed and were authorised to borrow. But at a certain date—I do not carry it in my mind because, like Lord Mancroft, I was not prepared to speak to-day—they were prohibited from going direct to the Public Works Loan Board and were required first to seek out all other alternative means of borrowing and only go to the Board if all else failed.
The result of that is that they have been compelled to borrow at much higher rates of interest than they would have had to pay if they could have got the money from the Board itself. Consequently, this has been reflected in higher expenditure of local authorities and, of course, higher rates. I have never been able to understand why this provision was made, and why local authorities were debarred from borrowing money automatically from the Board as they had done formerly. I wonder if the noble Marquess is prepared for this question; whether he can tell us what has been the effect of this prohibition against borrowing, and to what extent the lending of the Board has been reduced as a result. I quite understand that there may be other factors which have brought about
976
a reduction in lending by the Board. Local authorities, generally, owing to increasing rates, for the last year or so have not been as active in incurring capital expenditure as they have been hitherto.
There is also to be borne in mind the fact that the constant changes in rates of interest have been rather embarrassing for local authorities, and we must hope that rates of interest will come down. I am sorry that the noble Marquess did not deal with this question of rates of interest in his speech, because a statement on that would have been of value to the House. He said that the amount of money which the Board was authorised to lend was sufficient for—I think this is what he said—twenty months. I should be interested to know on what basis he works that out. Is it on a basis of loans made in the past, or is there any anticipation of what the local authorities are likely to borrow in the future? To me it seems most unlikely that the rate of borrowing will be the same as it has been in the past so long as the high bank rate is in existence.
Now local authorities and others who may borrow from the Board are being actively discouraged from borrowing. That is part of Government policy. I am not arguing at the moment whether that is right or wrong policy; but it is Government policy to reduce the amount of expenditure on capital. Therefore, one must expect that the rate of borrowing will be substantially less than it has been in the past and that the noble Marquess will not have to come back to this House for further money for far longer than the twenty months which is now his estimate. I hope that the noble Marquess can give us further information, particularly about what has been the effect of the high rates of interest and of the varying rates of interest on the lending of the Public Works Loan Board. Subject to that we do not wish to stand in the way of the activities of the Board, and we certainly have no objection to giving the Bill a Second Reading.
3.36 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, by leave of the House, I should like to attempt to reply to some of the points which have been put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. Of course,

977
what the noble Lord has said is substantially correct. I do not want to take your Lordships far back into the history of the Public Works Loans Act though I could do so. As the noble Lord well knows, the reason for making the local authorities go to the market was to relieve the Exchequer, and the effect of that has been to reduce the authorities' demands on the Exchequer from about £360 million in 1955–56 to £120 million in 1956–57. That, I think, will give the noble Lord some indication of the effect of the Government's policy.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, can the noble Marquess also say how much more local authorities have had to pay for the money they have had to borrow from the market than they would have had to pay had they been able to get it from the Board?
TFIE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I think I can help the noble Lord over that matter. The position really is that if local authorities are encouraged—as they are—to go to the market, the rates offered by the Public Works Loan Board must reflect the rates in the market, otherwise there would be differentiation in favour of the smaller local authorities, which are those which come principally to the Public Works Loan Board, because, as your Lordships no doubt know, a ban was put on loans of less than £3 million. That at once put out of court a number of the smaller local authorities. So, in fact, if the rates offered by the Public Works Loan Board did not reflect the rates in the market there would be an unfair situation favouring the smaller authorities, which I am sure your Lordships would agree would be completely inequitable.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PEERS' LEAVE OF ABSENCE
3.38 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON THE EARL OF SWINTON rose to move to resolve, That this House would welcome the adoption of the conclusions relating to the delivery of Writs of Summons contained in paragraph 15, and the conclusions relating to Leave of Absence contained in paragraphs 29 to 39, of the Report of the Select Commit-
978
tee on the Powers of the House in relation to the Attendance of its Members; and that a Select Committee be appointed to frame and propose to the House Standing Orders for giving effect to the conclusions relating to Leave of Absence. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the object of the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper is to invite the House to make effective the conclusions of the Select Committee which the House appointed to report on the attendance of Members of this House. Your Lordships will recall that it was a Committee consisting of representatives of all three Parties, with a learned leaven of Law Lords—and, I am glad to say, a distinguished Cross Bencher (I am not referring to the journalist but to a Member on our Cross Benches) as well. And this representative Committee was unanimous in all its conclusions.
The Report has already been considered to a considerable extent in this House, and on three occasions at least it has had a very favourable reception: in February of last year, when the Report was formally considered by the House; during the debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Teynham on the reform of the House of Lords, and again only last week, in our debate on the Second Reading of the Life Peerages Bill. I would particularly welcome the commendation of my noble friend the Leader of the House on that last occasion, because I think he was expressing not only what I know is the view of the Government but also what. I think was the feeling in the minds of all who sat on that Committee. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT. Vol. 206, (No. 13), col. 612]:
"… I believe that, should we take advantage of the recommendations of the Committee, some hundreds of Peers would avail themselves of this leave of absence, and that, once they had accepted the conditions, the Peers concerned would keep the bargain. That would give us the opportunity, over the next few years, of watching in action a House which would consist in the main of regularly attending and working Peers. That experiment may well assist us to decide whether further action defining the limits of membership more formally is necessary or wise."
I think that our Committee can take a modest pride in having produced a plan on which the present Leader of the House and the former Leader of the House are in complete agreement. My noble friend Lord Salisbury, while he would naturally prefer to have his own plan embodied in

979
the Bill, in our debate last week described the Committee's plan as a most valuable proposal which he hoped would be carried into effect. I should like to add this. I believe that if your Lordships adopt these proposals, we shall make it easier for the Government to deal more liberally with the indemnification or remuneration of Members, upon which so much stress was laid in recent debates.
As your Lordships are familiar with the Report and almost without exception appear favourable to it, I need not speak at any great length. I would only remind you of the most salient passages on which action is required. After full discussion, the Committee found that the House has no power to exclude a Member and that every Peer has a right to receive a Writ of Summons. On that finding, we had to reject the proposals to which the late Lord Exeter had devoted so much time and research. But the Committee stress that this right to be summoned also, and equally, entails the duty to attend, unless a Peer is excused attendance by this House; and, moreover, that if a Peer is unable or unwilling to attend, he is under a duty to apply for leave of absence. As the Committee say, there is no doubt that some Peers are obviously unfamiliar with the mandatory terms of the Writ, and I am sure that many more are unaware of the duty to apply for absence of leave.
Until some time early in the last century Writs were delivered personally to Peers. There was an officer of the Lord Chancellor who toured the country and delivered them. Some time in the last century, either for the motive of economy or for some other reason, this practice was discontinued, and Writs were not even sent by post. As your Lordships know, the Writs remain in the Crown Office in the Palace of Westminster for Peers to come and collect them. The Committee advise that it is within the power of your Lordships' House to request the Lord Chancellor in future to send the Writ or a copy of the Writ to every Peer. I think we should all agree with the Committee that a Royal Summons, so urgent and stringent in its terms, ought at least to be delivered to the Peer to whom it is addressed. Therefore, the first proposal in my Motion is to request the noble and learned Viscount
980
the Lord Chancellor to adopt the proposed procedure and send a copy of the Writ to every Peer.
While your Lordships' House has no power to exclude, without any doubt it has the right to compel attendance and to grant leave of absence. As the Committee point out, the House can use this dual power to meet the present situation, which is well known to all of us, in which a number of Peers do not mean to attend or cannot attend, and meet it in a manner which would conform to the rights and duties of Peers under the Writ. Your Lordships' House has always, or ever since the 16th or 17th century, when the right passed from the Crown to the House, had the right to grant leave of absence. A Standing Order provided for the grant of leave of absence. Paragraph 33 of the Report sets out how this Standing Order could be brought up to date. As that paragraph contains the essence of the proposals which I am asking your Lordships to approve, I would ask leave to read it in full. It is not long and I think it is very clear.
It reads as follows:
"It would, for example, be well within the powers of the House to arrange, as suggested above, that his Writ or a copy of his Writ should be sent to every Peer, together with a copy of any new Standing Orders on leave of absence. These Standing Orders might provide in substance—

(a) that it is the duty of Members of the House to attend regularly or as often as they reasonably can or else to apply for leave of absence;

(b) that a communication be addressed to all Members of the House at the beginning of every Parliament, stating that if they desire to be relieved of the obligation of attendance they should apply for leave of absence; either for the duration of the Parliament or for any shorter period, and further that they should state in reply to such communication whether they do or do not desire to apply for leave of absence;

(c) that any Member of the House who fails to reply to such a communication should be regarded has having applied for leave of absence, unless he attends to take the Oath within one month of the beginning of a Parliament;

(d) that Members of the House are expected, if they have been granted leave of absence, not to attend until their leave of absence has been terminated by their giving such notice as may be prescribed by Standing Order."

