Sitting of 24 July 1958

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
  Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.
  Bill read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

  CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Telephone Calls and Letters (Interception)
    Mr. Liptonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many interceptions of telephones and letters he authorised during 1957.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): It would not be in the public interest to give the figures for which the hon. Member asks.
    Mr. Lipton: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Report of the Committee of Privy Councillors gave us the figures from 1937 to 1956 without any apparent hurt to the public interest? Would not it be in the public interest to indicate to what extent he is taking into account the recommendations in that Report, and at least say whether the figures for this year are higher or lower than those for last year?
    Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I am afraid that would not be in the public interest. In one of the paragraphs of its Report, paragraph 121, the Committee stated that it was of opinion that it would be wrong for
    646
    the figures to be disclosed by the Secretary of State at regular or irregular intervals in the future. Under the circumstances, I think that I must follow the advice of the Committee.

    Suicide and Attempted Suicide
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has yet reached a conclusion on the desirability of amending the law relating to suicide and attempted suicide; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: No, Sir. My study of this question suggests that in its practical aspects the problem is largely one of ensuring that those who need care or treatment to prevent them from endangering themselves or others in fact receive it. In general, where this can be done without the intervention of the courts proceedings are not taken, but there is a residue of cases in which the person concerned cannot be given, or will not accept, care or treatment without the intervention of the courts. I shall continue to study this aspect of the matter and I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health upon it.
    Mr. Robinson: Is not the right hon. Gentleman taking rather a long time to reach a conclusion on a matter where the overwhelming weight of opinion is in the direction of reform? If the Government are not prepared to take the initiative in this matter, can he say what would be their attitude towards the initiative being taken by a private Member?
    Mr. Butler: I cannot state what my attitude would be towards the initiative of a private Member until I know the nature of that initiative. I do not know whether the hon. Member is aware that the Joint Committee of the British Medical Association and the Magistrates' Association has commended the law and practice in Scotland in this matter. The reason I am not going any further in answer to the hon. Gentleman is that we are at present carefully considering that with a view to seeing what we might do about it.
    Mr. Royle: Will not the right hon. Gentleman hold out a little more hope in this matter, particularly as involved and responsible organisations are taking the view that they are? Cannot we get more in line with other countries which never

    647
    regard attempted suicide as a criminal matter? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman hold out more hope than he has indicated at the moment?
    Mr. Butler: It so happens that in 1956, the last year for which I have figures, proceedings were taken in 613 cases of attempted suicide out of a total of over 5,000, and only 6·7 per cent. of these proceedings resulted in sentences of imprisonment, and there is a certain limit to that. But I am considering the whole question in the light of what I have said to the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson).

    Air Guns
    Mr. R. Edwardsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been called to the decision of the Coseley Urban District Council to approach the Urban District Councils Association requesting support for legislation to prevent the sale of air rifles to persons under the age of 18 years; what additional information he has received since 3rd April regarding injuries caused by air rifles; and whether he will now reconsider the possibility of introducing legislation to amend the present law in this respect.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The answer to the first part of the Question is "No, Sir". In reply to the second and third parts of the Question I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) on 17th July.
    Mr. Edwards: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that air guns manufactured today are infinitely more powerful and dangerous than those produced when we took great pleasure in possessing them? Will not he also agree that almost every day we read reports in the Press about great damage being done and injury caused to animals by children who possess these weapons? Is not the right hon. Gentleman further aware that in the Urban District of Coseley about £300 worth of damage was done to a new lighting system? Does not he think that some form of registration might be considered so as to limit the use of these dangerous weapons by young people?
    Mr. Butler: The existing law prohibits the purchase or hire of air guns by persons under 17, and I gather that the main
    648
    amendment proposed in the Question would be to make the age limit 18. At present I could not go further than I have done, but if the hon. Gentleman cares to send me the information to which he referred in the first part of his Question. I shall be glad to receive it.
    Mrs. Braddock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that legislation on this subject is contrary to the law as laid down in the Firearms Act, and that it ought to be necessary for a person to obtain a licence before being able to purchase an air gun? Is he aware that at present a person can buy an air gun without a licence but cannot use it without a licence? Would not the right hon. Gentleman consider changing the legislation so that it conforms with the Firearms Act?
    Mr. Butler: I notice that the hon. Lady asked a Question of my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State on this matter and we are looking at this point. But I cannot hold out any hope for the time being of her suggestion being accepted.

    Cinemas (Child Audiences)
    Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the difficulties confronting cinema proprietors who provide more than the minimum number of exits required by law for child audiences; and whether he will introduce amending legislation.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): My right hon. Friend has seen a report of the case which I think the hon. Member has in mind. The matter appears to be one for consideration in the first instance by the local licensing authority.
    Mr. Janner: Is not the hon. Lady aware that it is an absurd position at present; that if a cinema—as in the case of the Belgrave Cinema in Leicester—has more than the minimum number of exits required, the proprietors are compelled to have an attendant at every door? Is she aware that the authorities responsible for fire precautions are asking that cinemas should have many more exits? Is not it just a capricious and silly thing for a prosecution to be conducted against these people when there are sufficient exits from

    649
    the cinema, and more attendants there than are required by law, and to attack them because they have additional exits at this cinema for the purpose of safety?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: The hon. Member will be aware that there are two sets of regulations involved, which complicates the issue. The regulations for the welfare of children in cinemas require the number of attendants to be not less than the number of exits. I understand that the number of exits in this cinema is six. The regulations of the Secretary of State for safety in cinemas would have required a minimum of three. I understand that the licensee is asking the local authority to go into the matter with a view to relaxing the conditions and my right hon. Friend would prefer to await the outcome of this application before further action is taken.
    Mr. Janner: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment at an early date.

    Borstal Reception Centre, Wormwood Scrubs
    Mrs. L. Jegerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many boys who have been sentenced to Borstal are in Wormwood Scrubs awaiting transfer.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: On 22nd July there were 216 boys in the Borstal reception centre in Wormwood Scrubs. Of these 134 had been allocated to a training Borstal and were awaiting vacancies.
    Mrs. Jeger: Can the Home Secretary say whether these boys are able to receive any constructive training while they are in Wormwood Scrubs? Has he any plans for reducing the number of boys kept in this prison for such long periods pending transfer to Borstal?
    Mr. Butler: In this case the boys are in a Borstal reception centre, which is not quite the same as when they are in a prison. Even when they are in a prison, we try to keep them separated from the ordinary prisoners. The opportunities for training are limited, as they are in Wormwood Scrubs only for about ten weeks, but if the hon. Lady desires detailed information I will attempt to give it to her.

    Borstal Institutions
    Mrs. L. Jegerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is now the average time between the sentencing of a boy to Borstal and his arrival at a Borstal institution.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The average time between sentence and transfer to a training Borstal is about 10 weeks for boys sentenced in the London area and about 15 weeks for others. London boys spend all of this time, and other boys a period up to 5 weeks in a Borstal reception centre.
    Mrs. Jeger: Would not the Home Secretary agree that this long period in prison vitiates the constructive help that boys may expect to get if they could be transferred more quickly to a Borstal centre? What plans has the right hon. Gentleman for reducing this long wait?
    Mr. Butler: The real difficulty is the increase in Borstal commitals. For example, in the second quarter of 1958 there were 824 boys so sentenced against a figure of 528 in the corresponding quarter in 1957. The hon. Lady asks what we are doing. We have already had to transform four prisons into training Borstals to try to meet this extra need, so that the House can appreciate that it is a difficult situation.

    Obscene Publications (Report)
    Mr. Roy Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now completed his consideration of the Report of the Select Committee on Obscene Publications; and when he hopes to introduce legislation on the subject.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I am still considering this Report and I cannot yet add to the Answer which I gave on 18th June to a Question by my noble Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton).
    Mr. Jenkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this would be a suitable subject for Government legislation in the coming Session? Is he aware that three efforts have been made by private Members; that we now have had this wide-based Select Committee which, with the assistance of two successive Under-Secretaries of State in the Department, approved the Report

    651
    as a whole, and that we hope that he will bring forward Government proposals in the autumn?
    Mr. Butler: I did say when I answered my noble Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed that we were obliged to the Committee for this valuable Report. It would be a euphemism to say that the question of legislation would be non-controversial, bin that does not mean that we shall not have something to say about it before too long.

    Motor Cars, London (Obstruction)
    Mr. Roy Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will instruct the Metropolitan Police to send as soon as possible to owners of cars which they have towed away a statement showing in what way the car was considered to be causing an obstruction at the time it was removed.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): My right hon. Friend sees no justification for asking the Commissioner of Police to do this. Drivers are informed orally why their cars have been removed: and where a summons is issued it contains, of course, full particulars of the charge.
    Mr. Jenkins: I do not wish to object to the police using these powers in general and I do not think that these proposals would be fully practicable, but is not there a danger, in that in many cases the judgment which the police have to use in deciding whether to tow away a vehicle cannot be contested, and does not have to be defended if the police do not decide to prosecute? Could the situation arise in which the police, if the owner of the car wished it, could be made to prosecute?
    Mr. Renton: The police have to remove obstacles, and, in the nature of things, it is impossible for their judgment to be defended there and then. But the question of the guilt of the offender is decided when the matter comes to court, and particulars of the offence are given to that offender.

    Crimes of Violence
    Mr. N. Pannellasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will use his influence to accelerate the
    652
    production of the Report of the Cambridge Department of Criminal Science on crimes of violence.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The Department of Criminal Science is aware of the public interest in this problem, and of my own anxiety to have the Report on the study of crimes of violence in the Metropolis as soon as possible. The Department has been engaged on other studies of interest to the Home Office, which are reaching, or have just reached completion, and I understand that it will shortly be able to devote all its resources to the study of crimes of violence. I have no doubt that the work will be done with as much speed as is compatible with the care and thoroughness which it requires. In the meantime, I have received preliminary reports on some aspects of the study and I hope to receive others as the work proceeds.
    Mr. Pannell: In view of the disturbing increase in crimes of violence since this Department commenced its investigation, does not my right hon. Friend consider that, instead of relying on the leisurely deliberations of an unofficial body, his Department should introduce proposals of its own to meet the situation?
    Mr. Butler: I am satisfied that, now the Cambridge Department can give its whole time to this matter, it will be able to give me its opinion in the not-too-distant future. I would, therefore, rather await its advice. It has already done three studies, which have been extremely valuable, and I would rather rely on its Report.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Will the Home Secretary bear in mind that his decision to resist the intemperate demands of his hon. Friend will have the support of hon. Members on both sides; and that, in the opinion of most of us, it is essential that this Report should be characterised by an academic assessment of the difficulties of the problem rather than by unnecessary demands for speed?

    Lord Mayor's Procession
    Mr. Liptonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further information he has received from the City authorities arising from their review of the possibility of holding the Lord Mayor's procession on Saturdays.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I am informed that the City authorities are conducting a review of this possibility, but that this review is not yet complete.
    Mr. Lipton: Following on the gracious and practical decision to hold the Trooping the Colour ceremony on a Saturday in future, would the Home Secretary tactfully suggest to the City and Corporation of London that the Mansion House would do well to follow the very good example set by Buckingham Palace?
    Mr. Butler: I am aware that the City authorities are aware of this precedent.

    Young People (Drunkenness)
    Mr. Simmonsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the new research unit which he set up in the Home Office to consider the problem of juvenile delinquency has been instructed to inquire into the considerable increase of youthful drunkenness, particularly with reference to the places and agencies in association with which young people obtain intoxicants and contract drinking habits.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The Home Office Research Unit is at present fully occupied, mainly with studies relating to the treatment of offenders. I hope, however, to arrange for an investigation into the increase in the number of convictions for drunkenness to be carried out by another body.
    Mr. Simmons: Can the Home Secretary say whether this body will be recruited entirely from the ranks of the Home Office, or will he bring into it people experienced in dealing with juveniles—leaders of youth clubs and youth organisations, for example—to assist in its work?
    Mr. Butler: I think it likelier to be outside the Home Office, and directly I can get it arranged I will, perhaps, inform the hon. Gentleman.

    Remand Homes, London
    Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, owing to the shortage of remand home accommodation in the London area, children and young persons placed on remand in custody are constantly being sent to Winchester and in
    654
    some cases to as far away as Barry, Glamorgan, and Liverpool; and what steps he is taking to make available increased suitable remand accommodation and facilities.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The average percentage use of places in remand homes in the London area in the six months ended 30th June was 81, but I am aware that, in that period, the number of places has not been sufficient at all times to meet the increased demand. A number of boys have been sent to the Winchester remand home, and more distant remand homes have been used in a very few cases. I am keeping the position under review, and appropriate measures will be taken, in consultation with the authorities concerned, if there is undue and continuing pressure on the available accommodation.
    Mr. Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his Answer does not correspond with the actual position as the juvenile magistrates themselves see it, and that the position is very acute indeed? Can he hold out any promise that it will be rectified in the very near future?
    Mr. Butler: We shall certainly attempt to do so. I gave a certain average figure but, of course, there are fluctuations in committals, and, at some moment, the magistrates may see the situation as worse than as announced in my Answer.

    Juvenile Courts, London (Probation Officers)
    Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, owing to the considerable increase in cases coming before the juvenile courts in the London area, probation officers and other staff are seriously overworked; and what special steps he is taking to remedy the situation.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I am aware that the steady increase in the business of the London juvenile courts in recent months has resulted in some over-burdening of the probation officers serving them, though I have not heard of serious overwork among other staff.
    I have appointed five temporary assistants pending recruitment of trained officers to the seven vacancies in the juvenile courts. Some of these vacancies will be filled from among eight men at

    655
    present in training who will take up appointments in London in about three months' time, and I hope to recruit other trained men and women before the end of the year. If the work of the courts continues at its present level, I shall consider, when these vacancies are filled, whether additional appointments ought to be made.
    Mr. Janner: I thank the Home Secretary for his promise that this is being attended to, but may I ask whether he is aware that, at present, probation officers are overloaded with cases, and that the whole system in the juvenile courts will break down unless this is attended to? Further, is he aware that the staffs have to sit in the juvenile courts day after day until 7 or 8 o'clock in the evening, and that it is putting far too much pressure on them. What is he doing about that?
    Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman will see that we are trying to fill the immediate vacancies, and I am glad to say that an advertisement which was recently put out for men to be trained for work in London resulted in a very considerable answer, so I do not think the work is regarded as either unsuitable or unattractive. I have looked at the case loads. Undoubtedly the case loads are much heavier for the men than for the women at the present moment. We have this very much under review. It is all part of the burden of the general increase in crime which, in this case, is falling on the probation officers.
    Mr. Younger: In view of the importance of having adequate numbers and quality of staff, will the Home Secretary keep reminding himself of the dissatisfaction expressed in this House over his own decision on probation officers' pay?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. That is ever present to my mind.

    County Armagh (Incidents)
    Mr. Armstrongasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on recent Irish Republican Army activities in County Armagh, particularly the murder of a police constable near Fork-hill, the placing of a suitcase filled with explosive at the door of a police station in Armagh and the use of a vault under
    656
    Armagh Roman Catholic Cathedral as a hide-out.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Her Majesty's Government deplore the fresh series of murderous assaults which took place in Northern Ireland last week, in one of which a police constable was fatally injured. I should like to express Her Majesty's Government's sympathy with the constable's relatives. As there was evidence that these outrages were mounted from the territory of the Irish Republic, Her Majesty's Ambassador in Dublin was instructed to deliver a note of protest to the Republican Minister of External Affairs. This note, which was delivered on 18th July, emphasised the very grave view which Her Majesty's Government take of these latest incidents, and reminded the Government of the Irish Republic that it is their duty to prevent armed incursions from their territory into Northern Ireland. The Republican Government equally deplore these incidents, and are doing all they can to trace the culprits and to prevent further incidents. Already two arrests have been made in the Republic.
    Mr. Armstrong: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, and while I accept unreservedly what has been said by the authorities of the cathedral, and sympathise with their distress that it should have been used in the way mentioned in my Question, may I ask him if he is aware that, in the twenty-four hours during which this young policeman was murdered, there were no fewer than nine incidents in the border area? Would he agree that the steps so far taken by the Government of the Irish Republic to control terrorism in Northern Ireland, based across the border—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that that is enough for one supplementary question. Mr. Butler.
    Mr. Butler: I can only say that I am aware that the Church authorities have issued a statement deploring the use of this passage and room for such a purpose, and have recalled the cardinal's statement condemning the use of violence, and I am sure that we can all accept it. With regard to the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I think it better not to make any

    657
    further observations on the Government of another country, but I should like to say that we do note that two arrests have been made in the Republic, and we trust that the authorities there will follow on this course.

    British Refugees From Egypt (Accommodation)
    Mrs. Butlerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many British refugees from Egypt are not yet settled in homes of their own; and what further action he is proposing to take, through the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board, to provide permanent housing accommodation for them.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: About 550 refugees are still in hostels, and about a further 300 are being helped by the Board, though living in private accommodation. These include dependants, and about 100 people who hope to emigrate. The Board has a number of schemes for providing houses for refugees. Housing grants are made to help them to get mortgages; negotiations are conducted with local authorities for the provision of council houses; a scheme for making flatlets available will, it is hoped, be introduced shortly; and homes are being established for elderly people in need of care.
    Mrs. Butler: While appreciating all that the Resettlement Board has done for these refugees, may I ask if the hon. Lady is aware that there are some in this latter category who are not eligible for mortgages for house purchase, and who would find difficulty in meeting monthly instalments even if they could obtain mortgages? Can she say whether one of the schemes that the Board is considering is that of purchasing houses and letting them at a reasonable rent to some of these families?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: I appreciate what the hon. Lady says, but, in fact, one of the difficulties is that some of the expellees would not be in a position to continue the mortgage payments even if they had an initial loan from the Board. I do not think that there is any prospect of the Board itself, which is a temporary organisation, undertaking to buy houses for refugees, and so becoming a landlord. One of the further difficulties is that so many of the refugees want to concentrate
    658
    on London. Although we have opportunities of a hundred houses elsewhere, they have not been taken up because the refugees desire to concentrate on London, where it is more difficult than anywhere else to obtain council houses.

    Westminster City Council (Wards)
    Mr. Donnellyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has reached a decision on the proposals of the Westminster City Council with regard to the alteration of the number and boundaries of the wards of the City of Westminster.
    Mr. Renton: My right hon. Friend is considering the report of the inquiry held into the City Council's proposals, and hopes to give his decision shortly.
    Mr. Donnelly: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, under the existing arrangement, a vote in Pall Mall has six times the value of a vote cast in Westminster, where I live? Is he further aware that representations have been made to me by some of my neighbours that we might have to resort to the methods so successful in Iraq to secure a change in the City Council? Can he give an assurance that, before the next election, new arrangements will be made, and that, in order to remove them, it will not be necessary to assassinate some of the Westminster City Councillors?
    Mr. Renton: I do not think we can discuss the merits of these proposals now. This is not the occasion to hold a fresh inquiry.

  SEA BED RENTALS AND PIER LEASES
  Mr. Donnellyasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement regarding the inter-Departmental committee that has been set up to review the future policy of the Crown Estates Commissioners towards sea bed rentals and terms of leases for piers and jetties.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: It is not customary to disclose the constitution or recommendations of any such Governmental committee. The hon. Member may feel satisfied that Her Majesty's Government are desirous of reaching a satisfactory conclusion of this matter.

  HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES

    Constitutional Changes
    Mr. E. L. Mallalieuasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what measures of self-rule similar to other British territories in Africa will be introduced into the three High Commission Territories as a result of his recent tour; to what extent the Union of South Africa Government was consulted about these measures; and when the proposals will be implemented.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): Certain changes have been under consideration for some time, but I am not able at present to give details of their nature or to forecast when it may be possible to implement them.
    Mr. Mallalieu: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of any territory in Africa where constitutional political advance has been so slow as in the Protectorates in South Africa, particularly in Bechuanaland? Would not he agree that having regard to the good will towards this country which still exists there, it is necessary to press on with this matter?
    Mr. Alport: I had an opportunity when I was there recently of hearing the views in Bechuanaland arising from the consideration which has been given to this subject in the Joint Advisory Council, and later in the African Advisory Council, but the views are not fully formulated yet. As to the report to the Basuto Council, this is not being presented until tomorrow, and therefore I am not in a position to comment on it.
    Mr. Wade: Have any steps been taken in Bechuanaland in response to the request by the Council for legislative powers?
    Mr. Alport: As I said in reply to the previous supplementary question, the full nature of the proposals has not yet been formulated, but we are waiting for the High Commissioner's comments on the debate which took place at the end of May in the African Advisory Committee.
    Mr. Bottomley: Is it possible for a statement to be made before the House rises?
    Mr. Alport: I do not think there is any likelihood of our being able to make any
    660
    statement on the Report to the Basuto Council, because consideration by the Council will not be completed until after the House rises.
    Mr. Bottomley: And in the case of Bechuanaland?
    Mr. Alport: With regard to Bechuanaland, I think we must give time in order to get more detailed views from the High Commissioner. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that we keep these subjects affecting both these Territories very firmly in mind.

    Entry and Work Permits
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what official discussions took place between the High Commissioner and the Government of the Union of South Africa prior to the introduction of legislation requiring entry and work permits for all residents in Bechuanaland, Basutoland and Swaziland; and if the High Commissioner gave prior approval to this restriction on their movement and employment.
    Mr. Alport: In March, 1957, the High Commissioner for Basutoland, the Bechuanaland Protectorate and Swaziland was given advance information by the Union Government of their intention to introduce the measure which was subsequently passed as the Native Laws (Further Amendment) Act, 1957. For the exact effect of this on Africans from the High Commission Territories I would refer the hon. Member to my Answer to his Question on 22nd May. There was no question of the High Commissioner's prior approval being necessary or being sought.
    Mr. Brockway: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Dr. Verwoerd in the Legislature of the Union of South Africa has definitely stated that the endorsement of the High Commissioner was secured in this matter? Is he further aware that although in a previous answer he said that this applies only to trouble makers, it has now been extended to all residents of Basutoland who are in the Union?
    Mr. Alport: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's point about the statement made by the Minister of Native Affairs in the Union. I think the hon. Gentleman may be basing his Question on an

    661
    article which appeared recently in the Press. Perhaps it would be helpful to him and to me if I were to send him a comment on the various allegations made in that article, many of which are quite incorrect.
    Mr. Bottomley: May we have an assurance that British protected persons living in the High Commission Territories who go into the Union can return to those Territories without hindrance?
    Mr. Alport: Those who belong to the Territories can certainly return there without hindrance.

    African Immigration Proclamation, Bechuanaland
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what are the provisions of the Entry and Residence Proclamation issued by the High Commissioner for Bechuanaland.
    Mr. Alport: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the Bechuanaland Protectorate African Immigration Proclamation, 1958, which was promulgated by the High Commissioner on 25th April. 1958. I am sending him a copy of this Proclamation.
    Mr. Brockway: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this Proclamation in Bechuanaland is similar to the one in Basutoland? Does he recollect that a year ago the Union of South Africa asked that two Basuto residents who had been charged at the treason trials should be extradited? Although that request was refused, is not it the case that there were then negotiations which have led to this measure, which would require the Protectorates to return any person who is demanded by the South African Government?
    Mr. Alport: The hon. Gentleman is raising a different question, but as far as there are differences between the two Proclamations they are differences in detail, and I shall be glad to explain those to the hon. Gentleman on paper. I think there is evidence in the supplementary question that it will be valuable to us both if I send the hon. Gentleman a comment on the article which appeared in the New Statesman not long ago.

    Under-Secretary of State (Visit)
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will make a statement on his official visit to the High Commission Territories, and, in particular, on his discussions regarding constitutional advance in these Territories.
    Mr. Alport: In reply to the first part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply on 3rd July to a similar Question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall). As regards the second part of the Question, I had an opportunity of hearing informally a variety of views on political and administrative matters from representatives of all the communities in the Territories.
    Mr. Brockway: I have read the Answer to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that he was a little modest in that reply, for he gave the itinerary only and did not mention any of the subjects which he discussed? Apart from the problem of Legislative Councils, which has also been raised, did he discuss the appalling level of wages in the Protectorates and the development of mineral resources there?
    Mr. Alport: When I returned to Pretoria after having discussions with the various Resident Commissioners and representatives of the various communities, I had an opportunity to discuss with the High Commissioner in Pretoria the matters to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

    Union of South Africa (Defence Facilities)
    Mr. Bottomleyasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will make a statement about the defence talks with the South African Government concerning the High Commission Territories of Bechuanaland, Basutoland and Swaziland.
    Mr. E. L. Mallalieuasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what decisions were reached during the recent discussions between the South African Defence Minister and the High Commissioner for Basutoland, Swaziland and Bechuanaland with regard to defence planning

    663
    facilities; and what proposals have been reached on behalf of the United Kingdom Government for further facilities to be granted to the South African Government.
    Mrs. Castleasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what defence planning facilities have been given to the South African Government in Basutoland, the Bechuanaland Protectorate and Swaziland.
    Mr. Alport: Discussions on this subject between the Union Minister of Defence and the High Commissioner for Basutoland, the Bechuanaland Protectorate and Swaziland have recently been concluded. A statement has been published, for the text of which I would refer the right hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend, the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 21st July.
    Mr. Bottomley: Does the Minister recall that the Government were warned in 1955 that the granting of certain defence facilities would result in further pressure from the Union? This is happening. Why are the Government so anxious to co-operate with the Union Government when they have not been fully co-operative on defence matters generally with this country?
    Mr. Alport: We recognise the important part which the Union of South Africa plays in the defence of Southern Africa generally, and the facilities which have been granted in accordance with the agreement recently reached are directly relevant to the Union of South Africa carrying out its responsibilities for defence in that area.
    Mr. Mallalieu: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the granting to the Union of South Africa of any facilities in the Protectorates is liable to be the subject of very grave misunderstandings inside the Protectorates? Will he agree that, if any facilities are given, the benefits to the inhabitants of those Protectorates should be obvious to them in order to avoid those misconceptions?
    Mr. Alport: I fully agree, and the High Commissioner, through the Resident Commissioners, is taking particular steps to ensure that the full significance of this agreement is understood by all the African authorities concerned.
    Mrs. Castle: Will the hon. Gentleman say what representations he has received from the Territories about this scheme? Secondly, could he say whether, in addition to these defence facilities, facilities for defence intelligence are to be granted to the South African Government, since the two often go together, and, if so, will not it have very serious political significance?
    Mr. Alport: The main heads of the agreement are set out in the announcement to which I referred, which is included in my Answer to the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall). I have to answer a Question shortly about consultation, and I think that that will cover the matter raised in the earlier part of the hon. Lady's supplementary question.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what consultations have taken place this year with the African peoples of Bechuanaland, Basutoland, and Swaziland with regard to the defence planning facilities which will be granted to the South African Government, and which were agreed in discussions in Pretoria between the South African Defence Minister and the High Commissioner for the three Territories.
    Sir L. Plummerasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations to what extent, and by what methods, the indigenous populations of the three High Commission Territories of Swaziland, Basutoland, and Bechuanaland have been consulted this year before the defence planning facilities were agreed to by the United Kingdom, the South African Government, and the High Commissioner.
    Mr. Alport: As I stated in reply to a Question on 21st November, 1957, the appropriate authorities in the Territories were consulted as necessary and their views were taken into account. Responsibility for the security of the High Commission Territories rests exclusively with the United Kingdom, and in discharging this responsibility the United Kingdom Government will ensure that the interests of the inhabitants will be effectively safeguarded.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the Minister aware that there is a feeling that this is the thin

    665
    end of the wedge, if I may use that expression? Is it the case that, while these facilities are being granted now, there is already a request for further facilities from the Union of South Africa?
    Mr. Alport: Reference was made by the Minister of Defence in South Africa to a facility which was not accepted and agreed to by the United Kingdom Government. I am not aware of any other requests for facilities which have been made to us. Some of the facilities which have been accorded to the Union of South Africa are of mutual advantage. For instance, the provision of air rescue services in the Protectorates is of great advantage and is in accordance with the responsibility the Union has undertaken under the Chicago Convention. As regards the others, we are satisfied that they are directly related to the Union's defence responsibilities in Southern Africa.
    Sir L. Plummer: Is the Minister satisfied that the indigenous population of the High Commission Territories is satisfied too? Is he aware that there is a grave and natural suspicion at the entry of South African troops into a High Commission country, and has he a pledge from the South African Government that if in dire circumstances they should have to go in, they will get out as soon as conveniently possible?
    Mr. Alport: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that he need have no fears on that particular score. As regards the particular item in the agreement which affects Basutoland, the agreement of the Paramount Chief Regent was received before the final defence agreement was concluded.
    Mr. Dugdale: The hon. Gentleman said that there were consultations with many people there. Have the views of those people been set out anywhere? May we know how far they were satisfied—not only the Paramount Chief but other important people there also?
    Mr. Alport: The decision with regard to the nature of the consultations must properly be left to the High Commissioner, and the High Commissioner undertook such consultations as he felt were appropriate in the circumstances. When I was there I did have an opportunity of discussing this matter in Basutoland, and there also I took the chance of explaining the background of Her Majesty's
    666
    Government's point of view in this matter. My feeling is that that was fully understood by those who were present on that occasion.
    Mr. Paget: Against whom does the Union want to defend itself in Basutoland—us?
    Mr. Alport: The Union installation is not in Basutoland. The only relevance which this has to Basutoland is to a road of access to a particular place which is to be established on Union territory.

  COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS

    British Films, Books and Periodicals
    Mrs. Whiteasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what current steps are being taken to promote the use of British films, books, and periodicals in Commonwealth countries.
    Mr. Alport: Both the United Kingdom Information Services and the British Council in Commonwealth countries assist in promoting the use of British films, books and periodicals by maintaining well-stocked libraries from which British films, of the documentary type, and books may be borrowed either free of charge or at a small rental. A good supply of British general and technical periodicals is available in British Council and Information Office reading rooms and these are also distributed free or are available for sale. In addition, presentations of technical books are made from time to time under the Technical Co-operation Scheme of the Colombo Plan.
    Mrs. White: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to letters in The Times recently and references in other publications to the very meagre supply of books and other cultural material in many countries in the Commonwealth? The Rhodesias were mentioned, and there are countries like Pakistan, for instance, where currency difficulties add to the problems of booksellers and film producers. Has anything been done, particularly where currency difficulties are concerned, to overcome them?
    Mr. Alport: My attention has been drawn to the letter which referred to a complaint by the Librarian of the Bulawayo Public Library. We are doing our

    667
    best to see whether we can provide some additional supplies of books to that library. We are at the moment in discussion with the Pakistan Government about the possibility of extending book exports there.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Pakistan and India recently I found American and Soviet books much easier to purchase than English books? Indeed, in India I read one of Galsworthy's novels in a Soviet edition and was unable to get it in an English edition.
    Mr. Alport: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is most important that there should be a continuing supply of United Kingdom books to the various Commonwealth countries. As I say, we are in negotiation with the Pakistan Government on this matter at present.

    Jute Industry
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will prepare a plan on behalf of Her Majesty's Government for a Commonwealth agreement to ensure that changes in the Commonwealth jute growing and manufacturing industries take place gradually and subject to full employment; and if he will lay this plan before the Governments of the Commonwealth at the Commonwealth Economic Conference at Montreal.
    Mr. Alport: Her Majesty's Government are always concerned that major changes in established industries should take place in such a way as to avoid undue disruption or unemployment. If the hon. Member has any new proposals in mind which would require the agreement of other Commonwealth countries, I should be glad to consider them in consultation with my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade.
    Mr. Thomson: Is not that an astonishing reply? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government, with all the resources at their disposal, to put forward plans which will help to resolve the very real conflict of interest between India, Pakistan and Britain in the jute industry; and, further, is he aware that the Government's complete unwillingness to act in the matter is causing large-scale unemployment in Dundee at the moment?
    Mr. Alport: If the hon. Gentleman has any particular matters connected with the jute industry to put, I think that he should put them to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  MALDIVE ISLANDS

    Defence
    Mr. Rankinasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what requests have been made by the Government of the Maldives that Gan Island will only be used in defence of the Maldives or any part of the Commonwealth, and that there will be no interference with the fishing industry of the Maldives; to what extent these requests have been agreed by the United Kingdom Government; and what are the terms of the agreement between the two Governments.
    Mr. Alport: Under the 1953 Agreement between the United Kingdom and Maldivian Governments, the United Kingdom have the right, after consultation with the Maldivian authorities, to establish and maintain in the Maldive Islands such facilities as they may determine to be required for the defence of the Maldives or any part of the Commonwealth. At no stage has it been suggested by either Government that the air-staging post on Gan Island should be used on any other basis. In response to a request that the interests of the local fishing industry should be safeguarded, the Maldivian Government were informed in December last year that the United Kingdom Government would at all times endeavour to avoid any unnecessary interference with the legitimate fishing activities of the local inhabitants. As regards the last part of the Question, final agreement has still to be reached with the Maldivian Government, and negotiations are continuing.
    Mr. Rankin: Is it the case that a final agreement has still to be reached with the Maldivian Government about the use of Gan Island as a defence post, and is not the claim they are making, to which I refer in my Question, quite a reasonable claim to make?
    Mr. Alport: The claims which the Maldivians are making, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, as I said in my

    669
    reply, are already accepted with regard to fishing rights and use in connection with the defence of the Maldive Islands and the Commonwealth. Those are not the points at issue. The general idea is, I think, generally accepted between the two Governments. What has to be worked out at the moment are certain details with regard to resettlement and other matters.

  CANADA

    Middle East (Consultations)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what representations he has received from the Government of Canada regarding the intervention by British troops in the Middle East.
    Mr. Alport: In accordance with normal procedure, we have been in close and constant touch with other Commonwealth Governments about the Middle East situation. As I said in my Answer on 2nd July to a Question by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), hon. Members will not expect me to give details of the nature of these Commonwealth consultations, which are, by long established practice, confidential.
    Mr. Rankin: I appreciate that, but is the Under-Secretary aware that, according to Press reports, when our Foreign Secretary was in America he met Mr. Foster Dulles and also Mr. Sidney Smith, the Minister for External Affairs in Canada, and that Mr. Smith warned the right hon. and learned Gentleman not to go too far in the Middle East? Did that have some moderating effect on Government policy?
    Mr. Alport: All that I can say is that Mr. Diefenbaker, in a statement in the Canadian Parliament on 17th July, said:
    "I am sure that Members of the House agree that, in the circumstances, the United Kingdom Government had no alternative but to act as it has done."
    Mr. Bottomley: In the latter part of his Answer, the hon. Gentleman referred to consultations. Are we to understand that there were, in fact, consultations with the Commonwealth Governments before the Government embarked upon their Middle East campaign?
    Mr. Alport: As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, I cannot go further than I have gone in my original reply.

  EDUCATION

    Scholarships
    Mr. John Hallasked the Minister of Education whether he will revise his new Regulations in order to allow students to retain college scholarships awarded in recognition of academic merit, whether or not these scholarships are recognised as qualifying the holder for the award of a State scholarship.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Sir Edward Boyle): No, Sir. Section 100 of the Education Act, 1944, and the Regulations made thereunder require my right hon. Friend, to relate the value of a State scholarship to the total financial circumstances of the scholar or his parents, including any other scholarship held by him, with the object of avoiding hardship.
    Mr. Hall: Would not my hon. Friend agree that it is both discouraging and unfair to a student who has worked hard and won an award for academic ability to be denied the benefit of that award and be put on exactly the same level as other less outstanding students?
    Sir E. Boyle: I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern about this. The point of the supplemental State scholarship scheme is that it makes up the value of the college scholarship to that of the State scholarship. This question will, no doubt, be considered by the Anderson Committee, which is not precluded by its terms of reference from recommending changes which require legislation.

    Science Laboratories, Grammar and Secondary Schools
    Mr. Albuasked the Minister of Education the value of capital grants made to local authorities in each of the last two years for the provision of science laboratories in grammar and secondary modern schools, respectively.
    Sir E. Boyle: Since the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Albu: Can the Minister say whether the amount of the grants in the last two years is comparable to the grant of £2¾ million which has been made by the Industrial Fund to independent and direct grant schools? Is he sure that the rate of expansion of science laboratories in the local authority secondary schools will adequately prevent the expansion of the gap in privilege between those who are able to afford to pay for their education and those who are not?
    Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Member will see from the Answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT that the capital cost of new science laboratories at all secondary schools maintained by local education authorities shows an increase of from £1,100,000 in 1957–58 to £2 million in 1958–59. I do not regard that as too bad a rate of increase.
    Following is the Answer:

    THE ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST OF NEW SCIENCE LABORATORIES STARTED IN 1957–58 OR DUE TO START IN 1958–59 AT SCHOOLS MAINTAINED BY LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITIES IS:

    —

    1957–58

    1958–59

    £

    £

    Grammar Schools

    350,000

    550,000

    Modern Schools

    600,000

    1,200,000

    Technical Secondary Schools

    150,000

    250,000

    TOTAL

    1,100,000

    2,000,000

    Grant is payable at the rate of about 60 per cent. on the annual expenditure by local education authorities on projects of this kind.

    National Apprenticeship Council
    Mr. Mossasked the Minister of Education what steps he has taken, or will take, to ensure full co-operation with the National Apprenticeship Council in accordance with the Report of the Carr Committee, "Training for Skill."
    Sir E. Boyle: As the House will have learned from the Press this morning, the Industrial Training Council, at its inaugural meeting yesterday, decided to invite my right hon. Friend, the Association of Technical Institutions and the City and Guilds of London Institute each to appoint a representative to participate in the Council's work. My right hon. Friend welcomes this move as a means of promoting the close co-operation between
    672
    industry and education which is essential to success in this important matter.
    Mr. Moss: Is the hon. Baronet aware that that reply is very welcome?
    Sir E. Boyle: I thank the hon. Member.