I think that these provisions are clear and I do not think they need comment or

981
elaboration, but I would draw your Lordships' attention to the words in subparagraph (a),
"that it is the duty of Members of the House to attend regularly or as often as they reasonably can."
We all know that there are some Peers who by reason of other duties cannot attend regularly. They can come occasionally and are most valuable when they can attend. I think that none of us would wish to deprive them of the right to attend when they can. Your Lordships' House would be the loser by that. Therefore, under this proposal, if your Lordships adopt it and so instruct the Select Committee which I am proposing the House should set up, we should be able to make that provision. For example, we should be able to have the attendance of my noble friend Lord Lovat, who made such an agreeable speech to your Lordships the other day, whenever he is able to emerge from his Black Forest.
The Report is based on the assumption that the Standing Orders would apply at the beginning of a Parliament. But in paragraph 35 the Committee point out that it would be equally competent for the House to make the procedure apply at the beginning of any Session or during a Session, and I think that probably the House would wish the Standing Orders to be so drafted as to enable that to be done.
Lastly, I come to the question of sanctions. The Committee considered whether the Standing Orders should contain sanctions. There might be some difficulty in framing art appropriate sanction, but the Committee based their findings against sanctions on a much broader consideration than that. We felt that the imposition of sanctions was not only unnecessary but repugnant to the spirit of the House. The House undoubtedly has a power to punish either for contempt or for a breach of its Standing Orders; but that power, though it has existed for centuries, has never been exercised over Standing Orders. We are, I think, a fairly orderly body; we make our own Standing Orders, and we keep them—I was going to say with one possible exception, namely, the one about the reading of speeches; but I have found, on inquiry, that the provision about reading speeches
982
is not in a Standing Order, but was a Resolution of the House, and more admonitory than minatory in its character, So the Committee were against any special sanctions. I think the House will agree with that view, and I would therefore ask your Lordships to approve of paragraph 37 and reject the idea of sanctions
There is one other matter that I think I should place on record, because it is important. The Committee, which, as I say, included eminent Law Lords, report that the proposals for the Standing Orders which I have outlined to the House would in no way affect the Royal Prerogative. If the House approves of this Report and these proposals, I think that the convenient course will be to appoint a Select Committee to draft those Orders and present them to the House. I may say that I discussed this matter with the late Lord Drogheda, hoping that he would probably be the Chairman of the Committee, if the House approved of such an appointment, and he said that he was quite sure that that was the right way of proceeding. Therefore, I beg to move that the conclusions of the Committee on the delivery of Writs and Leave of Absence be approved, and that a Select Committee be appointed to frame and propose to the House the Standing Orders to give effect thereto.
Moved to resolve, That this House would welcome the adoption of the conclusions relating to the delivery of Writs of Summons contained in paragraph 15, and the conclusions relating to Leave of Absence contained in paragraphs 29 to 39, of the Report of the Select Committee on the Powers of the House in relation to the Attendance of its Members; and that a Select Committee be appointed to frame and propose to the House Standing Orders for giving effect to the conclusions relating to Leave of Absence.—(The Earl of Swinton.)
3.53 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, the House will be doubly grateful to my noble friend Lord Swinton: first, because he guided the Select Committee on the Powers of this House in relation to attendance, and they were able to produce this instructive Report on which they did much research and for which indeed we are all exceedingly grateful; and secondly, because he has initiated this debate on the suggestions which are in

983
that Report and which concern the attendance of Members of your Lordships' House. The few remarks I shall make this afternoon I shall make as Leader of the House, rather than as a Minister in the Government, because, of course, this is a matter for your Lordships' House and your Lordships' House alone. From the point of view of your Lordships' House, there is no doubt that the question of Peers who do not attend at all, or who attend only intermittently, does present us with a problem. They do attract some measure of public condemnation on themselves and some discredit on this House. At the same time, those of us who have watched the working of this House from the inside would not wish to exaggerate the problem. However, there is this problem, and therefore it is right that we should take notice of it.
I should have thought that the proposals which are being put forward—and my noble friend has mentioned them, particularly those in paragraph 33 of the Report—would have several advantages. They would enable Peers who do not attend, but who know that they have a duty to do so, to regularise their position with the assent of their fellow Peers. The House would benefit too, I think, in the eyes of the public if the inactive or near-inactive Peers were, so to speak, taken off the strength for so long as they felt unable to perform their duties. Then again—and this is a sort of bull point in any scheme—I think it would work; and it would work without sanctions or penalties. Odd as it may seem in these modern days, we manage in this House to work by "gentlemen's agreement," rather than by rigid Standing Orders enforced by a Speaker of the House.
As my noble friend has reminded me, I said on the occasion of the last debate (and I am looking at it now, perhaps, for the first time, from the Government's point of view) that the Committee's proposal fits quite well into the modified scheme for the reform of your Lordships' House, which we hope to introduce, and it would allow us to see a House of regular working members in action. Therefore, for those reasons I should have thought that your Lordships might well feel that this scheme was well worth the experiment. My noble friend to-day is only asking
984
that we shall set up a Select Committee to advise us on the best ways and means—
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I am asking the House to-day to approve the Report and then to set up a Select Committee to do the technical work of drafting the Standing Orders to give effect to it.
THE EARL OF HOME: I am grateful to my noble friend. He is asking the House to approve the Report and to set up a Select Committee to advise us as to the best ways and means of implementing the proposals. I am sure that that is the right and sensible thing to do. There will be a number of questions which will occur to all your Lordships, including, of course, who is to send out to all the Peers the letter accompanying the Writ; whether it will be the Lord Chancellor or the Clerk of the House. As I say, a number of questions will come up which ought to be answered, and I think a Select Committee is the right body to find the answers and to advise your Lordships both on the delivery of the Writ and on the mechanics of granting the leave of absence. Therefore, without wasting more of your Lordships' time, or indeed any more words, I feel that both from the point of view of your Lordships' House and certainly from the point of view of the Government I should like to support this proposal made by my noble friend.
4.0 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I think I had better say at the outset that any remarks I make from this Dispatch Box will be given as my personal opinion, and I do not in any way tie any noble Lord who sits behind me to agree with those views. I have held from the first that the debates which we have upon the working of your Lordships' House are occasions on which any noble Lord in any part of the House is entitled to speak his own mind.
I do not think my noble friends will dissent very greatly from what I intend to say. I support the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, because his scheme and his excellent Report, if he will permit me to say so, goes a little way—I am sorry only a little way—along the road that I myself would tread. I hold the view that, first of all, the number of hereditary Peers who sit as legislative Peers

985
in your Lordships' House should be reduced. I am fearful—and I say this without any equivocation—that the proposals of the Government contained in the Bill which was debated in your Lordships' House last week will not work. I agree with the noble Earl the Leader of the House that this scheme does stand a chance of working, if only because of one thing which the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, mentioned earlier. If we can reduce the working numbers in this House and cut out the dead wood—not so much the back wood, but the dead wood—we stand a chance of solving the great problem of your Lordships' House. That prob. le:-n is not life peerages versus hereditary peerages. The great problem of how to make your Lordships' House work is one of pure common or garden economics. You will never have a real working House while this Chamber is based upon voluntary and charitable effort.
I have said this upon many occasions. The only qualification I have for speaking is the fact that I have played some part in the working of your Lordships' House for twelve years. I have listened with great embarrassment to the compliments that have been paid in all parts of the House to those who have borne the heat and burden of Opposition on these Benches, in which I have played some small part. Until you have done it, you do not know the strain. It is a strain which no-one should be allowed to carry for very long. As my noble friend Lord Silkin said—I think it was on the debate on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Tevnham—it means the neglect of one's home, one's wife, one's family, one's health, and a very large cost to one's pocket. You cannot expect anybody to do it.
How are you going to enlarge these numbers? You will not do that by creating life peerages until you pay the "rate for the job". You can hedge this around, and you can side-track it; but, as the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said, every Peer who spoke in the debate, with one exception—and that was one of the Government speakers, and only one of the Government speakers—emphasised that you will never succeed until you realise that in modern conditions you must pay the sort of emolument which will attract people to do the job. The noble Lord, Lord Mills, is
986
sitting opposite. He knows what he has had to do. One of his greatest difficulties was in getting first-class brains to sit upon the numerous boards he had to set up under the Electricity Act. He could not compete with industry for brains because of the "chicken-feed" remunerations he was forced to pay. He admitted it. Does that not hold good also for the work of your Lordships' House? The only thing I am afraid of—and I hope that it will not happen—is that if the noble Earl's scheme does fructify, the greater the emolument given, the less chance there may be that noble Lords will apply for leave of absence. It might work that way, although, of course, it might not. But at least I am prepared to try the experiment, because experiment it can be. I think that is one of the sensible things that we do in this country; we move a little bit at a time by trial and error.
Although the Bill which was debated in your Lordships' House last week moves a little bit, I hold the opinion that there is more error than trial in it. I should apologise to your Lordships, because I had intended to speak last Thursday, but I was marooned in the fog, sixty miles from your Lordships' House. I am going to resist the temptation of making my speech this afternoon, but I shall make some of it on Tuesday next. I read every word of the Report of the debate, and I noted one thing that was emphasised; that is—I am sorry to be so mundane or material but I have been brought up in a material world—that, just as we in this country have found that we cannot to-day get much on the cheap, so this country must give up trying to get first-class legislation and legislative powers in the House of Lords on the cheap. It has had it for too long.
I would go still further. As I have told your Lordships, I read every word of the debate last week, in which speaker after speaker said that he was against the hereditary principle. I wish noble Lords who use that term in future would qualify it and say precisely what they mean. Are they against the hereditary principle as such, or are they against the hereditary principle only as applied to legislators? They are two different things entirely. I find myself in the position of being unable logically to accept that there is ipso facto a right for an hereditary Peer to sit in

987
Parliament and be a legislator; yet I would not do away with the hereditary peerage. I am unashamedly an advocate of honours. I am unashamedly a supporter of the hereditary system of honours. I would not do away with the hereditary peerages—for one very good reason that appeals to me, and I hope that I am not overstating it. Once you start tampering with hereditary peerages you are tampering with something that is at the very root and bedrock of the British way of life. And that is the Monarchy. Once you start doing away with hereditary honours or Peers, you are getting very near the Throne and the Crown. Anybody anywhere, whether here in your Lordships' House or elsewhere, who starts tampering with that principle will have to answer not to your Lordships, or to your Lordships' friends, but to the common people of this country, who are the greatest Royalists and loyalists of them all.
My Lords, that is my simple position. If Lord Swinton's exercise will gradually eliminate the hereditary principle from legislative Peers then I support it. I was always a supporter of Lord Salisbury's thought—perhaps I am going too far in describing it as "Lord Salisbury's thought." At any rate, at the all-Party Conference which took place it was suggested that we should start off (I think my memory is correct) with a House of Lords of about 250, comprising, first, all the Peers of first creation, all the Privy Counsellors and ex-Ministers. These, it was thought, would form a nucleus of about 250. I was always sorry that that did not happen. I believe that in time we shall all be Peers of Parliament, and perhaps some hereditary Peers can also be Peers of Parliament during their lifetime. But I will not attempt to go into the matter any further. I have already, perhaps, gone a little away from the Motion. My noble friend says "Hear hear!" but I read the forty-two speeches made last week—the same forty-two that the noble Lord listened to—and in only one did I find very much reference to the Bill then before your Lordships' House. So I err in good company.
So, my Lords, I wish this scheme well. I shall do everything I can to make it work. I have worked in your Lordships' House now for twelve years, and if I have
988
done anything that is satisfactory to your Lordships it is only because I have appreciated and valued very much the honour that is mine by being here at all; and not by word or deed shall I ever do anything to denigrate the prestige and honour of your Lordships' House.
4.15 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I think we have all enjoyed the speech to which we have just listened, and very wholeheartedly we thank the noble Lord for it and for so much of the work he has done for this House. We are deeply grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, not merely for putting this Motion before us to-day but also for the work of his Committee—and indeed for the work done by his colleagues on that Committee.
I rise simply to support the Motion, and I do so warmly. It has been said to me that this scheme cannot work because it has no legal or statutory sanction. It has even been said that the very day after an application for leave of absence has been received there is nothing legal or statutory to prevent a noble Lord from coming to this House. There are two very definite replies to that suggestion. The first is that this scheme, as I read it, is based on the power of the House to make its own Standing Orders. It is true that that Standing Order could not go to the point of refusing a noble Lord admission to this House, because it would thereby be infringing the terms of the Writ and the Royal Prerogative in connection with it; but the Standing Order could, in fact, lay down a power of imposing a fine on a noble Lord for contempt.
I agree, however, with the noble Earl. Lord Swinton, and with the noble Earl the Leader of the House, that what we are really looking for is not sanctions. There is a very much better reply to what was said to me; I mean the fact that this House—I think above almost all institutions in this country—has a habit of establishing its own customs, its own traditions. I should like to remind your Lordships of a very definite precedent for what I am saying: I am not talking theory. I think it occurred in 1689, during the case connected with Titus Oates. This was, in fact, the last occasion when a lay Peer took part in a Judicial Sitting of this House. There is

989
no legal prohibition on any of us at the present moment (I speak subject to correction by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor) to prevent us from walking into any Judicial Sitting of your Lordships' House and taking part in the proceedings. That position was challenged in 1843 in the case of The Queen v. Daniel O'Connor, and it was dealt with simply by an appeal from the noble Lord, Lord Wharncliffe, to those lay members who intervened not to do so; and there the matter ended. Therefore I hope that in this matter we shall rely mainly on tradition and right feeling.
There is one point connected with the Standing Order that I should like to make; it relates to paragraph 33 (d), in the Report, which says:
"that Members of the House are expected, if they have been granted leave of absence, not to attend until their leave of absence has been terminated by their giving such notice as may be prescribed by Standing Order."
I think the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, would say that this is precisely the sort of point that would be considered by the Select Committee he is proposing. I would suggest for consideration that the time that must elapse before a Peer can attend after being granted leave of absence should be an appreciable one. I have heard it suggested that it should be only a month. That would mean, of course, that any noble Lord. having applied for, and been granted, leave of absence, could pick up an Order Paper and, seeing something which interested him, write straight away and put his name down to attend that debate. I feel that we ought to take this question of application for leave of absence rather more seriously. I suggest that a period of three months would be very much more appropriate. I have heard it suggested that the interval should be as long as the Session, and, no doubt, there is a great deal to be said for that. But, in any case, I should have thought three months would be a reasonable period.
My Lords, may I make one further point connected with another possible difficulty that I can foresee? We do not know how these plans are going to work out. It might be that far fewer noble Lords than we expect would apply for leave of absence, and that would really be a contradiction of the whole spirit of the scheme. I can quite see that such Peers might be influenced by a feeling
990
that they were sacrificing not merely the right to participate in the functioning of this Chamber but also all rights and privileges connected with the House. Might I therefore again suggest to the Select Committee that they should be as generous as possible to noble Lords who have applied for leave of absence? For instance, there should be no question of their right to attend the Opening of Parliament. Then there might be noble Lords who wished to use the facilities of this House—the refreshment room, the Library, and so on. It might be that here there would be some difficulty, but I hope that it will be possible for that point to be looked at in a generous spirit, because I believe that it would help some noble Lords in their decision to apply for leave of absence. We are all speaking very briefly in this debate, and those are the only two points that I wish to make, apart from saying that I wish strongly to support the Motion.
4.21 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I should like to add my support to the Resolution now before the House. Like the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, I feel that the proposed scheme goes a little further along the road of reform. I know that in some quarters it has been suggested that the adoption of this proposed scheme, in fact, would merely produce a facade, because no Peer can be excluded from coming to your Lordships' House; but I am quite sure that no Peer would wilfully disobey the Standing Orders of the House. I feel sure that if Standing Orders are introduced we shall establish in quite a short time a known body of working Peers; and I am convinced that there are many Peers who would welcome the proposed scheme. Many noble Lords are engaged on important duties in the country and yet, I think, according to the terms of their Writ of Attendance, they are neglecting their duties if they do not come to the House. I feel sure that this proposed scheme would relieve the conscience of many. In addition, I think it is true to say that there are a number of Peers who feel that they are unsuited to Parliamentary work and also those who, for reasons of age, would benefit by leave of absence.
There will, of course, be many points for the proposed Select Committee to