    Apprenticeship Schemes
    Mr. Mossasked the Minister of Education, in view of the annual increase in the number of young persons leaving school, which is expected to reach its peak in 1962, and the difficulty of recruiting from amongst them an adequate number of apprentices because of the reluctance of small firms to provide apprenticeships, what steps he proposes to take to encourage local authorities, by way of additional grant or otherwise, to provide training centres for apprenticeship schemes.
    Sir E. Boyle: The main duty of local education authorities in this sphere is to provide educational opportunities to match the training provided by industry for apprentices, not to replace it. My right hon. Friend is giving them every help and encouragement to develop their service to this end.
    Mr. Moss: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in this Question we are concerned with small firms, that they do not seem to be providing facilities for school-leavers and that if local authorities were encouraged by the Ministry to do something in this matter, such facilities could be provided all over the country?
    Sir E. Boyle: I assure the hon. Member that we do our very best to encourage small firms and to draw their attention to this important matter. The Carr Committee did, however, recommend that the present division of responsibility between local education authorities and industry in this sphere should be maintained.

    Teacher Training
    Mr. Mossasked the Minister of Education what suggestions he has made to teachers' training colleges and university education departments to increase their intake of students training to be teachers, and to pay regard to the need to train teachers for work in secondary schools.
    Sir E. Boyle: My right hon. Friend has asked training colleges to take more students in each of the last few years and has invited them to make proposals for providing further places in 1959. The proportion of students training for work in secondary schools has increased in recent years. I am glad to say that each year more students are entering university departments of education.
    Mr. Moss: Is the hon. Baronet aware that the assumptions which he made concerning the supply of teachers a year ago have proved to be unsound? For example, does he recollect that he thought the school population would decrease by 250,000 between 1961 and 1967, whereas it will fall by only 90,000 as between 1961 and 1965? Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied, therefore, that teacher supply will be adequate?
    Sir E. Boyle: This is a big subject to discuss at Question Time. My right hon. Friend is undertaking a permanent expansion of the colleges, which should enable them to train 1,000 extra teachers a year after 1960. I cannot say anything further today, but I assure the hon. Member that this subject is very much in our minds—as much, in fact, as any other single educational topic at the present time.

  U.S.S.R. (SECRETARY OF STATE'S SPEECH)
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister to what extent the speech of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at Doonfoot, South Ayrshire, on Saturday, 12th July, on relations with Russia, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I fully endorse the remarks made by my right hon. and learned Friend in his speech.
  Mr. Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that we are all conscious of the heavy burden that he is carrying and wish him success if he goes to New York, especially in view of the criticism of the American Press? Will he, however, promise not to blush too much if he gets
  674
  an affectionate letter from Mr. Khrushchev with a special Burns stamp which Russia has just issued?
  The Prime Minister: I sometimes try to foresee the character of probable supplementary questions by the hon. Member, but he has beaten me this time.
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Emrys Hughes—Question No. 46.
  Sir T. Moore: On a point of order. As one who heard this admirable speech, may I have the privilege of asking a supplementary question?
  Mr. Speaker: The Question refers to a place called Doonfoot, in South Ayrshire, which I thought was probably in the constituency of the hon. Member who asked the Question.

  CIVIL DEFENCE
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister who, under the new defence arrangements, will be responsible for civil defence.
  The Prime Minister: Responsibility for civil defence is not affected by the arrangements announced in the statement on Central Organisation for Defence. In addition to his direct responsibilities under the Civil Defence Act, 1948, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary continues to be responsible for co-ordinating the defence plans of the civil agencies of government.
  Mr. Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that there are eleven members on this new Defence Board and that the Home Secretary, who is in charge of civil defence, is not on it? Should not there be one representative with experience of civil defence on it? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in default of being on this Defence Board, the Home Secretary can do nothing else but explain his views in the News of the World?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. If the hon. Member had read, or would read again, the White Paper, he would find that the Board can call in others to help; and of course my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is a leading and important member of the Defence Committee of the Cabinet.

  JORDAN (CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER'S SPEECH)
  Mr. Zilliacusasked the Prime Minister whether the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Sher-borne on 19th July to the effect that British intervention in Jordan was for the purpose of protecting the independence of that country against subversive action deliberately engineered from outside, represents the policy of the Government.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Zilliacus: Is not it a fact that Article 51 of the Charter limits the right to resort to force in defence without the authorisation of the Security Council to occasions when there is an armed attack? Does not this extension of the Article amount to interference in the internal affairs of member States contrary to the Charter?
  The Prime Minister: We debated all this at some length some days ago and I hardly consider this a suitable occasion, in answer to a supplementary question, to start the debate again.

  MIDDLE EAST (MEETING OF HEADS OF GOVERNMENT)
  Mr. Donnellyasked the Prime Minister whether he will propose that in any conference of Heads of Government on the Middle East an invitation should be sent to Colonel Nasser.
  The Prime Minister: Mr. Khrushchev's original proposal for a meeting in Geneva covered the Heads of Government of five named States. Our counterproposal for a special meeting of the Security Council was more flexible and I am glad to note that Mr. Khrushchev's latest letter recognises this. But until the form of the meeting has been agreed, it would be premature to try to lay down which States who are not members of the Security Council should attend or by whom they should be represented.
  Mr. Donnelly: What is the point of having a discussion on the Middle East on matters involving Arab nationalism without the principal figure in Arab nationalism being present? Does the Prime Minister recognise that it would
  676
  be profoundly regrettable if it were left entirely to the Russians to propose that Arab nationalism should be represented at the conference?
  The Prime Minister: I can only repeat that the counter-proposal made by Her Majesty's Government and their Allies at least makes possible what would not have been possible under the original proposal.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will, I believe, be general gratification in the House that Mr. Khrushchev has in principle accepted the latest suggestion of Her Majesty's Government? There are, no doubt, difficulties to be overcome, and one could ask many questions, but I believe that in present circumstances it would be the desire of all of us to encourage the Prime Minister to do all he can to overcome these difficulties and bring about the conference as quickly as possible.

CYPRUS
Mr. Callaghan(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement about the new security measures in Cyprus.
The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): Yes, Sir. Since the beginning of June there has been grave deterioration in the internal situation in Cyprus. Disorders have been largely communal, but the campaign of intimidation and murder by the terrorist organisations has continued and members of the British forces have also been murdered. Between 1st June and 22nd July, 95 people have been killed in Cyprus and over 170 wounded. Violence between Greeks and Turks has reached a peak in the past 12 days, during which 51 people have been killed and over 80 wounded.
The ceaseless activities of the security forces alone prevented the slaughter from assuming even more serious proportions. This outbreak of violence, which was not restrained by appeals for peace and order made by the Governor, and the community leaders and reinforced by appeals made on all sides in Parliament, confronted the Governor with the gravest threat to peace in the history of our administration of Cyprus.

677
The information which the Governor had lately been receiving showed it was part of E.O.K.A.'s plan to attack the Turkish Cypriot community as such and not merely by way of reprisals for acts of communal violence, and that E.O.K.A. was on the point of commencing widespread sabotage and attacks on the security forces.
The Turkish Cypriots, at the same time, have been threatening further attacks on the Greeks, and the Turkish leaflets were inciting more communal violence and also violence against the Government.
To meet this grave situation, the Governor, with the full approval of Her Majesty's Government, gave orders for the arrest and detention of a large number of E.O.K.A. supporters and of known Turkish Cypriot terrorists and troublemakers. Over 1,400 Greek Cypriots and 50 Turkish Cypriots have been arrested. T.M.T.—the Turkish terrorist organisation—has been proscribed.
These measures will be followed up with determined action against anyone of either community who resorts to violence and by all measures necessary to restore order.
Mr. Callaghan: I think that everyone who has listened to this recital of events must feel the terrible sense of tragedy in the affairs of the island. I am sure that none more than Sir Hugh Foot shares that feeling.
May I ask the Secretary of State, in view of the almost desperate nature of these events, whether he proposes to make any contact with the Greek Foreign Secretary, who is, I believe, now in Paris, and with the Turkish Prime Minister, who, I understand, will be coming here on Monday, to see whether those two Governments will associate themselves with a call to end violence? May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman what positive measures the Government propose to take in addition to these very essential but necessarily negative measures?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has couched his supplementary question. Both Houses of Parliament felt that Her Majesty's Government's recently declared policy should be given a fair chance. This was also the view of our N.A.T.O. Allies. That policy included
678
an invitation by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to meet the Prime Ministers of Greece and Turkey. Naturally, the Prime Minister deeply regrets that more progress has not been made with regard to his declared wish to have personal talks at the earliest possible date with the Prime Ministers of Greece and Turkey. This invitation is still open. Meanwhile, there has been, of course, continuous diplomatic activity.
I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that the Greek and Turkish Governments have frequently been urged to use their influence to bring violence to an end. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will, however, certainly consider the suggestion that the hon. Gentleman has made.
Mr. Callaghan: I should like to ask one further question about the possibility of talks inside the island in view of the present situation. Has the Secretary of State seen the report in the Manchester Guardian that Archbishop Makarios has said that he wishes to return as soon as possible and will do his best to bring about peace, as no one wants these murders to continue? As both he and Dr. Kutchuk have now left the island, will not the right hon. Gentleman and the Government, in these desperate circumstances, consider the possibility of getting them both back to the island, where discussions can start?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion, but I think he knows that there must be a distinction drawn between these two communal leaders, in this sense. Dr. Kutchuk is now on a visit to Turkey. He has never been excluded from the island.
As to the return of Archbishop Makarios, I have made repeated statements about the desire of Her Majesty's Government to see a situation develop in the island under which that return would be possible. I ask the hon. Gentleman particularly to look at the words of the White Paper, in which we said, only a few weeks ago:
"If the full benefits of this policy are to be realised, it is evident that violence must cease. Subject to this, Her Majesty's Government intend to take progressive steps to relax the Emergency Regulations and eventually to end the State of Emergency. This process would include the return of those Cypriots at present excluded from the island under the Emergency Regulations."

679
The sooner that position can be brought about the better.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will also realise that intemperate statements, by whoever they are made, in Greece or Turkey, by communal leaders, make it more difficult to enable discussions on the island to take place in an atmosphere of calm.
Mr. Callaghan: What we are concerned with is whether the return of these leaders will help to accelerate the ending of violence. It was the Government's position for some time that the Archbishop, in particular, could not be allowed to return until he had denounced this violence. This statement of his comes as close to that as anything I have seen from him. It is the view of many who are following the situation that he is genuinely anxious to put and end to the situation. If that is so, should not we try to use his services to bring the situation there to an end?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have asked for further details of that alleged statement. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government would not be lacking in an imaginative response to gestures which may be made from whatever quarters they may come.
Mr. K. Robinson: Is it not now clear that the political situation in Cyprus has moved outside the control of the Government, and will not the right hon. Gentleman consider, in addition to the suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), the possibility of asking for the assistance of the United Nations to find a solution to this problem and to bring an end to this tragic communal violence?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir. The situation has not moved out of the control of the Government, and the main purpose of the events of the last few days, which nobody regrets more than His Excellency the Governor and myself, has been to remove fear from the island and to enable proper discussions to take place. The action taken by the Cyprus Administration has been to stop communal murder. Of course, it would be possible to let the two communities massacre each other. Some people might
680
find this a tempting solution. In our view, however, apart from the strategic considerations, it would be a very dishonourable course to adopt. In our view, the mutual massacre would not be confined to the island.
Mr. Paget: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise now, as I told him at the time, that this outburst is the inevitable result of his fatuous plan and that it will continue until he scraps that plan? We shall not get peace in Cyprus until both Greek and Turk are assured that they will not be ruled by the other. That means that we shall rule and stop negotiating. Why not say so?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That clearly involves that that would be so for the next seven years, with the co-operation of our N.A.T.O. Allies and Greece and Turkey. Far from the plan being fatuous, it was one which was endorsed in general by both Houses in this country and by the general good feeling of our N.A.T.O. Allies.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?
The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 28TH JULY—Supply [26th Allotted Day]: Report.
Debate on Defence, with particular reference to the White Paper on Central Organisation for Defence. (Cmd. 476.)
At 9.30 p.m. the Question will be put from the Chair on the Vote under discussion and on all outstanding Votes.
Consideration of the Import Duties Orders relating to Siloxanes; and the Draft Central Banks (Income Tax Schedule C Exemption) (No. 2) Order.
TUESDAY, 29TH JULY—Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Opencast Coal Bill; the Landlord and Tenant (Temporary Provisions) Bill; the Slaughterhouses Bill; and to the Agriculture Bill.
Committee and remaining stages of the Insurance Companies Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation Measure.

681
Consideration of the Motions to approve the Special Roads (Classes of Traffic) Order; and the Motor Vehicles (Speed Limit on Special Roads) Regulations.
WEDNESDAY, 30TH JULY—Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
Debate on the National Health Service.
THURSDAY, 31ST JULY—Committee and Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
Debate on the Unemployment Situation in Wales until about 7 o'clock.
Afterwards, there will be an opportunity for matters to be raised by private Members.
If all the necessary business has been disposed of, including any further Lords Amendments to Bills, it is hoped it will be possible to adjourn for the Summer Recess on Friday, 1st August.
I will make a statement early next week about the proposed date of reassembly.
Mr. Gaitskell: When does the right hon. Gent leman propose that we take the Motion for the Adjournment for the Summer Recess?
Mr. Butler: On Thursday, 31st July.
Mr. J. Hynd: Has the right hon. Gentleman any statement to make about the progress of the Free Trade Area negotiations? It seems that the final decisions are now being taken in Paris. Surely there should be a report and, if necessary, a debate before we go into recess. Is nothing to be done about that?
Mr. Butler: The Paymaster-General is at present in Paris negotiating these matters. It is hoped—I underline "hoped"—that he will be able to make a statement next week, but I cannot go further on that until he returns.
Mr. Grey: May I bring to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the Motion signed by me and by more than 100 of my hon. Friends on this side of the House relating to the extension of Question Time?
[That this House, bearing in mind its decision on 9th July, 1958, on a matter of privilege, is of the opinion that it should meet thirty minutes earlier, thus giving one and a half hour's question
682
time, so that honourable Members may lay grievances before Ministers in the form of Parliamentary Questions which they are now prevented from doing by correspondence under the changed circumstances created by the said decision.]
While it is fairly obvious that the Motion cannot be debated next week, I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that Members on both sides of the House will be having on their hands many problems which, in the present circumstances, they will want to put in the form of Questions, and that they will not be able to ask them until we return. The present duration of Question Time, during which an average of 50 Questions are answered each day, is inadequate, so that many Questions which will be put down for answer upon our return will not be reached. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider our having a debate upon the matter upon our return?
Mr. Butler: I know that there are many hon. Members interested in this Motion, which I have here. I would suggest that it is a matter which could properly he considered by the Select Committee on Procedure, in which case we could have the benefit of its advice. That does not preclude our discussing it, but I see no reason why the Select Committee should not give its views upon it.
Mr. Woodburn: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when he will make a statement on the question of Members' letters to Ministers during the Recess? I understood that he was consulting Mr. Speaker and that he was to make a statement on this question of Privilege to guide Members in their correspondence.
Mr. Butler: I have been in touch with Mr. Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that he hoped we should be able to make some statement before the Recess. Accordingly, some time next week, before we adjourn, I will keep hon. Members up to date with the position so far as we have been able to get. I put it like that, because it is not easy to find a solution of this difficult matter; but if I can make a progress report before we adjourn, I shall be very glad to do so.
Dame Irene Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware how disturbed many hon.

683
Members with fishing interests were at the lateness of the hour at which last night the Motions relating to the fishing industry were taken? Can we have from him an assurance that there will be a full-scale debate on the fishing industry at an appropriate hour, when fishing Members may have the privilege of having appropriate Ministers in attendance, so that all the difficulties of the industry may be properly discussed?
It was very disturbing that those Motions should have been taken last night as they were. That was attacked by hon. Members on both sides of the House, who very much regretted that those Motions were taken at that late hour.
Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. One hon. Gentleman was very much distressed at his inability to discuss the herring industry. I think that the House of Commons generally was aware that we were not able to reach this matter at an earlier hour. I will pay attention to what the hon. Lady says. I think that, considering it is July, we have got through our business very well and with a minimum of temper. We are running absolutely up to date, but we must try to do better in future.
Mr. Wade: Will the right hon. Gentleman be making a statement next week about arrangements for the recall of Parliament, if need be, during the Recess?
Mr. Butler: Power is always there under Standing Order No. 112, but I think that this is a question that I can refer to on Thursday, when I move the requisite Motion. At any rate, I think that it could be handled next week. It depends a good deal, I think, on the development of the situation, but there is always that power there.
Sir A. Baldwin: Will my right hon. Friend find time, as soon as we reassemble after the Recess, for a debate on the very important matter of the Report of the Royal Commission on Common Land, which is very detailed?
Mr. Butler: I should like to take a little breath first and then give an answer to that, but I will pay attention to what my hon. Friend has said about the desire for discussion.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): On Thursday's business, Mr. Sneaker has asked me to state that
684
hon. Members who wish to raise matters after 7 o'clock, on the Adjournment, should get in touch with him.
Later—
Mr. G. M. Thomson: I understand, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that there is some confusion among hon. Members about the exact nature of the second half of next Thursday's proceedings. Would you make the position clear?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I beg the pardon of right hon. and hon. Members. I said "Adjournment" instead of "Appropriation Bill". I am afraid that my mind was on the holidays.