991
consider. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, has put forward a very important point which I should like to emphasise. I would say that the period before which a Peer could come back, after he has asked for revocation of his leave of absence, should certainly be at least one month, and probably three months; because if there were a much shorter period of revocation a Peer might come back and debate the last stages of a Bill in which he had not earlier taken part.
I believe that when the working body of Peers has been established through the operation of the new proposed Standing Orders, suitable payment could possibly be made on the basis of attendance, as I suggested during the debate on the Life Peerages Bill. For instance, suppose that the emolument of Peers was to be (to give a figure) £1,500 per annum, then 25 per cent. attendance would ensure payment of £375, 50 per cent. attendance would ensure payment of £750, and so on.
VISCOUNT ESHER: My Lords, would that proposed payment be free of income tax?
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, no; income tax would have to be paid upon it; but we already receive three guineas per day expenses which is not taxable. During the debate on the Life Peerages Bill, I was astonished at the way in which the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, treated the question of payment of Peers. I think that payment is absolutely necessary to get attendance, and if the noble Viscount really thinks that Life Peers are to accept nomination to this House with no remuneration except three guineas a day expenses, then he is living in Cuckoo-land, and he must think about it again. I was delighted that when the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack came to reply to the debate, he certainly dealt with the matter in a more realistic fashion. Very little can be said on this Motion because so much has already been said. I will close by saying that I hope the House will accept the Resolution.
4.26 p.m.
VISCOUNT SOULBURY: My Lords, in discussing this Motion, which I warmly support, your Lordships have, I think, three alternatives to consider. The first is to reject the Motion, to leave things as
992
they are and do nothing, relying on the undoubted fact that for a long time a small percentage of noble Lords have attended this House regularly and a large percentage have been absent without leave. I was reading the other day in Emerson's English Traits and Representative Men an account of the author's second visit to this country, about a hundred years ago. This is what he said:
"I was surprised to observe the very small attendance usually in the House of Lords—out of 573 Peers, on ordinary days, only 20 or 30."
He goes on to say that he asked a friend:
"With such interests at stake, how can these men afford to neglect them?"
His friend replied:
"Why should they work for themselves when everyone in England works for them and will suffer before they come to harm?"
A Member of your Lordships' House today who does not attend is most unlikely to put forward the second part of the reason given by Mr. Emerson's friend; and as regards the first part, I feel that the exiguous powers now enjoyed by this House might make him wonder whether by attending he is doing any work for himself.
But there is another reason and perhaps a more natural one for non-attendance (perhaps I should say, non-attendance without leave)—that is, that as things are, the recipient of a Writ (and I hope that as a result of this Report every noble Lord will get a Writ delivered) may feel that its very stringent and imperative terms, drafted, I imagine, in the Middle Ages, are no longer applicable with any such force to conditions to-day, and therefore by that consideration may salve his conscience in not attending. Nevertheless, as long as the terms of that Writ stand, I do not think a Peer's conscience can be calmed unless he takes the steps indicated to apply for leave of absence.
Another alternative might be action by Statute—an endeavour to regularise attendance here by Act of Parliament. I believe your Lordships would very much deprecate that step. Such an Act would be extremely hard to draft. It would be impossible to foresee the innumerable occasions which would justify absence. It would involve sanctions, and sanctions by Act of Parliament, which would mean pains and penalties which have been disused for a long time and which no one would wish to revive. It would also cause

993
great resentment and might well lead to evasion. I feel that, for that reason, we should dispel the idea of dealing with this matter by Statute. That leaves a third alternative: to deal with the matter on a voluntary basis, by Standing Orders, as the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has suggested, so that, as pointed out in paragraph 33, after a Peer receives his Writ and is asked whether he desires to have leave of absence and replies Yes", he will be expected not to appear in this House unless he applies to withdraw his request for leave of absence by giving whatever may be decided as a reasonable notice.
There may be the objection raised to that: "Yes, but with no sanction, if he applies for leave of absence and is granted it, he may change his mind overnight and come back to this House and take steps to vote or speak or anything else." That is, of course, perfectly true, but I myself—and I think most noble Lords would agree with me, in view of past history and in view of what we know of each other—think it is in the highest degree, improbable that a noble Lord would take advantage of such procedure. I can say that if a noble Lord did, although I do not believe any noble Lord would, he would incur the grave displeasure and disapproval of the House; and, speaking personally, I would sooner commit a breach of Statute than incur that. Therefore I hope your Lordships will give warm support to this measure and that it will be entirely successful.
There is one small point which has just been touched upon by a noble Lord. The point was that a Peer who has been granted leave of absence might find himself in London and wish to return here to take advantage of the Library or Dining Room facilities. I think I am right in saying, although I speak subject to correction, that he would not be contravening the Standing Orders if he did so, because, I believe, Standing Orders in this House refer only to this Chamber.
4.32 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords. I shall address the House only briefly. I suppose in the absence of Lord Samuel. I am the only person present who participated in the Division in 1910. My first point is that your Lordships have not changed one little bit since then.
994
Your powers have been cut down, and there is the Parliament Act, but the desire to do what you want to do is just as strong to-day as it was in 1910. The opinions expressed about women, and the opinions expressed about everything else—especially about the mandate to which I shall refer shortly—are exactly the arguments that we have had over and over again. I fought three elections in 1910 on this issue.
I am against the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. I hope he will not charge me with saying that belatedly. I sat on the Committee, but many things were afoot in those days which made it better to be silent. At this moment I am against the Resolution, and I will tell you why. First of all, we have the feeling that something should be done about the reform of the House of Lords. The Opposition, we are always told, is dying on its feet, and we must pour more people on to the Opposition Benches. But that is not the way to obtain an Opposition. You must get an Opposition who believe in something and who know that sometimes, if they have a good case, they may win. So long as you have the hereditary principle as the basis of the House, the Opposition can never win and their position is therefore impossible. A few members come here and, after they have been here for a while, they get tined; the place is so comfortable and charming and everyone is so friendly that one soon gets corrupted in that way. I love it myself, but there is always the bite of conscience, and we know perfectly well that we are not upholding the principle for which we fought in 1910.
The noble Earl, Lord Home, comes along with his suggestion of Life Peers. Of course, the Life Peers will have leave of absence in the same way as anyone else: that has not been overlooked. There are going to be Life Peers, as well as women (with which we all agree), and then the noble Earl says we have reformed the House of Lords. The noble Lord who has suffered a bitter defeat is Lord Salisbury. He did have a scheme, and he is now, I suppose, sitting by a sleeping dog and munching half a loaf! But the scheme that the Government put forward is no scheme of reform at all. There is not a person who would say that the attendance of one or two Life Peers here is going to make a difference.

995
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, with whom I venture to disagree, if he will permit me—as we always say, his speech was brilliant but I venture to disagree with it in some particulars—wants the "rate for the job". That is a good trade union slogan; but what job? He does not say what the job is. People came into Parliament in my day because they wanted to get some cause promoted. They believed, no doubt misguidedly, that Socialism was the thing, or Liberalism was the thing. We are told we should pay the rate for the job, but we are not told what the job is or how it is to be performed, or what qualifications people should have in order to do it.
I think that the only consolation in politics, when one gets older, is that one believes one is somehow following a little light; and that is impossible in this House, because we know that, even when there is reform by the presence here of a few Life Peers, we shall still meet an absolutely cast-iron barrier and shall never, never be able to get our way. Therefore, this House can never be a House with two Parties; it never will be a House with two Parties; it will be a House with one Party which will be quiescent when its own Government are in power, but will attend when our Government assume power. The purpose of Lord Swinton's proposal is to make it a little more respectable not to attend. If a noble Lord is asked, "Are you a Peer?" he will be able to reply, when it is pointed out that he has not been to the House for years, "No; but look at my ticket." Nothing I can say will prevent these gentlemen from being known as" Ticket of leave Peers."
But assume that the House is reformed and there is a working House: there might then suddenly be an election. What will happen then? We hope, and it may be so, that a Labour Government will be returned. Then where will the "ticket of leave" men be? They will be back here. They will be writing telegrams to say, "Cancel my ticket. I will attend." And then we shall have to contend with the bitter resistance—
THE EARL OF SWINTON: It did not happen last time or during any of the seven years when you were in office.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I think it would be a diversion if I went into that. You are speaking about the period after the war. A number of things, including the fear in the hearts of Conservatives, who were terribly surprised to find that Mr. Churchill could be defeated in an election, conspired to enable us to pass these measures. But when something really "meaty" comes along with a new Government in power, do you suppose their Lordships will all apply for leave of absence and stay away? No, they will all be here, and in Opposition, and then the matter will have to be dealt with by removing and at once the power of delay.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: And all Bills that came from the Socialist Party would be passed.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I did not hear what the noble Earl said. But that is the risk. This Resolution is merely a bucket of whitewash: it does nothing whatever. Here is an ancient structure the timbers have decayed, it is riddled with dry rot, and the Government say, "Splendid! Let us paint the front door." And when you say you cannot occupy such a structure, it is against the by-laws, then along comes Lord Swinton and suggests that there should be a change in the by-laws. That is the essence of the whole thing.
I apologise for having spoken with feeling. We have heard in all these speeches little points about going into the Library, and attending the House for a cup of tea, and that that would be all right because the Standing Orders do not apply to the Refreshment Department. All that sort of "introverted" material has been the hall-mark of this debate. Last week in our Decameron we were telling each other little stories about ourselves, when the whole world was in ruin about us. This is not the time to camouflage what is a reality. That this House is reactionary is shown by the fact that it rejected the last attempt by the greatest Conservative of our day, Lord Salisbury, to repair itself. Now we make these mock repairs—just a little bit of spit and polish.
THE EARL OF HOME: The noble Viscount must not mislead the House, because Lord Salisbury's scheme included an hereditary element. The noble