FORESTRY POLICY
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Hare): With your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about forestry policy.
This has been reviewed by the Government in accordance with the announcement made in October, 1957. In the light of current conditions—strategic, economic, agricultural and social—they have reached the following conclusions.
The planting programmes of the Forestry Commission should be fixed for periods of ten years at a time. For the five-year period 1959 to 1963, the programme will be about 300,000 acres, which allows for some increase over the present annual rate of planting. For the period 1964 to 1968, the planting programme will be reduced to about 235,000 acres, when the Forestry Commission's existing plantations will begin to come into full production.
The size of the subsequent programmes should be reviewed in five years' time in the light of the national needs. In deciding where planting shall take place, special attention will be paid to the upland areas, particularly in Scotland and Wales, where expansion of forestry would provide needed diversification of employment and important social benefits.
The Government propose to continue their support to private woodland owners, particularly through the dedication scheme. The present maintenance grant of 5s. 6d. per acre will be replaced by a management grant of 18s. per acre on

685
the first 100 acres, 12s. per acre on the next 100 acres and 7s. per acre on the remainder. This will substantially increase the value of the grants, particularly on the smaller woodlands.
Secondly, the planting grant will be continued, but for approved woodlands it will be raised from one half to the full rate per acre. These increased grants are contingent on the formation of an effective woodland owners' association, as recommended by the Watson Committee.
Thirdly, the grants for thinning and poplar planting will be terminated. The new structure of grants will be reviewed in five years' time. In reviewing, in future years, the level of grants, consideration will be given not only to trends in costs, but also to trends in receipts for private woodlands as a whole. As production from private woods taken as a whole—and thus the income of private owners as a body—rises, the level of assistance needed by way of planting and management grants will fall. Eventually—in say, twenty to thirty years' time—it should become nominal.
The system of felling licences will be continued. In present circumstances, it does not seem necessary to continue to fix a quota for the total annual felling, but the licensing system will be continued though with some relaxations. A Statutory Instrument will be made so that fellings in dedicated woodlands will no longer require a licence.
In addition, licences will, in general, be freely granted for other fellings subject to the existing arrangements for consultation with planning authorities. In order, however, to provide against the undesirable exploitation of woodland areas the licences will normally have a condition attached requiring restocking. And licences for thinning or selective felling will not be granted where they would, in effect, permit exploitation without restocking.
The Government recognise the importance to the forestry industry of an efficient home-grown timber trade. They believe that the measures just announced will be welcomed by the trade as well as by woodland owners, and will help both to plan ahead with confidence.
Mr. Champion: I welcome the announcement made by the Minister, particularly so far as the next five years are concerned, but I have some doubts about
686
the subsequent five years' programme which he has announced. The present difficulty of the Forestry Commission, I understand—and it has been the case for some time—is that of the acquisition of land. Can the Minister say something more about that aspect, particularly as he proposes to step up the present annual rate?
Another point which I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman is that the Zuckerman Committee told us that there was a lack of co-operation between the right hon. Gentleman's Department and the Forestry Commission, particularly on the integration of agriculture and forestry. This is extremely important, and I hope that the Minister is looking at this. On the question of a woodlands association, as suggested by the Watson Committee, has he made tentative inquiries? Are the owners likely to form such an association?
Mr. Hare: I would point out that the Forestry Commission has every confidence that it will be able to carry out the first five years' programme, which I have indicated in my statement. As to the second five years' programme, I would point out that the first results of the coming into fruition of the early estates of the Forestry Commissions will be beginning to take effect and, therefore, the activities of the Commission, so far as employment is concerned, will remain fairly stable.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself are working in very close conjunction with the Forestry Commission. I have said in my statement that these new grants are conditional on the forming of a private woodland owners' association.
Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: My right hon. Friend talked about trends in receipts and costs. Will he give an assurance that the woodland owners will be taken into consultation in assessing what are, in fact, the trends in receipts and costs?
Mr. Hare: I will willingly give my hon. and gallant Friend that assurance. The Forestry Commission will be consulting with the woodland owners organisations on these matters.
Mr. Woodburn: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, or the Secretary of State for Scotland, whether he is aware that in

687
Scotland there are still great stretches of land left derelict and that it is thought that this is due to the reluctance of the Forestry Commission to use its compulsory powers when it cannot get reasonable agreements? Will the Forestry Commission proceed more vigorously in Scotland to deal with that type of area?
Secondly, in the development of these areas, is the Forestry Commission still considering the question of getting suitable industries to work in conjunction with wood production in areas like Cannich and Glen Affric, where there will be a tremendous production of wood, or in Argyllshire and the development of pulp mills? What steps are to be taken by the Forestry Commission to help in this development, because the repopulation of the Highlands depends very largely on the development of trees and forestry?
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I am not aware that reluctance to use compulsory powers is an element in slowing down the Forestry Commission's work. This is a new comment to me which the right hon. Gentleman has made.
As to the Forestry Commission's willingness to work with industries which are related to woodland, I can assure him that the Commission is very well aware of this and is ready to work with any industry which is interested in its products.
Mr. Turton: While I am glad to gather from the reply of my right hon. Friend that the relationship of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Forestry Commission continues to be friendly, are we to understand that there has been an examination of the administration of the Forestry Commission in the light of Professor Zuckerman's Report and that my right hon. Friend is satisfied that there should be no change at all in the method of administration and no better way of rendering advice on forestry matters to him and his right hon. Friend?
Mr. Hare: Those matters did not come within the Government's examination in the policy statement which I have made. I answered the question put to me when it was suggested that there was no close relationship between myself and my right
688
hon. Friend and the Forestry Commission. We are working in the closest possible association. The recommendation of the Zuckerman Committee's Report is a different matter, which requires completely separate consideration.
Mr. Dye: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in his statement he made no reference to forestry workers, or their conditions of employment and living? May I ask him whether efforts will be made to modernise the cottages of the forestry workers, in view of the fact that grants are given in agriculture for modernisation and that kind of work for forestry seems to have been brought to an end?
Mr. Hare: As the hon. Gentleman will remember, I pointed out quite strongly, in answer to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion), that employment under the Forestry Commission should remain stable during the ten years about which we are talking. I will look with sympathy at the other point which the hon. Gentleman has made.
Sir J. Henderson-Stewart: In view of the importance of the statement which we have heard, probably the most important on forestry which we have had since the war—the detailed nature of the statement and the great interest obviously displayed in it—can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that as soon as possible when we return after the Recess we shall have a full day's debate on this matter?
Mr. Hare: All I can say is that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is sitting next to me, and that I am sure he will listen to the representations that have been made.
Mr. Woodburn: I should like to ask a further question about the future. There has been a forestry programme, at least for Scotland, for about fifty years ahead. The Forestry Commission, I understand, has fallen very far behind because of the difficulty in acquiring land. Would it not be possible, before the requested debate takes place, to have a properly detailed programme of what is to happen to forestry, and to see that the Forestry Commission is equipped with powers for development in Scotland to the utmost extent socially and economically?
Mr. Maclay: The statement which my right hon. Friend has made, and with which I agree, makes the position completely clear, but I will note what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Kimball: Can we take it from the right hon. Gentleman's statement about increased grants to private woodland owners that the Government continue to attach the greatest importance to the development of private woodland? Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us will be disappointed to find that he has not decided to split the Forestry Commission into two halves, one half concerned with woodland estates which should show a profit, and the other half concerned with giving advice and the administration of grants?
Mr. Hare: I assure my hon. Friend that I, personally, believe that the private woodland owner has just as important a part to play as the State in maintaining a sound forestry industry. I touched on the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question in my previous answer. That was a separate matter, which was not discussed in the present review of policy.
Sir L. Plummer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the House that the valuable assistance now given by the Forestry Commission to farmers who want to replant scrub land and land covered by bushes and trees will not be interfered with, and that assistance, supported by financial grants, will continue under this new scheme?
Mr. Hare: Yes, Sir, I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. The Forestry Commission is most anxious, as he knows, to co-operate as much as possible with the farming community.
Mr. Whitelaw: Is the Minister aware that there is some concern about the lack of adequate markets for our home-grown timber? Is he further aware that some
690
Government Departments and nationalised industries continue to use imported timber when home-grown timber could equally well be used, and will he give instructions to those bodies that whenever possible home-grown timber should be used?
Mr. Hare: I will bear in mind what the hon. Member says. I think that when he reads my statement he will realise that I believe the measures just announced will be welcomed by the trade as well as the woodland owners and will enable them to plan ahead with confidence.
Mr. Speir: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is his intention to adhere to this policy even if the European Free Trade Area arrangements come into operation? May I also reinforce the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart) that there should be a debate at the earliest possible opportunity on the whole Government policy in this matter?
Mr. Hare: In answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, as I made clear, the position will be looked at again in five years' time. During the next five years we are increasing the annual rate of planting by the Forestry Commission.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock; and that if the first two Resolutions proposed shall have been agreed to by the Committee of Supply before half-past Nine o'clock, the Chairman shall proceed to put forthwith the Questions which he is directed to put at half-past Nine o'clock by paragraph (6) of Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]
Proceedings of the Committee of Ways and Means exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [25TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1958–59; ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1958–59; MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1958–59; NAVY ESTIMATES; ARMY ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE; AND AIR ESTIMATES, 1958–59
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £29,198,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 3ilst day of March, 1959, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the following Ministry of Defence, Navy, Army and Air Estimates, viz:—

  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1958–59; ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1958–59; MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1958–59; NAVY ESTIMATES; ARMY ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE; AND AIR ESTIMATES, 1958–59

    MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1958–59, NAVY ESTIMATES 1958–59, ARMY ESTIMATES, 1958–59, AND AIR ESTIMATES, 1958–59.
    £

    Ministry of Defence

    11,174,000

    Navy Estimates, Vote 12, Admiralty Office

    8,844,000

    Army Estimates, Vote 3, War Office

    3,980,000

    Air Estimates, Vote 3, Air Ministry

    5,200,000

    Total

    £29,198,000

    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a sum, not exceeding £58,952,008, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the following Civil Estimates, viz.:—

    CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1958–59
    £

    Class IV, Vote 14 (Public Education, Scotland) (including a Supplementary sum of £10)

    31,746,168

    Class IV, Vote 12 (Universities and Colleges, &c., Great Britain)

    27,024,140

    Class III, Vote 18 (Approved Schools, Scotland)

    181,700

    Total

    £58,952,008

  EDUCATION IN SCOTLAND
  4.2 p.m.
  Miss Margaret Herbison: In view of the great importance of education, the Opposition have decided to devote one of its Supply Days to a debate on education in Scotland. I have decided, as I am sure most other people interested in this subject will decide, that the greatest problem facing educationists in Scotland today is the shortage of teachers. The Report of the Scottish Education Department on Education in Scotland shows that there were 1,355 oversized classes in the primary schools last year, and of these 119 had more than 50 children each in them. It might appear that 119 is a small figure, but it means that at least 5,950 children are being taught in classes of more than 50. I have used the word "taught" because they are certainly not being educated.
  I was once a teacher and when I taught in a primary school I rarely had fewer than 48 pupils. I know from my own experience how impossible it is to give the individual attention that is so necessary to each child if a class is too big. Therefore, in view of this figure of nearly 6,000 children, this is a most serious and almost tragic matter for the whole future of these children, whether they be the bright children or those who are not quite so bright.
  The Report states that there are 343 oversized classes in the secondary schools, and no fewer than 241 of these classes are in the first three years of secondary education. It is very important to realise that these oversized classes are in those first three years, and I intend later to deal with the wastage from the senior secondary schools. If there are oversized classes in the first three years children cannot have the individual attention which is so necessary to them.
  My experience leads me to believe that even these figures, serious though they are, do not give the complete picture. Because of the shortage of teachers there is a continual reorganisation of classes inside the schools, with children being pushed from one class to another and regarded as numbers and not individual children. Teachers are also trying to educate different age groups in oversized classes. It is difficult enough to

  693
  teach one age group in a big class, but it is almost impossible to do anything worth while when there is more than one age group in a big class.
  The Report of a Special Committee of the Advisory Council on Education in Scotland, "Measures to Improve the Supply of Teachers in Scotland," records the shortage of teachers in 1957 as 2,036. That Committee has tried to find out what the shortage will be in future years. It estimates a peak shortage for 1960 of 3,232. Again, that paints a most alarming picture of the education of our children. In view of that figure of 3,232, is it intended to do nothing between now and 1961–62 to reduce the size of classes, particularly in primary schools? If steps are not taken to deal with this problem the education of our children will continue to suffer.
  I have tried to give the picture and now I want to make some suggestions to the Secretary of State and the Government. The Report to which I have referred is an excellent document, prepared by a body of men and women who were very much seized with the importance of an adequate supply of teachers. My first suggestion is that every effort must be made to ensure that many more of the pupils who enter a senior secondary course remain to complete it. In 1956–57, 22,359 left senior secondary schools. Only 31 per cent. of them had completed the course of five years or more. Thirty-eight per cent. left as soon as they had reached the school-leaving age of 15. The remaining 31 per cent. had left between the third and fifth year.
  I want to examine more closely the 31 per cent. that continued after the third year, but left before they had completed the full course. It is true that a greater number in that year remained after the three years' course, but the figures I have given still cause us great concern. I know, as almost everybody else knows, that some who enter a senior secondary course may not eventually have the ability to take a full leaving certificate. I accept that, but I am convinced that many who leave are capable of completing the course satisfactorily. I believe that the Secretary of State would agree with that.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay)indicated assent.
  Miss Herbison: It is important to consider the 31 per cent. who left between the third year and the fifth year. There may be a number of reasons why, after deciding to continue after the third year, they left, but I believe that the overriding reason is that of the financial circumstances of those pupils and their parents.
  These young boys and girls, almost young men and young women, decide to stay on and then they see their friends who left school at the end of the third year at work, with much more money to spend. The friends are able to get many more of what are considered to be the goods things of life to young people than they are able to get. I feel strongly that this is the over-riding reason why so many leave school.
  The Special Committee of the Advisory Council on Education in Scotland, which studied what measures could be taken to improve the supply of teachers, made a strong recommendation to improve school bursaries. We find this statement in paragraph 28 of its interim Report:
  "One means of getting a greater number of teachers is to increase the pool of educated manpower from which the professions, including teaching, draw their recruits. To do so it is necessary to encourage a greater proportion of the able pupils to complete school or post-school course by reducing the financial hardships which higher study may entail."
  The Special Committee felt so strongly about this that a letter was sent to the Secretary of Sate for Scotland, because at that time, last year, the right hon. Gentleman was considering regulations concerning bursaries. The letter requested that the bursaries for those retaining at school should be raised to £78 in the case of the £40 bursary and to £104 in the case of the £50 bursary. After that very strong representation the right hon. Gentleman decided to raise the £40 bursary to £45—a meagre £5—and the £50 bursary to £60.
  I understand that in the latest regulations the £45 and £60 figures are still not increased, although steps have been taken where the parent's contribution is concerned. I say to the Secretary of State, as strongly as I can, that if he wants to increase the pool of educated manpower the one way by which he can do so is to ensure that the financial difficulties facing parents in the first

  695
  instance and pupils in the second instance are made much lighter than they are at present. All the right hon. Gentleman needs to do is to honour to the full the recommendation made by the Special Committee.
  In the debate last year the Secretary of State said on this matter:
  "We have tried by exhortation, posters and pamphlets to encourage more of our able pupils to complete a full senior secondary course.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 9th July, 1957, c. 171.]
  In the report we are told that there has been a distribution of the pamphlet "Give Them Their Chance". I know that it is necessary to educate parents on this point and I am speaking only to the Secretary of State about what the Government can do. If the Government want parents to give their children this very fine chance they will not achieve it merely by exhortation, by leaflets, or by pamphlets. I am convinced that the one way by which they will get more—particularly those who have stayed at school after the third year—to remain to take a full leaving certificate is by raising the bursaries to at least the amount suggested by the special committee.
  Now I turn to another important point. Children in a primary school have one teacher who understands them, who strives continually to guide and to help them. From this secure, and often benevolent, atmosphere the children are pitch-forked into a senior secondary school. There, they find they have many new teachers, no longer one. They find that they have a host of completely different studies. The security of the one philosopher and friend has disappeared.
  For a number of children the wastage really begins in this first year. They have lost their security, they are faced with additional difficulties, and it seems to me that in trying to lessen the wastage those concerned with our secondary education must find some way of bridging the great gulf between the last year in a primary school and the first year in a senior secondary school. I therefore ask the Secretary of State and his Department to look at that matter carefully, because again I speak from my own experience as a teacher and of what happened to quite a number of what I
  696
  considered to be really good children in their first year in a secondary school.
  I turn to the first recommendation made by the Special Committee, a most important one, namely, the indefinite deferment from National Service of teachers or of student teachers. So far, there is indefinite deferment for those with the Chapter V qualification who have first- or second-class honours in any subject, graduates with third-class honours, and ordinary graduates if they are teaching a science subject. Those with third-class honours or an ordinary degree get indefinite deferment, as far as I understand the position from letters I have received from the Minister of Labour, only if they are teaching in a senior secondary school.
  This is very wrong indeed, because still about 70 per cent. of our children in Scotland are taught in junior secondary schools. It seems to me that the differentiation between deferment is again penalising those very children whose full-time education finishes at 15 years of age. I say to the Secretary of State that he and the Minister of Education ought to bring to bear all the force they possess on the Cabinet, on the Minister of Labour and on the Minister of Defence to ensure that we get indefinite deferment for all who are either teaching or who are training for teaching.
  The Report backs up the plea I am now making. On page 56 it says:
  "Another encouraging feature of the figures is the increase from 177 to 202 in the number of honours graduates entering Chapter V training, which is probably due in part to the extension to the whole of this group of deferment from national service."
  When will the Government realise that the future well-being of the nation depends to a considerable extent on our standard of education, which, in turn, primarily depends on an adequate supply of teachers? I urge the right hon. Gentleman to tell us that this matter will not be "kept continually under review", as he said last year and as he has said in this year's Report, but that he will treat it as a matter of seriousness which will drive the Government to the conclusion that indefinite deferment should be given to these people.
  Another recommendation of the Special Committee with which I want to

  697
  deal was that all graduates should receive higher awards during the period of their professional training. This is another most important recommendation which I want to quote, since its points cannot be sufficienly stressed. The Special Committee said, in paragraph 17 of its Report:
  "When a university student completes his degree, it may be open to him either to train as a teacher or to take a post in industry or commerce where he is paid from the start although he is at first virtually a trainee. The immediate financial advantages lie entirely with the latter alternative, since the student who trains as a teacher not only gives up the opportunity of immediate earning but also faces the costs of a further year as a student. This may well deter him from entering the teaching profession and, in fact, we are informed that when groups of teachers visit the universities to interest students in teaching as a career, the students themselves mention this as a deterrent."
  What have the Government done, or what do they propose to do, to implement that recommendation?
  According to the calculations of the Committee, taking into consideration that more graduates would go to training college, it might cost the Government between £70,000 and £80,000 a year. That is a very small amount for encouraging students to have this extra year of training rather than go into industry or commerce where they will be earning during that year.
  Another recommendation, and one which has been followed by the Secretary of State, was that the period at training college for students with Chapter V qualifications should be reduced from nine months to seven months. However, I suggest that ordinary graduates, who still have to take the nine months' course at training college, could take a seven months' course. I know that the Committee suggested that this would be only a temporary provision, but I suggest that the seven months' course is sufficient for not only first and second-class honours graduates, but also for third-class honours and ordinary graduates.
  I should like the Secretary of State and his Department to examine that matter, since it would not only give us the teachers at Easter rather than after the summer holidays, but it would enable them to earn a full salary for about five months which they would not otherwise get. Adopting the two recommendations, a very much higher grant during the year of training and cutting the period of training to seven
  698
  months, could result in attracting many students to teaching who might not otherwise be attracted.
  It may be said that teaching is a vocation, and to a certain extent I agree, but I have found people who have gone into teaching who in the old days would have preferred to go into industry, but who have found the greatest happiness when they became teachers. The job is, therefore, to attract them first.
  The special recruitment scheme has been much more successful than those of us who introduced it thought it would be. It has so far attracted 1,602 recruits which, compared with the teaching population, is a substantial figure. Of those, 1,192 have completed their training and are now teaching. The Committee asked the Secretary of State to examine whether the grants given to those whom we were trying to attract from industry and commerce were adequate.
  I have a letter sent to one of my hon. Friends by a student who was attracted by the special recruitment scheme. This student feels rather bitter, since he finds that the amount of money which he gets is not adequate for himself, his wife and his family. If these recruits are bitter, that will not help to recruit others from industry and commerce. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to tell us quite clearly that he has decided to accept the Committee's recommendation and that he will considerably increase the grants given to recruits under the special recruitment scheme.
  On this subject, I want, finally, to deal with another source of wastage, that at university level. I spoke about the great jump from the primary school to the secondary school, but it is also a very great step from the senior secondary school to the university. Many of the classes of some of the faculties in our four Scottish universities are far too large and our students do not get the chance to benefit from the tutorial system which has been developed to a very high degree in some of the English universities. I know that we have no control over the universities, but it is important, in a debate on education in the House of Commons, that we should show up whatever flaws may exist in our education system, so that those responsible can try to do something about them. Remedy