997
Viscount must not give the impression that there is unity behind Lord Salisbury's scheme, and that his Party would support it.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I was not putting myself forward as a supporter of Lord Salisbury's scheme at all. What I said about his scheme was that it was a logical scheme and that it dealt logically with this matter. The reason I am glad that it has been defeated (the noble Marquess is now a defeated, though submissive, member of the Conservative Party) is because it makes the final ruin of the power of this House all the more certain. If these people come back—and there is nothing to prevent them—when a Labour Government is in office, and they oppose mighty measures which will be proposed then, that will be an end of this place as a Legislative Chamber. I certainly should not mind that, because in my view it could be much more useful in an advisory capacity, and we could still meet and have real debates. Therefore I have risen to express briefly my opposition to the Resolution put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, because I think it is a sham.
4.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT ESHER: My Lords, I am a serious-minded man. I know that, since I am an hereditary Peer, any words of nine in these days will carry very little weight in your Lordships' House, but I cannot help being considerably concerned by the sort of Second Chamber that is going to emerge from the Bill that we discussed last week combined with the Resolution that has been moved this afternoon. It is clear that, without actually forbidding Members of your Lordships' House from exercising their right to attend or not to attend, the Select Committee on the Powers of the House has suggested bringing a pressure to bear on your Lordships which they will find it impossible to resist.—It is to be laid down that a Peer who is
"unable or unwilling to discharge his duty of attendance can reasonably be said to have a duty to apply to the House for leave of absence."
Your Lordships are the sort of people who do your duty, and if it is laid down as your duty, I am afraid that only too many of your Lordships will do it.
I know that, in theory, I can reject or ignore Lord Rea's interpretation of
998
my duty, but I doubt whether, in practice, I should ever have the courage to do so. One might be alarmed at the prospect of a hostile reception in your Lordships' House, and be reluctant to face baleful looks from the noble Lord who leads the Liberal Party. This means a purely political House of Lords, consisting of Life Peers created by the Party Leaders, and pricked hereditary Peers selected by the Party Leaders. It will, in fact, be something new and different in our Constitution—a Senate House full of politicians. I hope your Lordships will forgive me for once again venturing to defend the hereditary principle. I know that we are despised by those of your Lordships who have acquired a Peerage by service to the State, and I cannot but suppose that my inability to discover—with a few exceptions—any superiority in such of your Lordships, is pure arrogance and conceit on my part.
Nevertheless, I view with genuine alarm a plan such as that recommended to-day by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, which will confine the membership of your Lordships' House to selected and, ultimately, remunerated politicians. The value and interest of debates in your Lordships' House is the conspicuous independence of mind shown by the debaters It is that fresh and individual point of view, that unexpected and original approach, which makes your Lordships' House so far less boring than most of the Second Chambers that fill the world with recorded speech. A healthy proportion of the speakers are not politicians, yoked to the service of a Party, and endlessly repeating the clichés of their captivity. But surely that is what the selected 200, together with the Life Peers and Peeresses, will be.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords. I am sorry to interrupt, but the noble Viscount really must not mislead the House, even though he does so unintentionally. I am very proud to be mistaken for the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, but the selection process was a Salisbury process and not a Swinton process. By the Swinton process every Peer will select himself if he is prepared to do his duty.
VISCOUNT ESHER: If every Peer selects himself I do not mind so much, because I shall proceed to select myself without hesitation. But I cannot see how

999
that is going to cause any alteration in your Lordships' House. If I may use, the simile of a pack of cards, what will happen, in practice, is that the House of Commons will retain the Aces and Kings, and will send up to your Lordships' House the Queens and the Knaves.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: And the Jokers!
VISCOUNT ESHER: We know the sort of women we are likely to get under that process, and I must say that I should prefer to have ladies who are already Peeresses under the hereditary principle. And when, on the top of the Knaves discarded by the House of Commons, we get all the safe "Tens" selected by the three Leaders in your Lordships' House, then everything that makes your Lordships' House lively and interesting will have been removed.
I should like to hang my remarks round the person of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The noble Earl is everything to which the Labour politicians in your Lordships' House are opposed and seek to remove. He is of very ancient lineage; and his ancestors have for many centuries given distinguished services to the country. That, in itself, is bad enough and deserves, in the eyes of the Labour Party, exclusion from a Second Chamber. But, in addition to heredity he is also a persistent absentee, very rarely attending the debates in your Lordships' House. Clearly this is the sort of man the politicians want to exclude; he does not understand the game they play, and his mind cannot be disciplined to play it. Under Lord Swinton's Resolution, he would never be summoned. Yet we all know that he is one of the most distinguished Englishmen alive; that he has a mind and intellect of the first quality, and that, if he walked in to-day, or any other day, we should listen with absorbed and breathless interest to what he had to say.
Surely we are unwise to make a plan which flattens out the level of our ideas, and leaves us to listen only to a constant repetition of the ordinary and the commonplace. I do not say that the new House of Lords envisaged would be a bad institution. No body of Englishmen—not even those likely to be chosen by electors—ever turns out to be thoroughly bad. But it will have two characteristics
1000
making it, to my mind, inferior to the present House of Lords. The Members will all be old. The distinguished people who will be either created Life Peers or selected as hereditary Peers by the Party Leaders in the exercise of their enormous patronage will all be old. And nothing is more dreadful than a deliberative Assembly full of old people.
In the old days, before the Liberals got at it, the House of Lords had much power, too much power, used for Conservative advantage; and there is no doubt that the House of Lords was dangerous. Now, it is proposed to make it, not dangerous but dull. If we lived in a perfect and safe society, having surmounted all our difficulties and achieved all our ambitions, it would not matter if the House of Lords sank into the dull and dead level of elected persons, and acquiesced in the invertebrate proposals of alternative Governments. But, on the contrary, we live in critical times, when we need individuals with as much character and eccentric genius as we can find. From this Liberal point of view, your Lordships' House, as reformed by the Liberal Party, has no power, but it has personality and prestige. Both are urgently required in the modern world, and I hope that serious attention will be given to the possibilities in what is called the two-Writ scheme, the papers of which I received this morning, under which the personality and prestige of the hereditary Peers would perhaps be retained. I cannot help being afraid that your Lordships' House, after the noble Earls, Lord Home and Lord Swinton, have done their worst with it, will have lost all those qualities that make it superior to the Senate of the United States.
4.53 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, in rising to take part in this debate, I must confess a degree of personal interest in the matter over and above that of the natural interest of all noble Lords in a question which closely affects the effective composition of your Lordships' House. As the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, will readily appreciate, my interest derives from the fact that the last service which my noble father performed for your Lordships' House was to sit on this Select Committee of which the noble Earl was Chairman. Indeed, the Report of that Select Committee was

1001
circulated a week after my noble father died and was the first Paper I ever received in my own right from your Lordships' House.
I have been surprised, if I may say so—it only shows my newness to this Assembly—to find with what detachment of mind and spirit most noble Lords have treated the Motion before the House, almost as though we had not had a marathon debate lasting four days, spread over six weeks, on the general reform of your Lordships' House and the narrower question of the creation of Life Peers I find it difficult to regard this matter as completely detached from what was said during the course of those debates. I must admit that I was rather pleased to find one or two allies and deviators on the opposite Benches in the persons of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, with whom I almost entirely agree., and of the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, with whom I almost entirely disagree. It gives me the opportunity of pursuing a little further one or two points which they made, which have some relevance to the Motion before us and which refer to the effective composition of your Lordships' House.
The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, spoke as though all hereditary members of your Lordships' House are reactionary. As one who holds one of the most ancient titles in your Lordships' House, I think he is probably justified in applying that epithet to me and I am proud to acknowledge it; but as regards a large proportion of your Lordships' House I would draw his attention to the composition of the House a year ago at that final and grand debate we bad on the question of Egypt and Suez, when 186 noble Lords went through the Division Lobbies. I looked up the Hansard of that date and discovered that 60 per cent. of that total were Peers of the first and second generations—25 per cent. of the first and 25 per cent, of the second. If the Life Peerages Bill is passed, I think it will not be long before those percentages will rise to 75 or 80 per cent.—50 per cent. of the first generation and 25 to 30 per cent. of the second. I do not know whether the noble Viscount would consider that the House would still be reactionary in such an event, which is not so far oil. In fact, the reactionary element
1002
is confined to people like myself, who form an insignificant 20 per cent. of your Lordships' House.
It is interesting to note that of all those who hold ancient peerages existing before 1800, of whom there were 250 on the strength of your Lordships' House at that time and of whom only 150 are left to-day, no fewer than 50 voted at the end of that debate a year ago. To my mind, such a percentage of 33⅓ shows a remarkable degree of stamina, stability and responsibility—all three of them qualities which I suggest are very desirable in your Lordships' House and which enable us even to stand up against the noble Viscount.
Returning to the consideration of the Motion, I wish to direct attention once again to the part which refers to the cancellation of leave of absence and to the giving of notice as may be prescribed by Standing Orders. As the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, has said, the Committee came to the conclusion that the making of sanctions should be ruled out, and evidently it is the feeling of your Lordships' House that we should not indulge in any penalties of that nature. But in view of the strong feeling which has been expressed in recent debates by many Back Benchers who supported the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, in his plan. and in view of the anxiety expressed on the Benches opposite about the "backwoodsmen", those Assyrian hordes who may descend like wolves on the fold, of the possibility of whose coming the Party opposite would like to be relieved, I do not know whether it would be within the terms of the Select Committee to be appointed (because the noble Earl has actually asked us to approve the Report) to make some recommendation which has not been included in the Report or some amendment to a recommendation. In view of the strength of feeling on both sides for different reasons—many noble Lords on this side wishing a firmer line to be taken than the Government propose, for instance, in the Life Peerages Bill, and noble Lords on the other side wishing to be rid of the spectre of the "backwoodsmen" descending upon them willy-nilly—I think that something should be done to meet those views.
I hope your Lordships will forgive me for turning to the minutes of evidence for a moment. I think what occurred in the questioning of the noble and learned