  699
  of this flaw would help to cut out wast-age at university level.
  The Report says, on page 51, that towards the end of the year a circular was sent to local authorities on the subject of school building. We were told that we would not know the results of the circular until the early months of 1958. We want to know now whether any education authority has been told that it has to cut down on plans it has made for building schools. We want to know which local authorities have been affected. Some of us have some knowledge of this subject, but the Secretary of State himself should detail every case.
  In last year's debate on building for technical education, the Secretary of State said:
  "It now seems clear that work well up to this value will be started in the five-year period covered by the White Paper, although, because of the time required for planning, very little of it will be started before 1958."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 9th July. 1957; c. 177.]
  What progress has the right hon. Gentleman to report on this subject of technical school building? If there have been cuts, what is their extent, and what are the reasons for them?
  I want now to refer to secondary education. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, at present secondary education in Scotland is divided between senior secondary schools and junior secondary schools. Segregation takes place at the end of primary education. I spoke earlier about children in over-sized classes. What chance has the child in a class of more than 50 to have his ability so developed that we can be certain that, given the ability, he will make the grade for a senior secondary school? That is only one place where great mistakes can be made by segregation at 12 years of age.
  The right hon. Gentleman also knows that once a child is allocated to a junior secondary school he has little or no opportunity of later being placed in a senior secondary school. Many parents and children are heart-broken when the results come out and they learn that the children are allocated to junior secondary schools. This is becoming more and more serious. The parents particularly realise that no matter how great the ability of a child may be shown to be
  700
  in the future, his chances of promotion in later life are often doomed by this very early decision.
  The policy of the Labour Party is absolutely clear. We believe in a comprehensive system of education, believing that it would remove this very grave injustice and the heart-break of parents and children. We also believe that it is possible to have a comprehensive system of education with a wide variety of methods. There are many ways of achieving this. I have no doubt that Scottish education authorities have the skill and the ability to achieve a comprehensive system of education which will provide for all our children the very best which education can give.
  I know that hon. Members opposite talk about the large size of schools, but some of their own children are educated in public schools which have large numbers of pupils. The important matter is not that every headmaster should know every child intimately, but that the children should be known intimately by the teachers. We have very clear evidence from comprehensive secondary education institutions that the bright child is not hindered in any way, and sometimes the child who, normally, would have been allocated to a junior secondary school, and would have left at 15 years of age, finds its place in the comprehensive school, and is able to develop its abilities, and stays on beyond the age of 15.
  I have no time to develop this matter as I should like, but I advise the Secretary of State to read the policy statement issued by the Labour Party. He will find that this type of education is well worth fostering indeed, Scotland was the pioneer in this type of education, and England and Wales are now beginning to follow behind us. We have been proud of our system of Scottish education, and I would ask the Secretary of State not to allow us to fall behind advanced thinking in this field simply because of any doctrinaire political outlook on the part of his party.
  Finally, our influence in the comity of nations, our standard of life and our way of life, are all in jeopardy if we do not realise the importance of education and match that realisation with appropriate action. Children are very precious. They are not numbers: they are people for

  701
  whom we should have the greatest thought and to whom we should show the very greatest care. We shall be failing lamentably in our great responsibilities if we do not give our Scottish boys and girls a chance of a really fine education which will develop them all round, so that life will be made not merely more materially good for them, but they will be allowed to develop physically and spiritually as well. These things are gravely important in Scottish education, and if action is not taken quickly and drastically we shall have failed our Scottish children badly.
  4.39 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): The Committee will agree that it is never easy for a Minister to follow the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) when she has been speaking on the subject of education. She speaks with great personal knowledge and experience and with sympathy and understanding of all the problems involved in the subject, and I approach my task with a certain diffidence because, great as my interest in this subject is, I have not the hon. Lady's personal experience.
  However, I hope it will be found at the end of my speech that I have dealt with all the major points the hon. Lady has raised. It would be simpler to debate them in the framework that I was proposing so as to make for a proper debate, but I would add that if I am to cover the ground I will have to speak a little longer than I normally like to do. This subject is of great importance, however, and while no one realises more clearly than I do that grave problems are involved, there are also certain elements in the education situation in Scotland which are hopeful and good and show progress, and it would not be right if I did not use this occasion to refer to them.
  The three main elements in education are teachers, buildings and pupils, and in the course of what I have to say I shall be dealing to some extent with all three. On building, it is right to say that the position in 1957 was very satisfactory, as far as it went, and judged on past history. In educational building generally, 1957 beat 1956, which was itself a record year. In terms of the value of work done, which is the best measure of progress, we were, at a figure of £10·6 million, 19 per cent.
  702
  up on the value of work done in the previous year. The value of projects started and projects completed was also greater than in 1956.
  I think I shall be answering one of the hon. Lady's questions when I say that for the current financial year education authorities have been told which projects they can start, and I am glad to be able to say that every necessary job will be allowed to start as soon as it is ready. I repeat the words, "Every necessary job will be allowed to start as soon as it is ready." I am anxious to see our building programme go forward as rapidly as possible, for two main and very obvious reasons; first, so that the children in our schools may be taught in attractive, up-to-date and well-equipped premises—and that need not and must not mean extravagance—and secondly, and no less important, so that we can offer our teachers working conditions worthy of the task they have to do and worthy of the devotion which I know they have brought to their task over so many years.
  Turning to the question of school places and conditions—in primary and secondary schools alone, 1957 saw the provision of nearly 53,000 new places; no fewer than 17,000, or nearly 30 per cent., more than the number provided in 1956, which I repeat was itself a record year. I emphasise these figures because it is wise to realise that we are making substantial progress in some of the essentials of good education. It is no mean achievement. Nevertheless, we realise that a great deal of work has to be done to bring all schools up to modern standards, and we will do everything possible to ensure that modernisation and replacement of old schools proceed just as soon as the task of providing new schools permits.
  I concede at once that the job of modernising and replacing unsatisfactory schools will be a long and difficult one. For example, in built-up areas such as Glasgow there is the problem of having to build on the same site and of finding accommodation for the pupils while the work is going on. Since most of our one-or two-teacher rural schools were built in the last century, the accommodation often falls short of what we expect today. Their modernisation or replacement will be a formidable task, which will have to be spread over a longish period, but it can have an important influence on the life

  703
  of our rural communities, and we are very much aware of that.
  In the matter of further education, the problem is to build new local technical colleges in which the education authorities can provide the early stages of technical education for apprentices and young workers generally and to expand the facilities at our central institutions for the more advanced stages of technology. When the White Paper outlined the Government's plans for the development of technical education rather more than two years ago—a subject to which the hon. Lady referred—very few education authorities had major schemes either in hand or planned, and we had to start very much from scratch. The position now is that projects to the value of £9·6 million have either been approved in principle or are expected to be approved very soon. Some of this work is at central institutions, but most is for education authority local technical colleges.
  We should all want to congratulate education authorities on the response they have made to the call made in the White Paper to provide up-to-date premises and equipment. These are obviously essential if we are to provide adequate and efficient technical education for our young workers, and—I entirely agree with the hon. Lady on this—if we are to hold our own in the modern economy.
  Naturally enough, very little work has actually started on the ground; the whole of the last two years was taken up in planning. But we expect projects worth about £2 million to start building by next spring and others to the value of over £6 million to start in the following year. Planning is absolutely essential in this matter. It would be disastrous folly if these matters were not properly planned, and I do not think there can be any criticism of delay in getting on with the plans.
  Mr. William Ross: In three years?
  Mr. Maclay: To take three years getting the thing right is better than starting wrongly.
  Mr. Ross: Surely the right hon. Gentleman realises that we have to balance this against the promises made by the Joint Under-Secretary when dealing with this question over two years ago. If he had
  704
  told us then that there would not be a thing done after two years we would not have believed it possible, even with this Government.
  Mr. Maclay: That is a most unfair and improper reflection on the Government. It must be well known that we cannot get a scheme like this going straight away. There must be a planning period, and the figures that I have given show very good progress indeed.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Not in Ayrshire.
  Mr. Maclay: It is most important that education authorities should not slacken their efforts. For work already approved they will have to press on with the preparatory stages in order to get the colleges into use at the earliest possible dates, and any remaining projects which are to be fitted into the 1956–61 programme must be approved in principle this year. What is more, we must now be thinking of plans for the period beginning in 1961. There will then still be many areas which should have sufficient facilities but will have none, or will need more than they have. The great need is to plan ahead.
  The second aspect that I want to cover in my speech is that of pupils and students. The Report that we have before us shows that Scottish education is clearly alive to the needs of our rapidly changing times, and adapting itself to these needs. It may be doing so slowly, but it is doing so satisfactorily. It is gratifying to learn from the reports of Her Majesty's inspectors of schools, educational journals and reports of meetings of educationists, of the extent to which teachers in Scotland are fully aware of the challenge and the opportunities presented by the time in which we live.
  As the Report points out, there are still some teachers who hesitate to abandon well-tried ways for newer and more experimental methods. We hope that they will respond increasingly to the encouragement and guidance offered to them in the memoranda and surveys published by my Department, and in the conferences and discussions at which our inspectors try to thrash out with the teachers the problems that confront them in applying these new ideas.
  For example, group teaching is a method that has been urged upon teachers

  705
  for some years, and it is satisfactory to know that it is being increasingly adopted in our primary schools. Basically, it is new neither in theory nor in practice; our Scottish dominies used it many years ago, in one form at least, in the small rural and village schools. But it is being adapted and extended as a means of taking account of the differing abilities normally found in a class. This method of organisation obviously demands a great deal of both teacher and headmaster, not least when classes are larger than we could wish, but they have the great advantage of enabling the quicker pupils to progress at their own pace and, at the same time, of sparing the slower pupils the necessity of struggling along at a pace that is beyond them.
  In the secondary education stage there is also a great deal going on, directed mainly towards ensuring that the courses provided and the system of examinations are such as to encourage mare pupils to remain at school to complete the course for which their abilities fit them. The wastage caused by pupils who leave school prematurely, but would benefit by staying on, remains one of our gravest problems.
  No one will disagree with what the hon. Lady said, that we must increase the nation's stock of educated manpower. We can only do so if the schools have full opportunity to develop the talents of every pupil as far as they can. Even among the junior secondary pupils too many who would benefit by staying on leave as soon as they reach the statutory age and before they have completed a three-year course. I am glad to say that the percentage over the whole country of those who completed the course rose from 42 per cent. to 47 per cent. between 1954–55 and 1956–57.
  To improve on this figure, more education authorities will have to ensure that as many pupils as possible are transferred to secondary courses not later than twelve years of age so that they have a chance of completing their courses. The courses in junior secondary schools will have to be more and more closely adapted to the needs of their pupils so that these will be encouraged to remain at school even beyond the age of 15.
  That leads me to the question of the integration of secondary and further education In this connection, I should like
  706
  to mention the introduction by Fife and Edinburgh Education Authorities of technical certificates for their junior secondary pupils. The pupils can take these certificates before leaving school at 15. The certificates are designed to provide a natural lead to suitable courses at local technical colleges. I would mention, in passing, that there are conflicting views on the subject of external examinations in junior secondary courses. The ones to which I have referred are not national but local examinations. I know the dangers concerned. We are planning the arrangements with the greatest care, and the experiment will be watched with very close interest.
  Mr. George Lawson: Would the Secretary of State remember that 85 per cent. of the youngsters are still leaving school before they reach the age of 16? We welcome the efforts that show that attention is being given to this matter.
  Mr. Maclay: Of course, this is only one facet of the wider problem of integrating secondary and further education courses. The whole thing ties up together. We want to make sure that young people should be able to move easily from school to further education courses, realising while they are at school that what they learn there is highly relevant to their later life. This is a subject on which I have the strongest personal views. Pupils of practical rather than academic turn of mind would be less anxious to leave school if they felt that what they were doing there led on naturally to further education courses, just as the academic pupil knows that his school course will lead on naturally to a course in a university or central institution, and that the passes he obtains in the Scottish leaving certificate examination may exempt him from the entrance examinations of universities and professional bodies.
  In senior secondary courses, the tendency—I am picking up some of the points from the opening speech—for an increasing number of pupils to complete their course is becoming more pronounced. In 1954, there were just over 5,000 seventeen-year olds in our Vth and VIth form, or 6·7 per cent. of the age group. In succeeding years, the figure rose by about 6 per cent. each year until, in 1957, it was just over 6,000, or 8 per cent. of the age group. I am glad to be able

  707
  to report that, in the session just finished, the figure has made a striking advance of about 12 per cent. It has now reached about 6,750, or more than 9 per cent. of the age group. That is the kind of progress we want to see.
  Unfortunately, on the other side of the picture we find that, of the pupils beginning senior secondary courses, nearly two-thirds, or about 15,000 in all, leave before finishing the five years. Although many of these begin industrial and commercial careers offering satisfying work and sound prospects and are not allowing their abilities to go to waste, we are told that a good proportion, perhaps about 3,000, are able pupils who could take a good leaving certificate and in whose interest and also that of the nation it would be to complete their courses and go on to further study.
  What are we doing to improve the position? The hon. Lady asked that question. We have increased our practical assistance to parents who would have financial difficulties in keeping their children at school by providing in the 1957 and 1958 Bursaries Regulations for more generous higher-school bursaries. I shall have a word to say about the colleges and will comment on the subject as I go on.
  We have intensified our propaganda on the advantages of higher education, to which the hon. Lady referred, by the pamphlet "Give Them Their Chance", which was prepared in association with the E.I.S., and 25,000 copies of it are being distributed annually to parents, through one channel or another. Two more pamphlets have been prepared. I am glad also to acknowledge the assistance of the Federation of British Industries, who this year have issued a pamphlet, "A Message from Industry", to third-year pupils pointing out the advantages of completing secondary courses.
  Perhaps, however, what will prove to be the most powerful incentive in the expansion of our secondary schools will be the introduction of a new grade in the Scottish leaving certificate, of which hon. Members have already heard something. It will replace the present lower grade, will be known as the "ordinary" grade, and is intended for pupils in the fourth year of the senior secondary course. We believe that many
  708
  pupils who now leave school at 15, perhaps because they feel that their chances of success in even the lower grades do not justify their spending two more years at school to prepare themselves for it, would remain longer if they had an opportunity of taking a certificate at 16, in the fourth year instead of the fifth, and that some of these, if successful in obtaining passes in the ordinary grade, might go on to try for higher passes as well.
  We also hope that the new certificate may play its part in forging closer links between secondary and further education, which I mentioned a moment ago. For example, it may be possible to arrange that pupils taking certain subjects in the new certificate may obtain exemption from the first stage of these subjects in their further education course. This should encourage pupils to remain at school and not to leave as early as possible in the belief, often mistaken, that they will get more advantage from taking further education courses than from remaining at school. Of course, all this involves very difficult problems of organisation of courses, curricula etc., and the necessary changes require and are receiving, a good deal of thought.
  I have therefore set up a working party comprising representatives of headmasters and headmistresses, directors of education and teachers, together with departmental officers, to consider the whole matter in detail. It is at least satisfactory to know that our proposals have the support of the great majority of people interested in education. We hope that after we have the working party's report later this year the necessary preparations can go ahead for the introduction of the new fourth-year certificate, in 1961.
  Mr. A. Woodburn: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the complaints that these courses are far too much destined for eventual entry into universities. Would it not be wise to have people from the outside world, like trade unionists and businessmen, at these discussions to bring a practical atmosphere into the academic one?
  Mr. Maclay: I would like just to check on that and to give it consideration. I referred earlier to the need for education authorities to press ahead with the planning of new technical colleges.

  709
  I know that education authorities are sometimes concerned lest they should provide colleges and find that they have no students to use them. The greater danger is going to be that there will not be enough places to meet the demand. Even at a time when facilities have been largely make-shift, the number of day students, full-time, sandwich and day-release, has risen by 40 per cent. in five years, or from 30,000 in 1951 to 42,000 last session.
  Not only have we had an increase each year, but the rate of progress is also increasing. New facilities being brought into use—for example, the first completely new college built since the war, the Reid Kerr Technical College, Paisley, to be opened in the autumn—will undoubtedly stimulate demand still further. I am quite convinced that there is little risk that facilities now being planned will not be fully utilised, but much more work has still to be done in securing support for day-release arrangements.
  It is by no means fully accepted yet that the industry and commerce of this country stand to gain by sending their young workers to a college of further education on one day a week. The figure of about 31,000 day-release students in 1956–57 is pretty good, but it is obviously not good enough. Similarly, we need to improve on the number of 11,000 full-time and sandwich students. We have to try to have more facilities and more students to make use of them. I mentioned a figure of 31,000 day release students for 1956–57, which compares with 25,000 in round figures in 1954–55 and 28,000 in 1955–56, so that progress is going on, although I agree that it should be faster.
  I come now to the question of assistance to students. Of course, what we want to ensure as far as is reasonable and practicable is that no obstacles are planed in the way of young people getting further education. I myself would not suggest that finance is by any means the sole answer to the problem, but, of course, the Government recognise the importance of ensuring as far as they can that at all stages of the educational system students are not prevented by financial considerations from taking courses for which they are fitted.
  710
  Just a year ago, as I have already said, we brought into operation new Education Authority Bursaries Regulations, which not only made substantial improvements in allowances, but also reduced, in some cases very substantially, the contribution which many parents were required to make towards the cost of their children's education. As I think the hon. Lady said, only this week further regulations have come into force which improve yet further the allowances given to those taking courses of higher education and at the same time reduce for all bursaries, including school bursaries, the contribution the parents have to make. To give only one figure to illustrate what is involved, expenditure on awards by education authorities will have doubled, from £2 million to £4 million, in two years.
  I would just say, in relation to what the hon. Lady said, that it is not by any means certain, and we have examined this very carefully, that hardship is one of the really major factors in prematurely leaving school. It obviously can be an element, and there is some room for argument on that, but we are very much alive to the problem, and I think that the hon. Lady will agree that we have at least done something in the improvements we have made. I personally consider that it is a fair and reasonable step which we have taken in this matter.
  Obviously, some problems remain. We know that in certain quarters the view is held that the cost of higher education, including that of students' maintenance, should be met entirely from public funds and that parents should not have to make any contribution. There have also been suggestions that the responsibility for awarding bursaries should be transferred, in whole or in part, from the education authorities to the State. It is just that kind of matter that will be considered by the Committee which has been set up by the Minister of Education and myself, under the chairmanship of Sir Colin Anderson, to consider the whole question of bursary awards from public funds to students taking courses of higher education. We have, as the Committee will know, three very good Scots on that Committee, and I should add that Sir Colin Anderson is a very good Scot in origin, sentiment and everything else.
  Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Will it be within the competence of the