1003
Viscount, Lord Simonds, reported on page 58, was very interesting. The noble and learned Viscount expressed the opinion that he did not think that any noble Lord would even have to ask permission to conic back; that even though he had previously requested leave of absence, he would just be able to turn up. That rather surprised the noble Earl who was Chairman. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, suggested that it would be perfectly right for the House to enforce the giving of some degree of notice by noble Lords, if only to regulate the procedure of the House for its better ordering and its own convenience. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, could not quite agree even with that.
Finally, the matter was crystallised, and purely coincidentally—I do not choose this to butter myself up, or anything like that—by some questions put by my noble father. He got Lord Simonds to admit that the House of Lords is the High Court against whose decision there is no appeal. My father then asked:
"Now supposing that the House did determine to act arbitrarily and that it did determine to exclude a Peer, or a group of Peers, or a certain number of Peers, for certain reasons, what remedy would that Peer or that group of Peers have?"
The answer of Lord Simonds was:
"So far as I know he or they would not have any."
Then my father asked:
"And therefore the House could do what in your opinion it ought not to do and yet it could do it?"
And the answer was:
"I am inclined to think so, but that is a very difficult question to answer."
I bring that to your Lordships' attention only because it is, I think, rather a relevant point, and it may be one which the Select Committee will wish to consider yet again. I do not wish to say anything else, except that if the Select Committee went as far as that, it would probably annoy the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, even more than if the present recommendations of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, went through, because then the noble Viscount would be deprived entirely of the "backwoodsmen" as an "Aunt Sally", who would no longer be in a position to receive his progressive coconuts.
1004
I will end by saying that I think it no accident, but rather a natural, logical and desirable development of your Lordships' House, that this Motion should have been proposed by a Peer of the first creation and supported by several Peers of (I think I can say) the 19th century period, and by myself, whose peerage, as I said, is one of the most reactionary of all, because it goes back into the realms of antiquity. I would only say to noble Lords opposite that I support wholeheartedly the proposal to create Life Peers, but, at the same time, I come here unashamed. My only ambition, like that of all noble Lords, I am sure, is to maintain the traditions and uphold the good reputation of your Lordships' House, and it is with that aim in view that I give such warm support to this Motion and, in particular, to the proposal to appoint a Select Committee.
5.5 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Hastings, for. when this Report was last before this House on February 28 last year, tributes were paid from every quarter of the House to his noble father, and to none was this more welcome than to me, as a former Member for Norwich who used to meet his distinguished father so often and have such pleasant journeys to London in his company. This has been a short but interesting debate, made not the less fascinating by the characteristic and amusing speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Esher. The House can congratulate itself on the freedom of its proceedings, which made a speech which would have been wholly relevant last week so easily delivered today, when the speech had no relevance whatsoever to the matter of the Motion before the House.
On the last occasion. I ventured to say how much I admired this Report of the Committee over which my noble friend Lord Swinton presided. It has all the requisite and relevant learning; it is extremely readable, and it occupies about twelve pages. It is in every way a model Report, and I think my noble friend made only one serious mistake. He made the mistake of persuading the Committee to be unanimous. If he had only persuaded the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, to dissent, then Lord Stansgate would have supported him to-day. The

1005
noble Viscount thinks very much as he thought in 1910, the main difference being that he is now so much younger. He prefers to try to make his conduct more or less conform to what it would have been in 1910, and wholly disregards the views of the Committee with which he agreed as recently as last year.
I think that this proposal of the Committee, put forward so persuasively by my noble friend this afternoon, has everything to commend it. It is quite impossible to say—none of us knows—how many noble Lords will avail themselves of the suggestion that they might apply for leave of absence; but I do not think that the justification of the Motion before us this afternoon in any way depends on those numbers. The obvious effect of what now being proposed is this: that the very stringent words of the Writ of Summons will be brought to the attention of every noble Lord, and a perfectly honourable way will be put before him by which, if he wishes, but only if he wishes, he can apply for leave of absence and thus avoid disrespect for the terms of the Writ without sacrificing any right of any sort. I should have thought that that was an admirable and useful suggestion, and I am at a loss to know on what ground it is opposed: in fact, I think it is not really opposed very wholeheartedly as a proposal, in itself, but simply to enable the only two noble Lords who said they were opposing it to make speeches which we all enjoyed.
My noble friend the Leader of the House said that this proposal has the advantage that it will work; and I agree that that is a great advantage. Indeed, it cannot help working, because, as I say, its success in no way depends on the numbers who avail themselves of this possibility. I congratulate my noble friend on his original Report and on the favourable reception that to-day's Motion has received. To-day's Motion, if I may say so, is clearly in the right terms, because it invites the House to record its agreement: with certain specific paragraphs in the Report and then leaves it to the Select Committee to advise on the appropriate Standing Orders to carry out the intention. Of course, the House will have a further opportunity of considering the Standing Orders before they become effective. By giving our unanimous approval this afternoon to the Motion of my noble friend, we shall be reserving
1006
every right of criticism, should we have any, of the Standing Orders when they are produced by the Select Committee. For these reasons I heartily support the Motion.
5.12 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I rise for only a few moments because I had the honour to be a member of the Select Committee whose Report we have been debating to-day. That is the only thing I have in common in this debate with the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, because whereas I would try to look into the future, it struck me that the speech of the noble Viscount started in 1910 and, as a good boomerang should, was rapidly homing on 1910 when the noble Viscount sat down. I shall say little, because I agree entirely with what my noble friend Lord Conesford has just said. I think the House will be perfectly safe, in one way, in taking the course that it is asked to take, because, among other things, the Select Committee (as those who were members of it will testify) were at the greatest pains to claim no right or privilege for the House which could not be amply justified. We can be quite certain that everything which is recommended in the Report is fully within the powers of this House as they have been laid down through the ages.
We must not look at this particular step we are taking this afternoon in isolation, because it is part of the whole plan for reforming this House. It cannot stand by itself; nor, indeed, could the Report of the new Select Committee, if we decide to appoint it, as I hope we shall. It must depend upon the Parliamentary view, and upon any other steps that may turn out to be necessary. But it is an important step, and it is important in two ways. First of all, though one might not attach too much importance to what I am going to say, I think we should all be relieved in our minds to think that we shall no longer be in the position of receiving the most peremptory commands from the Sovereign yet unable to obey them. After all, disregard of commands in the terms of the Writ is a serious thing, and the fact that we disregard them cannot improve our regard for any other commands of the same nature. I would much rather be rid of it in the way the Select Committee have proposed, and

1007
make it possible for myself, along with other Members of this House, to apply in the proper way to be excused from obeying a command in those terms.
The other important point is that when this Select Committee is appointed, as my noble friend Lord De La Warr said, we must take great care that it works out the details in such a way that it really provides the incentive for people to do what is wanted; that is to say, those people who cannot, for different reasons, or do not want to take an active part in this House should be allowed to go, and those people who want to come should be welcomed here. There are many small points which may have a perhaps disproportionate influence on individual Members of this House in their decision whether or not to apply for leave of absence. My noble friend Lord Soulbury mentioned some of them, and I am quite sure that the success of this plan will depend to a great extent on the way in which these details are worked out, including such matters as have already been mentioned—the use of the Library, the Dining Room and so forth: and attendance at the opening of Parliament. Those are all matters for the Select Committee, and are matters of detail. I am quite sure that time spent on them will not be wasted.
The result will then be that we shall have in this House those who care for the House and are prepared to work for it. It may or may not be necessary to improve the financial considerations for attending here. I am inclined to agree with my noble friend Lord Teynham that it will, but I cannot follow the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, when he said that a certain eminent Peer, whom he named, should not be excluded from the House when in fact he is excluding himself by not giving us the benefit of his well-known wisdom.
VISCOUNT ESHER: The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has spoken several times in this House, but he must be called an absentee. Nevertheless, when he has spoken his speech has been of superlative value.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: No doubt when these rules are produced, as I hope they will be, they will be produced in such a way as to encourage his speeches,
1008
and also, no doubt, his more frequent attendance. I do not wish to detain your Lordships any longer, and I will simply add my warm support to the Motion of my noble friend Lord Swinton.
5.16 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I find myself in the rather embarrassing position of having to disagree with both my noble friends on this side of the House who have spoken on this Motion. I think my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth was much too enthusiastic about it, and my noble friend Lord Stansgate, in a most charming speech, which I think was well worth the debate, was much too condemnatory. May I, at the outset—and I hope I shall be brief, like every other speaker—say that we are not being asked to-day to approve the Report. The Report was merely an intellectual or academic exercise into what the House can do, if it wanted to do it, but not what it should do. Perhaps I can, in justification of that, read the first two sentences of paragraph 1 of the Report, headed "Scope of the Report". That says:
"The Committee have interpreted their terms of reference in the light of the debate which took place in the House at the time of their appointment. The House charged the Committee to advise what the House can do, not to recommend what the House should do "
Therefore we are in no sense approving a set of recommendations as to action. We are merely considering what the Committee suggest it is possible to do and, if we approve this, are giving encouragement to certain of their findings of fact and dealing with the question of absentee Peers.
I fully understand what it is sought to do: that is, to regularise the absence of Peers. That is what the noble Earl. Lord Swinton, said, and that is what the Leader of the House said. The first point was the regularisation of absence. It will not necessarily bring one single Peer to this House who would not otherwise have come, so far as I can see. Nor will it cause any Peer to stay away who would otherwise come. It will make no difference. It will simply give the absentee Peers, as my noble friend Lord Stansgate said, a ticket of leave to be away. For what it is worth, it is all right; but do not let us build too high on that. Indeed, if one judges by some of the speeches, it may not even do that, because it is contemplated that noble

1009
Lords will get as far as the Tea Room or the Library, but not venture inside the Chamber. That I find difficult to understand. I should imagine that if a noble Lord had got as far as this place he would want to come in occasionally, even if only out of curiosity. Such Peers would therefore not apply for leave of absence. Therefore, I do not suppose that that particular difficulty will arise at all.
It was also said that regularisation of absence would put ourselves in a better position in the eyes of the public. Do noble Lords really think that? I do not wish to be argumentative about this matter at all, because I feel that on the whole, it is just worth trying; but will it improve our position in the eyes of the public if it turns out that 300 noble Lords, hereditary legislators, do not want to have anything to do with the place, and ask for leave of absence? I cannot think that that would enhance the prestige of this House at all. I wonder whether it would not be better, in those circumstances, to let sleeping dogs lie, rather than to bring out into the limelight the fact that there are so many absentee Peers. From the point of view of noble Lords on this side of the House, it does not matter to us one way or the other. Even if three-quarters of noble Lords opposite took advantage of this and obtained leave of absence, instead of being outnumbered by sixteen to one we should be outnumbered by four to one. It could not matter less. It would merely de-congest the Division Lobby, but otherwise we are just as dead at four to one as we are at sixteen to one. That itself does not matter.
The other point made by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, was that it would apparently make it easier, once we had become a working Chamber, to provide for the remuneration of those who were left. I wonder. Ft seems to me that if you want to make this a working Chamber, it is far more logical to accept the plan of the noble Marquess and select the Peers who are going to constitute that working Chamber than to leave it to the chance of those Peers who happen to reply to a letter asking them whether they are going to attend or not. The people who will reply and say they will attend will not necessarily be the best and most competent people to carry out
1010
the work of this House. They may happen to be merely those Peers who are living in London and can come occasionally, or those Peers who feel that this is an interesting place to come to and have a cup of tea in, or who wish to use the Library, or who come for a variety of other reasons. They will be such people as select themselves on purely fortuitous grounds. So it does not seem to me that this is really logical.
However, this is not a scheme about which I would die in the last ditch. If the House wants to try it out, by all means let it. My view is that it is a case of "the more this House changes, the more it is the same thing". We shall get the same faces facing us after this scheme has been put into operation as we are getting now, and noble Lords opposite will have the privilege, I hope, of looking at the same faces on this side of the House. We shall be exactly the same. Perhaps I should say, once more, that I was a member of the Committee and I very much enjoyed being a member. It was most interesting to go into the history of the privileges of this House and so on. But I hope the noble Earl will not mind my saying this: I never had a sense of reality about it at all. It was a very interesting and enjoyable academic exercise, and if we adopt the Motion that is what I believe this thing will become.
5.25 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, your Lordships will be relieved, I am sure, when I say at once that it is neither my duty nor my intention to wind up this debate. That happy task falls on the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, and I am merely speaking as Lord Chancellor to support him on the constitutional points that arise from his proposals. I should like to assure him that, first of all, with regard to paragraph 15 of his Report (which deals with the delivery of Writs) I believe it would be perfectly possible to do as the Committee propose. It would require a certain amount of research and direction, which I need not detain your Lordships with now, and which can be discussed on the Select Committee. Equally, on the question of the Standing Orders with regard to leave of absence, I myself do not see any constitutional difficulty there. Again, there are a number of quite ancillary points which

1011
will have to be decided by the Committee before the final form is evolved, but they are not of such importance that I need detain your Lordships now.
I should like to say just one word in regard to that matter, because it arises from the most fascinating speech, if he will allow me to say so, of my noble friend Lord Hastings. He quoted a piece of expert cross-examination (and after all I made a scanty living by cross-examination for thirty years; therefore I do know a little about it) by his noble father of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds. But he will remember that, just after that, there is a reflective comment by my noble and learned friend, Lord Morton of Henryton, that it all depends on what is meant by the word "could". And of course, dashing though the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, was—worthy of his ancestor, Sir Jacob Astley—I can assure him that this House does not treat "could" except in accordance with the Law of Parliament and therefore within the capabilities of the House in that regard. I think that that leaves the field open to what the noble Lord. Lord Hastings, had in mind. Because so long as what we do—and I think that here the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, will agree with me—is to regulate the procedure of the House, not to prevent any Peer from exercising his rights but to let him exercise them under the regulation of the House, then we are perfectly in order in every sense of the word "could".
I was deeply moved by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, but I think he will agree that I shall have another opportunity to deal with the points that he raised in regard to other matters. To-day he is, if not among the elect, at least among the faithful, in supporting this Report; so I shall leave the other points until we reach the Committee stage of the Bill. I think my noble friend Lord De La Warr made two important points, and the first was that the problem before your Lordships is to crystallise a convention in the shortest possible time. My Lords, traditions are often of slow growth, and gain their importance from that fact. But we have got to create a convention and make an immediate tradition that noble Lords will act in accordance with Standing Orders
1012
and conform with what is the general wish of the House in that regard. That brings me to the second point of the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr. Like many of your Lordships, he stressed the question of the three months' notice. I believe that we all have that point in mind, and that we want the notice to be sufficiently long for there to be no change of mind occurring from what is to be expected on the Order Paper. I understood that that is what my noble friend had in mind, and I venture to underline it as an important point.
I shared the general enjoyment of the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate—and he knows that that is a perfectly genuine remark. There was only one thing I could not understand: that the noble Viscount shared in the general depression among certain of his colleagues in regard to the expectation of being beaten in a Division. Had anyone asked me, from friendship with the noble Viscount of some twenty-two years, what I thought was the incident in his life that he had enjoyed most, I should unhesitatingly have said when he moved a vote of censure on the Speaker in another place. I cannot believe that, despite the famous and witty lobby of Liberals who came behind him, the noble Viscount, in moving that vote of censure against the Speaker, had any real expectation of carrying it. For that reason I cannot think that that is a very serious trouble of the noble Viscount.
But, of course, he, from one aspect, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, tried to put us into a dilemma which they cannot pose, or, rather, cannot fairly pose. Behind the noble Viscount's criticism of us there appears the view that the only possible Second Chamber is an elected Second Chamber; but that is barred it is barred by the House of Commons, by the Labour Party and by everyone who has considered it. If the noble Lord, Lord Silk in, will forgive me for saying so, he was almost plaintively in favour of the superiority of the scheme of my noble friend Lord Salisbury. But, again, the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, frankly and forcibly pointed out that a scheme like that of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, could not be accepted by the Labour Party because of its consequences on the position of the House.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I hope the noble and learned Viscount will allow me to observe that all I said was that I thought the scheme of the noble Marquess was more logical, in that the people were actually selected.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am quite prepared to accept from the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that logic and acceptability by the Labour Party are not the same thing.
There is only one point that occurred to me in regard to the delightful speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Esher; that whatever one might say about his division of the Parliamentary pack of cards, no one in this House was left in the slightest doubt where we would find the Joker. I apologise to your Lordships for having treated such important speeches in a spirit of levity, but that is only because I feel that in our debate this afternoon there has been general agreement of the House in favour of the proposals of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. I hope that the House will agree to his Resolution, and that, the House approving of the paragraphs that are named, the Select Committee will be appointed to frame the Standing Orders. My real purpose was to tell your Lordships that, having examined these proposals, I see no constitutional objection or mechanical difficulty from my point of view; and I repeat, in these last words, our gratitude to the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, not only for his chairmanship of the Committee but for bringing this matter before the House this afternoon.
5.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, it is very agreeable and gratifying to find the Report almost universally welcomed in this House—and I think that even the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, in spite of what he said to-day, rather liked it. It is comforting to the Committee, who put in a very great amount of hard work, to feel that not only were they able to report to the House with research and authority on what were its powers but that they were able also to make practical and constructive suggestions which to-day have found so much favour with your Lordships. I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack: for having stated so clearly that we were all right in our law. I was not unduly anxious about that, because
1014
we had on the Committee a wealth of legal talent, and I thought that we were fairly safe.
I should like to deal for a moment or two with some points which were raised in the very helpful speeches that have been made. My noble friend Lord De La Warr raised two or three questions. There was the length of notice to be given before resuming attendance, with which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has also dealt. I agree with him in feeling that the Committee's desire, and certainly the desire of the House, would be that we should have a reasonable length of notice, a period which made it impossible for people to job in and out. I feel that that is reasonable. For, after all, what we are doing is regulating our procedure in this matter. We are not saying to a man, "You shall not come here and vote," but simply. "If you are going to come here you must decide whether you are going to discharge your duty under the Writ, within reason."
There is this point to be remembered. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor pointed out that no one would feel that it was right that a Peer who said "No, I am riot going to attend "should then suddenly say," There is something on the Order Paper on which I should like to come in, "and "cut in" upon it. I am sure that that would be contrary to the whole spirit of what the House wishes to do under its Standing Orders. But surely it would be entirely contrary also to what is permissible under the terms of the Writ itself. We, in the Committee, went as far as we could in saying that a Peer could say, "I will attend when I can," which would give us the advantage of having those Peers who cannot attend regularly but who sincerely come when they can and on those occasions are very valuable and entertaining. But for a Peer to say: "I am going to attend when I can, although I cannot be a regular attender," is very different from saying" I have not the faintest intention of being a regular or, indeed, an occasional attender of this House unless I see on the Order Paper some particular matter on which I want to take part." It seems to me that if that were permissible under the Standing Orders it would almost amount to giving