  711
  Committee to deal with the anomalies which have existed in the comparison between the grants awarded to Scottish students at Scottish universities and those awarded to English students at English universities, which has been for a long time a matter of argument? I hope that the Committee will try to clear it up.
  Mr. Maclay: I think that will be one of the matters to be studied. It is obviously a worrying and difficult problem.
  Sir James Henderson-Stewart: Will one or two members of the Committee come up to Scotland to take some of the evidence?
  Mr. Maclay: I am sure that if the Chairman has anything to do with it he will be only too pleased to do so, but I will see that this point is drawn to his attention.
  On teachers, the record is really one of contrast—rather surprising contrast—steady growth in numbers, but urgent need for still more. I have not been complacent in reviewing other aspects of education, although I have been claiming that we are progressing very successfully. On the question of teacher supply on the whole, the outlook must be one of concern. At the same time, it is essential to see the problem in its true perspective. It is rather too easy, for oneself as well as other people, amid the stream of statements on present difficulties and future crises, to get the impression that our supply of teachers is actually running down, and, of course, nothing is further from the case.
  I know that impression has been created, but it is right to get it straight, and, so far from declining, the number of certificated teachers has grown, is growing and will, I am certain, continue to grow. The number of certificated teachers before the war was 29,000; in October, 1956, it was 35,700; in October, 1957, it was 36,100, an increase of 400 in the year. The number of students entering on training for teaching is also growing. No fewer than 2,017 began training last session, which is an increase of 77 over the previous year, and the first time that the intake exceeded 2,000, except for the very abnormal numbers of the immediate post-war years. The Special Recruitment Scheme, to which the hon. Lady referred, continues to
  712
  attract to teaching increasing numbers of well-qualified men and women from other walks of life, and I believe that this scheme has been a real success.
  Despite these encouraging figures—and I am certain that it is right to get the matter in perspective—staffing is the crux of all our educational problems.
  Mr. Ross: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that in these encouraging figures there is a very temporary element—the fact that the right hon. Gentleman permitted teachers to stay on longer, possibly up to the age of 70? This will be wearing off within a few years, and down will come the figures again.
  Mr. Maclay: I am not quite certain that that is strictly relevant to what I have said. I am not in any way complacent, but have described the problem as it stands at the moment.
  My information is that 2,800 additional teachers would be required if all the uncertificated teachers and teachers over 70 were to be replaced and all over-size classes got rid of. Further, as the large birth-groups pass from the primary to the secondary school—and that will happen during the next three years—the secondary staffing position will grow worse; in short, the growth in the number of our teachers, though considerable, is not enough to meet growing demands.
  As an outstanding example of this growth, the number of specialist teachers in the more practical subjects, such as art, music, handwork, homecraft, commercial subjects and physical education, was only 3,250 before the war. It is over 6,800 today, and we will need about 9,000 in 1961 and the years that follow. These groups have expanded by as much as 110 per cent. since the war, and if shortage in some of them is serious and threatens to be greater still by 1961, it is not because we failed to recruit a lot of additional teachers—we have doubled the number—but because we are, of course, giving much more attention to the subjects concerned and teaching them to far more pupils.
  In view of these difficulties, we asked the Advisory Council to consider the whole question of the supply of secondary teachers. It has submitted an interim report, to which the hon. Lady has

  713
  referred and which she has been quoting, and I understand that it will give us its final report later in the year. As a result of its recommendations, there has been a substantial deferment of honours and science graduates from National Service. The hon. Lady said that it was up to myself and the Minister of Education to go on pressing this. Of course, we have done so, and we should like to see it extended, but it must be realised that there is a considerable demand, and there will be, for teachers in the Services themselves, and there is a question of priority. I assure the hon. Lady and the Committee that we are very much alive to this, and that the matter has been discussed with the Minister of Labour fairly constantly.
  Mr. John Rankin: Surely, while we recognise that teachers are necessary in the Services, conscription is not a means whereby we are going to get teachers into the Services? I take it that is what the right hon. Gentleman is implying?
  Mr. Maclay: That is not the same question at all, and I do not think I should be drawn aside into what I think are rather separate arguments.
  On the question, to which the hon. Lady also referred, of the training course for honours graduates, that has been compressed, and the point is now being considered by the Advisory Committee, which is having a look at it. Publicity for recruitment under the special scheme has been intensified, and I have already dealt with bursaries. On another point which the hon. Lady raised, the grants under the special recruitment scheme are to be increased next session by about 15 per cent., which I think is very useful in what we are all so anxious to achieve.
  I think I have covered most of the ground about which the hon. Lady asked questions. I hope my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary will be able to answer any questions that have been left unanswered. Everyone of us is concerned with this matter, Ministers, education authorities and teachers along with all hon. Members, we recognise the immense importance of the education of our young people for the whole future of our country. We shall go on working to the best of our ability to achieve the best we can for our children. I repeat that I think we have solid ground for satisfaction in
  714
  a great deal which we have managed to get done in the last few years, but I think we all realise that there is still a great deal more to do.
  5.11 p.m.
  Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: I have listened with very great care to the two opening speeches which, between them, have covered a great deal of ground in this debate. I shall not attempt to do anything of the sort myself, because I think that there is some advantage in a back bencher being brief and there has been a certain amount of "bush telegraphing" going on about the need to be a little briefer still tonight.
  I shall try to make three points very shortly. All of them seem to be important, although they are not necessarily the most important of our educational problems just now. I should have liked to take up the question of the shortage of teachers, but I resist that temptation. The first point I want to make is with reference to senior secondary and university education. We are trying as hard as we can, and with the support of the whole country, to increase the numbers of people continuing to the end of a senior secondary course. Both Front Bench speakers have referred to that.
  The problem arises of what happens to people when they complete their senior secondary course. They can go in different directions. One thing which is relevant here and needs a little more attention paid to it than it gets is that those who go straight from their leaving certificate stage into industry do so under 'difficulties, because that is a different age for entry to industry. The age of 16 is a good age, and the age of 22, after graduation, is a good age, but the age of 17 or 18 is difficult. There are a number of problems connected with that age which need a little more study.
  What worries me is the problem of those who want to go on to university and technical college degree courses. Earlier this Session I raised the question with the Minister of Education of what happens to students in England. I had assumed that the real problem they are meeting is one from which we in Scotland are insulated, but I have begun to wonder about that. The situation in

  715
  England is that students can take higher education and reach university matriculation standard yet, in literally thousands of cases when they apply for admission to university they are refused. I thought we were free from that problem, but I begin to see one or two signs that perhaps we are not free from it. A letter in one of Lord Beaverbrook's publications the other day, coming from my constituency, said that even science specialists have been rejected, although they have the appropriate qualifications, when they applied for university courses. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, What is the situation? Are we turning away from the universities people who are properly qualified to enter?
  I want to ask one or two questions connected with that. The Scottish universities have a long democratic tradition of serving the people. In the long years of their history they have always taken without question people who were qualified. We have always had room, and our university system had that characteristic. Are we to lose that and to find that our universities provide rather fewer places than we need? If that happens, are we to find students are chosen for qualities other than intellectual qualities? The old system was that the applicant passed examinations on paper, the university never saw him, but if he had the proper qualifications he went into the university course and that was that.
  Now we have the report of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors dealing with everything but the essential question and endorsing the business of selecting students from among those qualified. How are they selected? Do they turn back a chap because he had a broad Aberdonian accent, or does not dress properly? Or is an attempt made in a kind of country house interview to find what his underlying qualities of character are? Anything like that would seem to me to be quite alien to our Scottish tradition. I should like a situation in which we made sure that our universities offered enough places to students who are qualified and took those students without making inquiry beyond their intellectual attainments. Very often a chap who gives a bad impression at the beginning turns out to be the most useful after going through the course.
  Mr. Lawson: I wonder if my hon. Friend would also ask who does the selecting and what are the qualifications of the selectors?
  Mr. MacPherson: My hon. Friend is opening other tempting paths, but I have set myself the object of making a short speech and I shall not try to follow that.
  I should like some sort of Scottish statement about the expansion programme of the universities. What is our part in the programme which the Chancellor has recently announced? Are we to increase the numbers of students pari passu with England and Wales, or is our proportion of students to population already so high that we cannot do that? Probably that is the case. What is our share of the expansion to be? Are we to make sure that our share of the expansion is done not simply in order to meet a sort of mystic number, chosen one does not know how, of 124,000 or 136,000 at some date in future? Or is it to be geared and fitted year by year to the numbers of students who become applicants for university places year by year? That seems enormously important. But I have not so far been able to get the Chancellor or his junior Ministers even to recognise that that problem exists.
  I would like, secondly, to say a little about scientific and technical education. I ask the Secretary of State to give us a little more information about the effects of the shortage of science teachers. The Report says that the
  "shortage of teachers of mathematics and science is causing increasing difficulties."
  I should jolly well think it is. A shortage running to 15 or 20 per cent. year after year is a serious matter. I put this to the right hon. Gentleman strongly. It is time that we were told something in detail about the effects of this continuing situation. It has been going on since just after the war.
  Can we not know what the results are? Is the standard dropping and, if so, where and what numbers are affected? Is the curriculum being changed and the quality of teaching dropping? A colleague in the journalistic world used to explain how he earned a good living in the offices of an illustrated newspaper working out captions for the illustrations. His skill was in producing neat captions which just fitted the pictures. There seems to be someone in the Scottish Office who has the same skill in producing these sentences

  717
  in the Reports which neatly cover the situation without giving anything away. We want more than that.
  I want also to say something about a very interesting and important activity which is taking place and originated from the business world, the activity of the Industrial Fund for the Advancement of Scientific Education in Schools. It is important that we should realise what has been happening. In November, 1955, less than three years ago, a number of business people got together and decided that they must do something to increase the prospect of improving science teaching in the schools. They decided what they needed to do and went ahead. They found how and where to do it, and did it. Between then and now they have allocated for schools in the United Kingdom, including Scotland, £3¼ million. They have assisted schools, not publicly maintained, all over the country and all schools assisted were under agreement to start building in the spring of this year.
  This seems to me to be a very remarkable operation. These people, who are non-educationists and non-educational administrators, have picked out a very important nail and have hit it squarely on the head. They have used for the project money part of which would have come to the Chancellor by way of taxation, but part of which is a clear gift to education. That operation is the kind of thing one would hope that the two Departments of Education could do; but what the right hon. Gentleman said about building plans and progress in the last three years is a quite striking contrast to this kind of thing.
  I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman, because this concerns him—it is not a matter entirely for the private schools, because most of the schools concerned are helped in some way from public funds—whether there is any possibility of his doing something of the same sort for the publicly-owned secondary schools. The fund has enabled the building of new science laboratories, and, where such laboratories were not needed, grants have been made from the fund for new science equipment, and this has been done in no half-hearted way.
  The largest grant given to one school, not in Scotland, was £40,000. Eton, I think, received £30,000. The largest grant given to a school in Scotland was
  718
  for £21,000. About £1,000 or £1,500 have been granted for the provision of equipment. That is not half-hearted provision, and it is something which we hope the public administrators will be able to do for schools under public control. The schools here concerned are, of course, those not maintained in the public system.
  I wish to ask one specific question about the immediate future. As I understand, the follow-up which these people are likely to undertake will be local. They are not likely to continue a national effort of this sort. Rather are they likely to encourage local industry to help local schools. Most of the local schools will probably be schools receiving public money, schools in which the right hon. Gentleman is interested.
  Will the right hon. Gentleman try to make sure, since this is a clear benefit to any school concerned, that there will be no obstacles or difficulties in the way of receiving any such money? It is money that should be spent and which will save the taxpayers, if, indeed, the nation's Executive representatives would ever get round to spending it on their behalf.
  I want very shortly to touch on a third question which, I am afraid, I shall not have the time to go into in detail. It is the new proposed training regulations for teachers. I am very sorry that the administrative plan is being produced before the policy, because it seems to me that when the policy is produced there may be difficulty in fitting it into the administrative plan. Indeed, I wonder whether there is a policy to be produced. If there is, where will it come from? It will probably be the sort of thing thought up in the Department, because one has not seen any signs of discussion of this sort in the Scottish education world at all.
  It is unfortunate, although it is characteristic of Scottish education, that new advances and ideas seem to develop without there being much public interest in them beforehand. The essence of the problem is, I think, the question of prestige. As Professor Pilley said a little while ago, the existing colleges
  "fail to command the respect of graduates."
  Mr. Hamilton, of the same department in the University of Edinburgh, talks about the "spiritual and intelligent myopia" which he recalls from his

  719
  student days at Moray House. He says that there has been no change since in that respect. That is a very difficult thing for policy to overcome, but it is the central factor in the training of graduates for teaching; and it is graduates I am talking about just now. I hope that when the policy is produced it will deal with that problem.
  It seems to me that in view of a difficulty of that sort which has gone on for, perhaps, a couple of generations—and there is no sign that we can clear it up in the immediate future—there is a good case for not only reducing the training period of all graduates to seven months but for deciding to give all graduates no continuous period at all in the training college. There exists a probation period of two years during which, it is presumed, a teacher is not fully qualified. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he might use that probation period in connection with the training of graduates. He could extend the period to three or four years if necessary.
  It seems to me that during those probationary years a graduate could obtain for himself the essential academic knowledge, that is to say, knowledge up to degree standard in the two necessary subjects, one education and the other psychology, without having to attend lectures. The graduate has attended university lectures and he does not need to listen to someone expounding a subject in order to be able to learn about it. Teaching methods, and that kind of thing, could be put to him, with more efficiency perhaps than at present, in summer courses taking up, say, four weeks of the normal eight weeks' vacation. There would be extraordinary advantages in that. For one thing, the courses could be given by practising teachers, headmasters and others.
  One of the great basic difficulties from which so many surface difficulties grow in the training of teachers is that there is a divorce, such as does not exist in other professions, between practice and instruction. The professor of engineering can lecture to his students in the morning and can act as consultant for a big engineering project in the afternoon. The instructor or professor of education cannot do that. That is one of the things that is persistently there
  720
  under the present arrangement. It causes all sorts of difficulties including, it seems to me, this lack of prestige.
  Mr. Woodburn: I am very interested in what my hon. Friend says, but is he not aware that there has always been a sort of professional rivalry between Moray House and the universities, that somewhere there has to be a systematic teaching method and that at the moment it would be a mistake to deprive the graduate of that technical knowledge?
  Mr. MacPherson: My right hon. Friend has put the opposite point of view. I am not saying that, as a full-time permanent policy, we should not allow graduates to attend training colleges. I am saying that the situation now seems to be such that we cannot offer graduates a course of training which they will respect. That being so, I suggest that we should offer them a different kind of course altogether. I would remind my right hon. Friend that the staff in schools like Eton are untrained. We would not employ those people in the publicly-owned schools in Scotland. Yet their standard of teaching by all the evidence available is as good as that in probably any school in the country. That seems to me to be a basic factor that we must remember.
  I suggested summer courses, say, two or three summer courses, during the middle of the school vacations, where the instruction would be much better than that available just now because it could be given by people who during the school terms are actually engaged in the business of teaching. The people at present instructing in university or training college, are not so engaged.
  One further point on this question. One of the most depressing things about the whole Scottish education picture is the sheer lack of ideas, the lack of currents of thought, lack of argument, lack of gusts and breezes and even storms of debate on educational matters. This is a time when educational matters are in the middle of a lot of discussion elsewhere. It is a time when people are putting them into a new setting. But one could never tell that by looking at the Scottish educational scene.
  For that reason, whatever disadvantages it has, and I think that there are practical disadvantages, I should like

  721
  to suggest that the new training arrangements concerning graduates should be very closely associated with the universities. After all, the universities are centres of ideas. They are centres where the one thing that really matters is the brain and what the brain can do. That is the one thing which seems to me to be desperately needed just now in Scottish educational life, and I am sorry that the present proposals for changes in training should appear to push the universities aside, instead of, as I think they should, clasing the universities far more closely in their embrace.
  5.30 p.m.
  Sir David Robertson: In his most interesting speech the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) referred to the shortage of science teachers and also to the universities. I wish to talk about the shortage of buildings for the training of science students in Scotland and of a threat which overhangs Scotland at present, regarding the erection of a new science building that it was hoped would be built at St. Andrews, and which may not be built there because of a dispute which has been going on for some time between the Town Council of St. Andrews and St. Andrews University.
  Of course, the university wants the building. The town council wants it. But it may not come about, because of the insistence of the university that it must be built on a site adjacent to the present building which occupies a commanding position in the historic old town. The town council and the majority of the people of St. Andrews are equally anxious that the new science building should be erected. But they say that it should be built on one of three sites which the university already owns, and which are larger and capable, not only of housing the new science building, but further developments which they believe are bound to ensue because of the increasing population, the gradual development of scientific and technical education and the progress which we all hope will be made by our country.
  One of these three sites is known as the Cannongate-Cockshaugh site, another as the Buchanan Gardens site and the third as the St. Nicholas site. They are all undeveloped, and they are all owned by
  722
  the university. But the university does not want to use any of them. It wants a site which belongs to other people who have equal rights to own it and to live on it and occupy property as has the university or anyone else in the City of St. Andrews.
  The dispute has been going on for quite a long time. The owners and occupiers of houses in Westburn Lane have refused to sell to the university, and the university is seeking compulsory purchase powers. Already two public inquiries have been held—these odd, funny public inquiries which we have in Scotland, where one man acts as judge and jury; a man who is selected by and paid by the Secretary of State; an advocate, the Scottish equivalent to a barrister, who is always out to do his best for his client.
  In the beginning, the university had it all its own way. At that time the town council was agreeable that the wishes of the university should come about. Apparently, the town council had not the same regard for compulsory purchase orders that most of us have. I am all in favour of compulsory purchase orders when they benefit all the people. But not when there are alternatives; not when there are three alternatives, as there are in this case, when there are three large areas with the Cannongate-Cockshaugh site only seven to eight minutes' walk from the Bute Medical Hall, the centre of the university, and all of them within one mile. But that is not such a tidy job as going next door and dispossessing people and interfering with their liberty and their way of life. These people have to get out.
  The University Court, supported by the University Grants Committee—and the Secretary of State—says, "This is the only place for the science building. This is the only place where these students can be taught. They must not walk to a site seven or eight minutes away. They must go just round the corner." In this day and age, when distance is being annihilated, can there possibly be any justification for that, in the knowledge that the university already owns undeveloped land? How much longer is the university proposing to leave that land undeveloped while it wishes to seize, with the aid of the law, land belonging to private persons? If the Secretary of State wishes to intervene, I will give way.
  Mr. Maclay: No.
  Sir D. Robertson: I had hoped that the Secretary of State would intervene—
  Mr. Rankin: I had hoped so too.
  Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member had passed on from the point he was making. I was merely going to point out that he said that I have made a decision, but I have not come to a decision. There has been a series of public inquiries in the past, and another one is due. I have not formed any judgment on the matter which will be the subject of that public inquiry, and it would be wrong of me to do so.
  Sir D. Robertson: I shall have something more to say about that in a few minutes.
  In the meantime, let me develop the situation, because the people, the unorganised, ordinary people of St. Andrews who did not count at all in the beginning, have become very important. It takes some time for the unorganised people to get to that state. But, having endured two of these strange public inquiries, their indignation was roused; and when the May elections came along they seized their opportunity and threw out the councillors who were supporting this interference with the liberty of the people—those councillors who, without any justification, were so willing to have a compulsory purchase order.
  The people of St. Andrews returned their candidates at the top of the poll—all of them—with over 4,700 votes against 700. So the acquiescent councillors who had so misrepresented the people and acted as lackeys of bureaucracy by supporting the university—and I think the Scottish Office—were thrown out. A fine, fresh virile, democratic body took control in St. Andrews and immediately undid all the work done by the previous council.
  The old council was defeated solely on this issue. It is an interesting point, when one realises that these councillors who were defeated had been worthy councillors in every other respect except this one. I am told that one of them was a highly respected ex-Lady Provost. But she was among the "fallen", simply because of her attitude—her undemocratic attitude—on this matter.
  There was a meeting not many days ago between the Secretary of State and the representatives of the town council.
  724
  I had been in correspondence with the right hon. Gentleman, and on 15th July he wrote me a letter in which he said:
  "As you will have seen from the Press, along with the chairman of the University Grants Committee, I met representatives of the Town Council last week, and put to them the fact that the new science buildings will not be provided in St. Andrews at all if the University cannot get the Westburn Lane site. I asked the Town Council whether in these circumstances, they would not facilitate further consideration of the matter at a fresh public inquiry by resubmitting a compulsory purchase order for the site This they have refused to do."
  After that the Secretary of State, using Section 96 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, announced a decision in a Written Answer in this House that another public inquiry is to be held; another advocate is to be employed by him to hold a one-man committee and to decide whether or not a compulsory purchase order should be made in that case—
  Mr. Maclay rose—
  Sir D. Robertson: I cannot give way just now. I am just going to deal with the right hon. Gentleman.
  After I wrote to the Secretary of State at the beginning of the month, he came to me and told me something about this case. He left no doubt at all in my mind that he is wholly in favour of the Westburn Lane site. That is the one round the corner, the one the university wants. The town council and the people of St. Andrews have been in no doubt about that for a long time. They say that the Secretary of State is wholly in favour of the Westburn Lane site. I think the right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in deciding, some days after that, that he should appoint an advocate to hold a public inquiry to decide where this extension should be. Now I will give way.
  Mr. Maclay: I think it only right that I should make two points at this stage. If the hon. Gentleman considers what he has said, he will realise he has cast very grave reflections on people of the very highest integrity, members of the Bar, and so on. It would be quite wrong if I allowed that to pass. I cannot for one moment accept reflections on the integrity of some of the finest people in Scotland.
  The hon. Gentleman will probably realise that the reason why I will not