1015
a Standing Order sanction to what I believe is actually the bogy of the "backwoodsmen," who in practice we found never turned up.
I think the point is academic—not in the sense in which Lord Silkin called it academic, because, as my noble friend the Leader of the House said, we do work practical things in a practical way in this House. I think that the great merit of this scheme is that it will work. I do not want to prejudge what the Select Committee will say, but it will be for them to propose to the House what should be the length of notice in the Standing Order. On the matter of the Library and the Dining Room, I am inclined to agree with my noble friend Lord Soulbury (though here I speak subject to correction), that Standing Orders have in the past concerned themselves with the conduct of this Chamber only and with Members in this Chamber; and I should have thought that the regulation of the Dining. Room and the Library was a matter for the Lord Great Chamberlain and Members of the House outside, not one to be found a place in Standing Orders.
As regards the Opening of Parliament, and the point that, if they so desired. Peers should be able to attend the Opening of Parliament, even if they were not going to come at other times. I do not see a difficulty in that. The Opening of Parliament is the first matter to be dealt with in the Session, and the mere taking of the Oath—indeed, some Peers attend the Opening of Parliament without having taken the Oath—does not mean that a Peer is committing himself to attendance. If the notice goes out about the Standing Orders, the Peer would have to give in his notice applying for leave of absence after the opening of the Session. Obviously he must have a certain time in which to do it, and there- fore, if it were so desired, I do not see that attendance at the Opening of Parliament necessarily conflicts with the Standing Order that a Peer must put in a reasonable number of attendances.
I find it very difficult to deal with the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate—perhaps he did not expect me to do so. I am sorry that I corrupted him on the Committee. He seemed to
1016
be very agreeably in agreement all the time and I am bound to say that I could not for the life of me understand why he came all the way along on the Committee and then ran out to-day. He says that it has something to do with heredity, and he used the question of heredity—although he has passed on some pretty good and entertaining qualities to his descendants. But, after all, our Report has not done anything to alter the hereditary principle, or to deal with it at all. The position with regard to hereditary Peers and their rights is exactly the same to-day as when the noble Viscount signed or agreed to the Report. Therefore I might say that inconsistency is not the least of his charms.
The same might be said of the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Esher. I would not have missed his speech for anything. But, of course, it had nothing, to do with the Motion before the House: he was addressing himself entirely to the proposal of my noble friend Lord Salisbury. I think there is a great deal to be said for Lord Salisbury's proposals, but, whatever there was to be said for or against them, it would have been said more appropriately in the debate on the Second Reading of the Life Peerages Bill.
VISCOUNT ESHER: My Lords. I did not really like the Life Peerages Bill very much last week. What "killed" it for me was the production of the noble Earl's Motion to-day: the combination of the two was more than I could stand.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: But I still do not understand. What the noble Viscount objected to was selection, and he said it would be the most terrible thing. There would be a Select Committee of Party leaders, or whoever they might be, to select the Peers to come here. Very well; for the purposes of this argument I shall not dissent from what is said by the noble Viscount. But why does he oppose either the Government's Bill or my Motion?—because there is not a word about selection in either the Government's Bill or in my Motion.
VISCOUNT ESHER: What pressure is going to be brought on us to send in for leave of absence? If there is to be no pressure whatever, that is different. But I have an idea, gained from some of the speeches that I have heard, that distinct

1017
reprobation will fall on us if we do not take the hint of asking for leave of absence.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: Of course, I am not privy to what goes on in the meetings of the Liberal Party, and therefore I cannot say what pressure has been put on the noble Viscount by his colleagues. I do not suppose it was very effective, whatever it was. But, so far as the Bill is concerned, there is selection only in the sense that the Prime Minister of the day, I suppose, after proper consultation, will select new Members, of either sex, for recommendation to the Sovereign to make them Life Peers. But so far as the proposal which I am asking the House to debate to-day is concerned, all that is going to happen is that Peers are to be invited to carry out what the Select Committee found was their duty; and if they do not want to attend the House they ought to apply for leave of absence. But the Peer will select for himself into which class he wishes to fall. Therefore I really cannot see why either the Government or I should have incurred the noble Viscount's condemnation.
The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, if I may respectfully say so, was more realistic. I said when we were debating the Report previously what a tremendous help the great knowledge and keenness of his father had been to the Committee. He asked us, as I think his father would have liked to do (but we felt in the end we should not be justified in doing it), to carry things a little further than we did. He said, "If you have another Select Committee to deal with these Standing Orders, would it be proper for that Committee to go into this matter again? Really, what it would come to would almost be reopening what may be called the Exeter proposals and saying whether those could be carried out." Quite frankly, my answer to that is, No, I do not think it would be a useful exercise for another Select Committee because, after all, the Committee which heard all the evidence of all the experts on this matter was a fairly strong Committee. They had the whole history before them. And the findings which we gave, with the Law Lords sitting with us, were, I think, undoubtedly—and the Lord Chancellor has confirmed it to-day—correct findings.
1018
I think it is true that this House can do anything, and no one can bring this House, or another place, to account for what they do within their own precincts, so to speak, and within their own province. Even if we, as a House, did something which was obviously wrong, not only contrary to custom but contrary almost to common decency, I do not think there is any court before which this House, as a House, could be called to account. That is one of the reasons why it behaves so reasonably. But what is the tradition of this House?—I was almost going to say "the law", because it is what has been followed for so long. It is that it does not create new privileges. It cannot. There is a Resolution of both Houses that neither should do so. I hope that that will always be very strictly adhered to in both Houses.
The House does adhere to what, I think, is called the law and custom of Parliament. Of course, it evolved that custom—indeed, the whole Parliamentary system has been one precedent broadening out into another. If we had gone further than we did, we should really have gone contrary to what is the law and custom of Parliament. I was not asking for a Committee which could go into that matter again, and I do not think it would be a wise or useful exercise for the House to do. On the other hand, I am quite definitely—let there be no mistake about it—asking the House to go to the full length of what the Committee said that the House could do with regard to leave of absence. I know that these were not recommendations; they were findings. I would put it in this way to Lord Silkin who said that they were not recommendations in fact. That is true. But the Committee, in these paragraphs which are the subject of my Motion, have told the House quite definitely what it can do; and not only that but how it should do the things it can do if it desires to do them.
What I am asking the House to do to-day—and I think the whole House wants to do it—is to say: "Thank you; we realise now that we can do these things, and we wish to do these things; we wish to do them in the way in which the Report of the Committee has shown is within our competence." Therefore, I

1019
ask the House to approve of that, and then to appoint a Select Committee in order that that Select Committee may recommend to us how we should carry out what we can do in the way which the Committee have suggested to us. My
1020
Lords, I am grateful to the House for the generous way in which this Resolution has been accepted.
On Question, Resolution agreed to.
House adjourned at six minutes before six o'clock.