  725
  make any comment on what he is saying is that there have been previous inquiries, the results of which he knows, and there is another one to be held. When I talked to him, I explained some of the points of view of the university and some of the objections. He completely misunderstood what I said. I was extremely careful, and even in my own mind have not decided the merits of the views on this problem.
  Sir D. Robertson: I will leave the right hon. Gentleman to his conscience. I made no reflection on the Scottish Bar or Bench. I have the highest possible regard for its members. But I am making a reflection on the right hon. Gentleman for appointing someone to rule on a decision which he already has arrived at and which he can never challenge in my mind, because I heard all he said with the utmost clarity.
  Mr. Maclay: Nonsense.
  Sir D. Robertson: I do not care—
  Mr. Maclay: Nor do I.
  Sir D. Robertson: I am not going to put on an act and say that I misunderstood it when I clearly understood it.
  Regarding the suitability of an advocate to take on this job, I have given reasons why that should not be. If an inquiry has to be held, why not appoint a judge? Surely, a judge is the one man above all possible doubt who could hold an inquiry of this kind. But is an inquiry necessary? The town council is sick of such inquiries, and the expense which is necessarily incurred. What independent body could possibly deny the people who are in the majority in St. Andrews—nearly 5,000 of them out of a total population of over 9,000? They are all in favour of the science building and in favour of helping the university, which has a fine and long record—but not to build this building on a site which is occupied and owned by people who do not want to go.
  The simple issue is one of convenience. That is the only case which the university has, that it is convenient. Of course it is always convenient to go round the corner. But the world does not stand still and the right to go round the corner cannot be vested in one organisation, however important it may be.
  Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley: Will my hon. Friend answer two quite straightforward and, I think, relevant questions? First, is it a fact that the St. Andrews Town Council is one of two town councils in Scotland—the other being in the hon. Member's own constituency—which are planning authorities? Secondly, is not the West-burn Lane site, to which he has referred, designated on the St. Andrews Town Council's own town plan as land which is to be acquired for the university extensions?
  Sir D. Robertson: I have not the full details of this case. I came into it only at a very late hour, and with very great reluctance, after my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart) had made a very long and determined effort to keep this matter from the Floor of the House of Commons. However, he knows that that day is long past.
  As to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley), it is the case that the town of Thurso in my constituency and St. Andrews, in Fife, are the only two burghs in Scotland that are planning authorities, and it is a fact that the former town council was composed of members who were so agreeable, in the beginning, to act—I know I have used this expression already, but I repeat it—as lackeys to this very wretched scheme of compulsory purchase.
  In other words, there is still the town council, but, because of the will of the people, its personnel is different. And it is to the will of the people that we pay so much lip-service in this country. It is the same kind of thing that returns us, and, at this time, makes this party the Government of the day and which, in 1945, made the party opposite the Government of the day, bringing about a revolution in this country that probably could not have occurred anywhere else in the world.
  The ordinary people do these things, and I am speaking for the ordinary people in St. Andrews, who are in the majority today, who become articulate and who are demanding a decision. I am wholly on their side, and it is high time that they had someone on their side. But they are not alone. Even

  727
  science professors, and chemistry professors and the university are on their side, while the National Trust for Scotland, the body that is so honoured, and which carries out its responsible duties so well, has recently reaffirmed the protest it made about this thing coming about.
  I quote, briefly, from the Scotsman of 18th July:
  "The town had a special place in national history, and the preservation of its atmosphere and character should be a condition in future developments. The balance, in the central area, the trust felt, was delicately poised between the Royal Burgh and the University and should not be upset."
  There is commanding evidence there for the Committee to consider. The National Trust for Scotland has spoken in those terms.
  There is another body in this, and that is the University Grants Committee. It has wielded the big stick, too. It is against the people. It is a highly privileged body. It is supplied with many millions of the taxpayers' money, passed to it from this House of Commons, and it is relieved from criticism in this House. Both parties have agreed to that, and I have no doubt that they are perfectly right. I am perfectly certain that the Grants Committee carries out its duties in an admirable manner, but it has taken sides in this controversy.
  The University Grants Committee, supported by the Secretary of State, has said to the town council, "If you don't put this building on the round-the-corner site in Westburn Lane, if you dare to exercise your right to object, this building will not be built in St. Andrews at all. It will go to Dundee—or, it may not be built in Scotland at all." Could there be a more intolerable situation? What right has this Committee to ally itself with the university on such an issue? Are science students to be educated any the worse because they are seven or eight minutes' walk from the main centre of the university than if they are just round the corner?
  Dr. King, you have been a long time in education, and you know what happens at Cambridge or Oxford. There, very few students ever attend a lecture in their own college. They have always to go outside. The university towns are full of students on bicycles hurrying to
  728
  and from their classes—and classes not seven or eight minutes away, but much further. That is the daily routine at the two major universities in England, but, apparently, it is not good enough for St. Andrews. The hardy people of Fife must not be exposed to rain and sun and wind, but must be put just round the corner. What nonsense. Was there ever such a predatory attempt to interfere with the liberty of the people? That is the wretched story, and I hope that I will have the support of hon. Members present, and of the Press, in bringing this situation to an end.
  5.50 p.m.
  Mr. William Hannan: Those of us who have been in this House over many years have learned that when the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) makes the type of speech to which we have just listened there is more in it than normally meets the onlooker's eye. I have listened with some attention to his argument, and I should think that the reply, if any, that will be made to him will have to be an extremely good one to satisfy some of us that he has not made out a very good case indeed.
  I do not know the local details, but I must say that it is not the first time that we on this side have had fun poked at us for apparent splits and all the rest. But I shall have to leave the matter there, and get on with my own remarks.
  Reference has already been made to the need for comprehensive schools, and I want to stress the fact that this is the traditional type of school in Scotland. Most of us went to the omnibus type of school, and all we are trying to press on the Secretary of State in this debate is the need for greater emphasis to be placed on that type in the future.
  I turn, now, to wastage. On page 9 of the Report, "Education in Scotland", for 1957, reference is made to the wastage of pupils going through senior secondary schools, and the Secretary of State has, of course, agreed that this is a problem to which increasing attention is being paid. I am not sure whether he knows that a special inquiry was recently carried out in Glasgow as to what happened to 500 of the best pupils leaving a primary school and going to the senior secondary school. These were children who were

  729
  highest in the intelligence quotient examination, and in performance. The inquiry covered two or three years, and it was found that 50 per cent. of the puplis left before the course was finished.
  That is very serious, and it is at the root of the problem of the supply of potential teachers—I put it no higher than that. If the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) about allowances—though I, too, do not think that that is the whole answer—he must go rather further than the announcement that was made about the respective increases from £40 to £45 and from £50 to £65.
  From that I go on to what I, at least, am convinced is the problem that dwarfs all others in education, and that is the supply of teachers. The Secretary of State today met some of the criticisms by the usual Departmental attitude of saying "Of course, things are progressing. We are better than we were in relation to the need, but we have so much to achieve." My whole point is that the Department is not really tackling this problem aggressively; or using some initiative of its own, instead of being pinpricked and pushed along by others.
  This problem has been known to the Department since 1950, and one of the charges that I make is that, despite the right hon. Gentleman's rebuttal of the accusation of complacency, there has, in fact, been a great deal of complacency for the last seven or eight years—and since the immensity of the problem has become known. For instance, I believe that the right hon. Gentleman said today that the number of teachers necessary to reduce oversized classes, to fill the vacancies and to replace the certificated teachers over 70 years of age, would be about 2,800. Indeed, that is the figure I have got out of the Report. But the estimated shortage in 1961 will be 3,175.
  The Report says that part of the reason for the increase in oversized classes in the past year has been the reassessment of the position in Glasgow. It says:
  "The particular change which is responsible for the major part of the rest of this increase is that Glasgow Education Authority have assessed their needs on a more exacting basis than hitherto having for the first time calculated what these would be on a formula based on average primary classes of under 40 …"
  730
  The Secretary of State's figures of 2,800, and the figure of about 3,000 in 1961, would be far greater if this higher standard were achieved, and that is the real essence of the problem with which we have to contend. We do not remind ourselves often enough that the level of overcrowding in Scotland compares very badly with that in England and Wales. In primary schools in Scotland, classes of 45 are accepted, in junior secondary schools, 40, and in senior secondary schools, 30. The figure in England and Wales is only 40 in primary schools, and only 30 in the junior and senior secondary schools.
  That is something that has to be remembered when talking about the shortage of teachers. With minimum classes of 45 pupils, education becomes a travesty. Using the English figures as a yardstick, it means that 27 per cent. of our primary classes—over a quarter—are overcrowded, and 41 per cent. of our junior secondary classes. Even by the lower Scottish standard, there are, at present 2,602 oversized classes.
  I know that the Report makes it clear, and, indeed, in reply to me only last week, the right hon. Gentleman said, of course, that it was due to the reduction in the average at three- and four-teacher schools, but there is no need for any complacency whatsoever over the size of classes and the supply of teachers.
  I turn to a further matter. I had a great deal of sympathy today for my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) when, as was most unusual for him, he became quite heated about the position of science and mathematics teachers. As he said, this problem has been with us for many years but, apparently, no conscious planning is being made to meet it. In last year's Report it was stated:
  "The shortage"—
  of science and mathematics teachers in the schools—
  "is so acute that the time allotted to science in some schools has had to be reduced, and, indeed, there are schools where science has had to be omitted altogether from the curriculum of some pupils"
  —in this day and age when Great Britain has to compete with other countries which are advancing more quickly in this field.

  731
  Another problem which causes us to sympathise with the Scottish Office is this. Scope for recruitment of teachers in Scotland is rather more restricted than it is in England and Wales. For example, Scotland will not accept men for teaching without a university degree, whereas they are so accepted in England and Wales. In the training colleges in Scotland the minimum standard necessary for entry for girls is two highers and three lowers, but in England the minimum is only five ordinaries in the General Certificate of Education. In this respect we have higher standards, and I hope the Secretary of State will not seek to solve our problem of the lack of teachers by lowering the standards.
  I do not intend to deal in detail with the lowering of the standards by the present Government not so long ago. The shortage of teachers has been recognised since 1951. In 1951, 1953 and 1957 the Secretary of State was presented with Reports by his own Departmental Committee. He has had the Appleton Report. He has had the Advisory Council's Report. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland has reminded us of another important matter which has been referred to a committee.
  The Secretary of State was not so slow in accepting the recommendations on which our debate last night was based. If he would show the same alacrity in accepting reports on the shortage of teachers, and similar problems, as he displayed in accepting the recommendations which were dealt with last night, we would be able to say with some justification that the Government were taking action. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman accept the Reports which were made in 1951 and 1953 containing proposals which would solve the problem?
  The 1953 Report pointed out that many of these teachers were fulfilling National Service duties in the forces, and that if conscription were abolished at some time in the future 2,100 teachers would become available for duty in the teaching service. It is not the right hon. Gentlemans fault. He is not responsible for National Service, but he is not pushing this matter hard enough. Education has not been given its priority for the supply of educated manpower.
  The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart), in the Education
  732
  Estimates debate in 1950, was highly critical of the shortage of teachers. Addressing the Labour Government, he said:
  "It is a very serious strain"—
  on teachers—
  "and it is here that one experiences the first strong pang of dissatisfaction with the actions of His Majesty's Government. … I am glad that the Secretary of State has appointed a working party to advise him on the facts."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1950; Vol. 477, c. 2489–90.]
  Nobody would dispute those words. But having had the Report, what is the use if no action is taken upon it? It is a waste of time, money and energy.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North has mentioned other matters in connection with teacher recruitment. I should like to refer to the special recruitment scheme which was a contribution by the Labour Government towards solving this problem for which my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North deserves a great deal of credit. It has been a fruitful source of supply and, as we learned from the Report, because of the increased publicity 3,400 inquiries have been made and 245 of the applicants have been accepted.
  I should like to ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State this question. The Advisory Council made two recommendations, and in answer to me the other day the Secretary of State said that they were still being considered. I wonder whether I heard him correctly today when I believe he said that one of the recommendations has now been accepted. Those two proposals were, first, that awards made to graduates undergoing teacher-training should be increased, and, secondly, that awards under the special recruitment scheme should be reviewed. I believe he said that the second one had, in fact, been accomplished. If so, I think it will help.
  I now come to a point which I have raised before with the Under-Secretary and with the Minister of Labour and National Service. It is on the question of the deferment from National Service of third-class honours graduates. I ask all hon. Members to try to see the complete illogicality of this situation. Third-class honours graduates in chemistry or biological science teaching are exempt, but those with the same degree in mathematics and physics are

  733
  not exempt. The ordinary graduate in science subjects who enters teaching is exempt, but the graduate with the higher standard—the third-class honours degree—in mathematics or physics is not exempt. I fail to see the logic in saying that those of the higher standard should not be exempt while ordinary graduates are exempt if they enter teaching.
  This illogicality goes even further. These third-class honours graduates in mathematics and physics are exempt if they go into industry, but if they want to teach they are not exempt. The Ministry of Labour and National Service and the Education Department have said that our educated manpower is to be allocated to every other industry except that industry which is producing the educated men and women. The Minister of Labour agreed on 19th February that there was an illogicality. I understand from a reply in an Adjournment debate, about a week ago, that this matter comes up for review every year, and I urge the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Department to ensure that representations are made at the proper time.
  I want to add this further suggestion. It has been mooted in education circles in connection with this problem of the supply of science and mathematics teachers that those who have the qualifications should be brought in from industry for two or three years to buttress the teaching staff in the schools. At one time, I thought that might be feasible because many of these men are in supervisory posts, making overall decisions and leaving their departments to get on with the job. If that proposal is to be considered, however, it would be much better, if those in industry are going anywhere, that they should go into the Army units in their districts so that the teachers may be allowed to return to the schools.
  That would be very much better and it would certainly help to solve the problem. The Government must look at the question of the deferment of teachers and not hide behind the teachers' dislike of deferment. If the Government say that men and women are qualified to go into the schools they will go, and we shall be very glad to receive them.
  I want now to refer to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs. We have
  734
  wastage in the senior secondary schools and in the universities. A very interesting article appeared in the School Science Review of June, 1956, which reported speeches made at a conference of celebrated and eminent scientists of this country on the subject of the shortage of science and mathematics teachers. Some information was provided but, it was said, this was given in confidence.
  One of the problems is that we cannot have access to the information, for example, about the percentage of students who fail in the first year at university. We cannot make comparisons between one university and another or between one country and another. The Rector of the Imperial College, in October, 1955, said that out of 500 students who entered his institution 100 would not go forward. This is 20 per cent. Various figures were mentioned, and the general opinion was that the rate of failure of first year students in universities was about 10 per cent.
  On page 376 of the journal to which I have referred it is said:
  "In Scotland, the average was slightly higher".
  For the veracity of that statement, I cannot answer, but Appleton, in his Report, stressed the need for tutorial assistance for young students in their first year. In that year, they go from a senior secondary school, where they are taught, into an atmosphere in which they have to fend for themselves and teach themselves. The Institute of Physics reported that, out of 378 students at 11 universities in 1951, 257 completed the course. This suggests that one-third fell by the wayside.
  The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs made, therefore, is valid. The learned gentleman to whom I have referred went on to say that there were many students who failed in their first year, who went outside, took another course, came back to repeat the course, and turned out to be brilliant men. Our duty is to reduce the number, consistent, of course, with an adequate standard.
  Students do not adjust easily from school, where they are taught, to university, where they have to teach themselves. Their adjustment is sometimes delayed. They get behind to such an extent that they are unable to catch up. Here is a problem. Once we have our students,

  735
  once we have our qualified technicians and scientists, how are we to hold them?
  I doubt whether the Government have given any consideration to this problem, but I can say, as the hon. Member for Fife, East remarked earlier, that our university quadrangles are being turned into feeing fairs. In the old days, farmer and farm worker would meet at the feeing fair and strike a bargain with the humble penny. First-year university students are being approached and bribed with fabulous salaries, even in the first year, and told that, if they make the grade, there are those salaries and jobs awaiting them.
  I can see no cure for this at the moment, but it is a problem. The British taxpayer's money is being spent in grants to educate and equip our young people. None of us would deny that we must do all we can so that our young people will make the best of the changing world in which we live, but when they go abroad and deprive us of their skill and knowledge, we are left at a distinct disadvantage. I would not, of course, go so far as to say that the liberty of the subject should in any way be interfered with. I merely pose the question. I do not know whether the Government have considered it.
  A joke was made the other day that if a football club can get £80,000 in transfer fees for John Charles, is it not quite reasonable for Great Britain to ask a transfer fee for its science graduates when they go to America and Canada? It is the reverse of an invisible export to our advantage at the moment.
  The Youth Employment Service has three functions to perform. I have in mind a case which suggests to me that the Service is not as comprehensive as one would wish. A girl went from a primary school, through promotion, into further education, but qualified only to go to a junior secondary school. She was only two or three marks short of the possible. To my surprise, three years later that girl was presented with a first prize for mathematics and science. Today, she is working in a hairdresser's establishment. This seems to be a great waste of good talent, especially in times when we are short of radiographers and people qualified in the sciences. Much more must be done to ensure that the best use is made of the Youth Employment Service.
  736
  Those are some of the problems which have appeared to me to be important. I hope that, in the year which is to come, the Secretary of State for Scotland will pay close attention to them.
  6.18 p.m.
  Sir James Henderson-Stewart: I should have liked very much to follow the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan), who has dealt with a number of important matters, but I wish to concentrate upon something to which the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) referred. Before I come to that, however, I think that I am under some obligation to comment upon the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson), who gave the Committee an account of a problem affecting my constituency. My hon. Friend went so far as to say—I have his words—"I am speaking for the ordinary people of St. Andrews". So far as I know, I am still the elected representative of that area, and I am not aware that my hon. Friend has any justification for that claim.
  I regret the speech which my hon. Friend made, not because there is any objection to any hon. Member raising any subject on the Floor of this Chamber, but because the matter is not as simple as he made it out to be, as he would realise if he knew a little more about the situation. He said that he was not aware of the details and, indeed, he had not heard of the matter until quite recently. There are, in fact, two sides to the case. The difficulty is that the case on each side is very strong: and St. Andrews, a highly intelligent city, has been divided upon the matter, in all ranks of society and in all sections of the town, from top to bottom, for nearly two years.
  I have thought it my duty, and still believe it to be my duty, as the local Member of Parliament not to exacerbate feelings but, on the contrary, to try to bring all the parties together and reach an amicable, reasonable settlement. It is in the long-term interests of St. Andrews that we get such an amicable settlement. I hope very much that my hon. Friend will not persist in making more difficult a situation which in all conscience is already difficult enough.
  I want now to refer to an interesting passage in the speech of the hon. Lady

  737
  the Member for Lanarkshire, North, a speech which was wholly interesting and constructive, dealing with the problem of promotion examinations and the comprehensive schools. This is a matter to which we must all give a great deal of thought. I have no prejudices whatever about the comprehensive school. As the hon. Lady said, we have these schools in Scotland. They have established themselves. Indeed, I was the product of Morrison's Academy, a kind of comprehensive school. If anything, my prejudice is in favour of them.
  A year or two ago, I had the great pleasure and privilege of opening what is, I think, the biggest comprehensive school that the Glasgow Education Authority has built since the war. I was proud to do that and I remember saying that in certain circumstances—as in that case—it was the right kind of school. Therefore, I am not prejudiced against it.
  I would, however, be much concerned for Scottish education if I thought that the Labour Party, if it obtained power, would make the introduction of comprehensive schools, as it were, universal and compulsory. The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North did not say that. She was exceedingly wise. She was much wiser than the authors of the recent book produced by the Labour Party in England. I gather that the Scottish Labour Party's policy for education in Scotland will not necessarily be the same as that for England but will be something different.
  What I liked about the hon. Lady's approach to this matter was that she recognised that there is an infinite variety of comprehensive schools and that they are a very wide conception. If that is so, and if that were the intention of herself and her colleagues, I would not be as anxious—
  Mr. Woodburn: Is it not made quite clear in the document that this would be done in conjunction with local authorities and that there might be many forms in which this development could take place?
  Sir J. Henderson-Stewart: That is true. Therefore, I am less anxious, especially having heard that intervention by the right hon. Gentleman and the speeech of the hon. Lady.
  738
  I want to be sure that we all understand what the proposition is. The problem of the comprehensive school is linked with the problem of the promotion examination. The hon. Lady said, and I agree with her, that the promotion examination causes many parents a great deal of anxiety. On the other hand, there must be some kind of method by which a selection is made. It is laid down in the 1946 Act, for which Mr. Tom Johnston had a great responsibility, that education must be provided which is suitable to the aptitude of the child. Therefore, even in Glasgow, where, it is said, the so-called 11-plus examination has been abolished, there is to be another kind of examination. A selection has to be made. It is to be made by teachers' examinations, teachers' certificates and my watching the child's progress over a period, all of which is quite proper. A selection of some kind must, however, be made somehow.
  We find from the Report, Education in Scotland, 1957, that a new kind of selection method is to be introduced in Glasgow because Glasgow has decided to make the change. We are told:
  "This will require an amending scheme providing that pupils will be allocated to the secondary courses which seem best suited to them by the head teachers of the primary and secondary schools concerned in the light of the wishes of the parents and the evidence of attainments and aptitudes shown by the pupils in normal class tests."
  However one arranges this form of education, there must, therefore, be a selection at some point. The hon. Lady used the word "segregation". I would prefer "selection". Quite clearly, one has to select if one is not to bring down the whole tempo of education.
  Mr. Rankin: Would the hon. Member not agree that in that selection, if one chooses that word, there must not be the element of finality?
  Sir J. Henderson-Stewart: Yes, entirely. All the time that I was at the Scottish Office, as the records will show, I expressed anxiety about the lack of a bridge from the one school to the other. I was assured that there was a bridge and I believe that there is a bridge. My feeling is that there are not enough bridges and that it is not easy enough yet for a pupil who develops late to move from the junior secondary to the senior secondary school.

  739
  I say that there must be a selection somewhere, somehow. As The Times put it in a very interesting leading article yesterday,
  "The unpopular but necessary fact of selection remains. However much disguised, choices about children's futures are being made. Unless such choices are made early, we slip into the academically lowering practice of moving all children along at the same pace …"
  I am sure that none of us wants to do that. We all want to give children with a real aptitude and ability an opportunity to move forward. Therefore, I ask hon. Members, on both sides, to consider carefully before making any final decision about this problem of the comprehensive school.
  On the matter of the test, I have thought for a long time that it is the kind of problem which should be put to the Scottish Advisory Council on Education. It is a long time since our Scottish system of tests was established. It was established after a very great deal of thought and study by a lot of able men. The time has, however, come to have it all re-examined by the Advisory Council, if necessary bringing in specialists or experts. It would be to the value of Scottish education to review this matter and the questions of whether the tests are of the right kind, what other tests can be applied and whether the Glasgow system is the better one. As a nation, we ought to be advised upon this extremely important matter.
  I hope, too—the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North did not suggest this, and I am glad that she did not—that we shall not, as one gathers from the English Labour Party document, set out to abolish any of our present types of schools. It would seem that the Labour Party is out to abolish the grammar school in England; although the hon. Lady did not say that. She did not say that the junior secondary school would be abolished. I am glad of that, because the hon. Lady knows probably better than I that in recent yeas our junior secondary schools, or some of them, have developed a remarkable personality of their own. There is no doubt whatever that for many types of boys and, I suppose, girls, the junior secondary school offers opportunities for developing character and leadership that
  740
  would not be made available in larger schools.
  I see the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) on the Opposition Front Bench. I should like to say how greatly impressed I was when I visited the Dudhope annexe of the Logie Junior Secondary School in Dundee a year or two ago. That is a school giving a modified course to children who are not quite up to standard. It is run by a superb, exceptionally qualified headmistress, Miss McGregor. Miss McGregor has brought out character, leadership and outstanding personalities that I am sure would have been drowned had they been in a wider environment.
  I think that all the evidence shows that if the junior secondary school is properly handled and given the proper encouragement from the authorities it can perform a function in the life of our Scottish youth that would not be performed in a great comprehensive school. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that this is not a matter upon which we should be dogmatic. I certainly agree that there is a place for the comprehensive school. I would be the last to say that there is not room for others in certain areas of Scotland, but in the county of Fife, which is not a badly run county in any sense of the word, the education authorities have resolved against the comprehensive school. They have decided on the present system of junior secondary and senior secondary education after prolonged thought.
  It would not be possible in my view for any Government, however they felt about this matter, to force a county like Fife to do something which it felt was educationally wrong; at any rate, it would take a long time to force it. A better plan, in which perhaps all parties could co-operate, would be to observe the present movements with even greater care than we have already shown. I would, therefore, hand over the problem of the comprehensive school to the Scottish Advisory Council. I would ask that body, perhaps specially strengthened, to go into the problem of the promotion tests and the comprehensive school and advise us of its findings.
  It would be an awful pity if this were to become a political matter. It ought not to be a political matter. I recognise

  741
  that there is a social side to it and that it is argued that some children are sent to certain schools which are thought to be a little higher socially, and I know that parents sometimes feel hurt on that account. But we have to think of the children as well as the parents. I am sure that many a time it would be doing an ill service to a boy or girl to take him or her out of a first-class junior secondary school and put him or her into a comprehensive one.
  I ask in the interests of the children that we should not be rash in reaching decisions on the matter. I hope the Committee will forgive me for dwelling upon this subject, but I feel deeply about it. I repeat that I invite my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends in the Scottish Office to consider passing these matters for the anxious and prompt examination of the Advisory Council. After all, this problem is fundamental to our Scottish educational prospects, and we should be properly advised upon it.
  6.34 p.m.
  Mr. William Hamilton: I am very glad to follow the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart). I was very sorry when he went from the Government Front Bench as the spokesman on Scottish education. Perhaps he was one of the fol-de-rols on the Government Front Bench and, therefore, had to be dispensed with.
  He has dealt with a topic which is bound to become increasingly important as an election and change of Government draws near. We on this side profoundly believe in the principle of the comprehensive school. That is not to say that we would seek to compel any education authority to introduce it. This is a Tory "plug" which will be increasingly heard between now and the General Election. Nevertheless, it is untrue.
  Local authorities must be left to decide for themselves in the light of local circumstances and problems how best to arrange their educational affairs. We do not believe that selection is wrong, but that the segregation that results from that selection is wrong. That is our basic objection to the 11-plus examination in England and to the equivalent examination in Scotland. There can be no doubt that that decision made in a child's life creates, not only in the child, but in the
  742
  parents, a superiority complex, on the one hand, and an inferiority complex on the other. This complex is emphasised and underlined by the segregation of the children who fail into one school and the children who pass into another. However much we may talk about parity of esteem in these schools, we all know that it simply does not work and that it is not true. The junior secondary school, generally speaking, has not the same equipment and same quality of teaching as the senior secondary school.
  The hon. Member for Fife, East referred in his final remarks to the social aspect. I was sorry that he left it to the last minute of his remarks because I regard this as an extremely important matter. We ought to be training children in our schools, from the very dullest to the very brightest, to take their place in the adult community, where they will meet with all kinds of difficulties, and they ought to have training in a school building. The very purpose of the comprehensive school is to ensure that all children of varying abilities shall mix together, shall take certain subjects together and meet on the playing field and in the morning assembly together. In other words, when they leave school they will go into the wider community outside and not feel that they are inadequately trained to meet it.
  We have heard all the arguments against the comprehensive school before—the size of the school, the lowering of standards, and so on. I have in my brief case a book which was published recently under the auspices of the National Union of Teachers. I was the first to get it out of the Library. It consists of a series of essays by headmasters and headmistresses of comprehensive schools in London, Birmingham, Coventry, Staffordshire and Anglesey. It is written by people who have no political axe to grind. I commend the Joint Under-Secretary of State to put his name down in the Library for that book, and I hope that he can persuade the E.I.S. to get out a similar book in Scotland, based on much longer experience. If we can educate the public in Scotland, the public in Britain as a whole, in the fundamental soundness of the comprehensive principle we shall have done a good job.

  743
  I refer to happenings which may not on the surface appear to be linked with this debate. We are having trouble in the Middle East. We have had one or two acrimonious debates here on that subject. I think that the gulf between those debates and this debate on education is not as deep and wide as we might imagine.
  I recall a paper given by Professor Blackett, who was President of the British Association. He delivered it in Dublin on 4th September last year. He recalled that towards the end of the last century 100 million Europeans were ruling about 700 million in Asia, Africa and America. He described how while European scientists, technologists and craftsmen had been conquering nature, their soldiers, their missionaries, their traders and their administrators had been conquering the world. As that process went on there developed internationally a feeling of superiority, on the one hand, and of inferiority on the other, superiority among the Europeans and inferiority among the other people.
  The same kind of process has been going on in our country largely as a result of the present set-up of our education system. Internationally there has been great unevenness in the distribution of wealth and power, wide differences in health and comfort and standards of living. That is one of the fundamental reasons for the discords in the world today, and it is one of the fundamental reasons for the difficulties we are facing in the Middle East. It presents a major challenge to us in this country. That is why I attach immense importance to our education system. We have a great deal to give to the world if we develop our education system and give to those peoples the help of technicians, technologists, craftsmen, administrators and so on.
  Of course, it would be idle to deny that we have not made advances in education since the 'twenties and 'thirties. I was reading—I like to read—the debates which took place on Scottish education in the 'twenties and 'thirties. I have had occasion to quote the hon. Member for Fife, East before, and I hope he will not mind if I quote him again. He regards himself as highly honoured if that happens.
  Sir J. Henderson-Stewart: Yes.
  Mr. Hamilton: And I find it useful to quote him because he adds strength to my case.
  I found that in February, 1926, in Glasgow elementary schools there were nearly 1,500 classes with more than 55 pupils per class. In 1926, indeed, there were in Glasgow more classes with more than 55 pupils each than there were classes with under 55. In 1938, in the halcyon days before the war when the Conservative Party had been in power virtually all the time since 1921, there were unemployed teachers in Scotland. Now I quote the hon. Member for Fife, East speaking in July, 1938, just twenty years ago, almost to the day. He said that there were many
  "children who are today not able physically to absorb the education that is given them, not on account of sloping shoulders and stiff joints, but just because, I am sorry to say, they are not sufficiently or properly fed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st July, 1938; Vol. 338, c. 2489.]
  That was in 1938, just before the war.
  As I said, nobody can deny that we have made advances since then, and, of course, the Secretary of State was quite right to make the point that we have made tremendous advances, but more important than that is that, relatively, in a world in which we have to compete we are falling behind. That is the point. No matter how fast we are going, if our competitors are advancing at a faster rate, then relatively we are being left behind.
  That was the main point of the Labour Party's pamphlet on education, a brilliant, balanced and blunt assessment of the present situation and of future needs. It begins with the statement, quite simply, that the main thing wrong with education is that we have not enough of it. That is the simple, brutal fact about it. Most people in this Committee concede that. The Government concede it in words, but what they do at this juncture, when everybody concedes that, is to introduce the system of block grants, which has been condemned by Lord Hailsham and other more respectable spokesmen in other parts of the education World.
  I myself do not believe that buildings are the most important part of this problem. I recall two or three years ago asking teachers in Nigeria, where they were having education problems—they are very education-conscious in

  745
  Africa—whether they thought it was more important to have good schools and buildings or good teachers. Almost invariably the African replied, "We much prefer to have a good building". That may be the danger we are running into at the moment. We are so anxious to get something on the ground that can be seen that we are sacrificing the interests of the status and the quality of the teachers who are to go into the buildings.
  This question of the shortage of teachers has been developed over the years. It has not grown up suddenly, not appeared overnight. We have all kinds of committees sitting on it; we have all kinds of schemes. We have had dilution of the profession. We have had deferment from National Service. We have brought back into the profession doddering old men who had retired from it. All kinds of schemes have been tried. With what result?
  The result is that in October, 1951, the deficiency was less, so far as teaching shortage is concerned, than it is now. By 1961, we shall still be about 3,000 teachers short of what we ought to have. That is about 8 per cent. of the total. Let us try to compare that with the position which would prevail in the coal industry if we had a similar shortage. If we had 8 per cent. shortage of the necessary manpower in the coal industry—this should appeal to the hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George)—we should have 17 million or 18 million fewer tons of coal than we have now. That would be felt up and down the country and steps would very soon be taken to remedy the deficiency. But because the shortage of teachers is not immediately and obviously apparent we tend to neglect it.
  I believe that the shortage of teachers is every bit as serious, indeed more serious, than the shortage of manpower in any other direction, however basic an industry may be. I think that it is more serious because the biggest shortage, as has been said many times, is the shortage of teachers of mathematics, science and technical subjects. I do not believe that the palliatives which we talk about, the dilution of the profession, going into the highways and byways and bringing into the profession anyone we can get hold of, teachers of 65, 70 and 80 if we can get them, provide the solution. I
  746
  am materialistic enough to believe that the only effective solution is £ s. d. for the teachers.
  We talk about over-sized classes, deferment of National Service and the rest, but the teacher is like anyone else; he wants a decent standard of living for himself and his wife and family, and he cannot get it on the present salary scales. We say that that may attract the wrong people into the profession. We have this argument in many fields. We have it in this Committee. We have it in the nursing profession, and wherever standards are low we excuse ourselves by saying that the conditions are so awful that only those with a sense of vocation will come into the profession. We can carry that too far, and I believe that it has been carried too far in the teaching profession.
  Why should not we have a Royal Commission on teachers' salaries. We have it on doctors' salaries. Why the distinction between the doctor and the teacher? I know why. It is because the doctors have a very effective pressure group here, a very effective closed shop in their organisations, and they are united. I wish to heaven that the teachers were united, that they would be a little more militant about these things and would prevent the dilution of their profession, which is undermining their bargaining position. We do not dilute the medical profession or the legal profession or the dental profession. Why should the teachers allow it as a solution of this problem?
  I confess at once that this is not an election winner. Education is not an election winner at all. Nevertheless, I believe that it is a hall-mark of responsibility of a political party to say to the people, quite bluntly and frankly, that it intends when it gets power to spend a much larger proportion of the national income on education than we have hitherto thought feasible or desirable. I think that nothing less than double the 3 per cent. which we are spending now will be adequate to meet the situation. I say quite frankly that we have to face the reality of the situation. I do not believe that we are doing so now.
  At the end of the debate the Government spokesman will no doubt say what a good debate we have had—very evenly balanced, no party politics, nothing to upset the smoothness of the feeling that

  747
  has been engendered in the House since Mr. Khrushchev said "Yes". I do not believe that we shall get very far like that. Whether we like it or not, education and the educational system that we build up in this country reflect the economic and social system that we have in the country.
  We believe in a society where there is a measure of equality, a measure of dignity for everyone of us, and that that has to be provided for within our educational system. I do not believe that the educational system produces that to any great degree now. I still believe that there are differences, inequalities and injustices in our present educational system which we have to eliminate. I believe that we can only do that by spending an awful lot more of our resources on our educational system than we have done in the past.
  6.57 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: I listened to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) with very great interest, and I have much sympathy with what he said.
  Mr. Rankin: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. This is an important debate, at least for the Opposition. Is it not fitting that at least one Minister of the Government should be present on the Front Bench?
  The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Clark Hutchison: I have sympathy with what the hon. Member for Fife, West said.
  Mr. Lawson: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. Would it not be in order for you to advise the Whip on the Government Front Bench to see that there are Ministers sitting there to listen to what we have to say?
  The Deputy-Chairman: That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Clark Hutchison: We have a Minister here now, so everyone will be happy.
  In my view, the whole problem of education boils down to two things. One is to have small classes and the other is to have an adequate supply of teachers
  748
  who are content and happy with their conditions of service. It seems to me that some of our troubles spring from our being too rigid, and this lack of flexibility is the theme behind some of the remarks which I want to make.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) has spoken about the supply of teachers, and I want to turn to that subject for a moment. I do not advocate dilution. We must obviously have proper standards, but I think that I am right in saying that first and second-class honours teachers are paid more than those with a third-class honours degree. I doubt the wisdom of that. A man who gets a second-class honours degree may be academically better qualified than a man who gets a third-class honours degree, but that does not mean that he will be a better teacher. We ought to make a clear distinction between purely academic qualifications and professional prowess.
  I do not have this touching faith in examinations which some people seem to have. By paying more to those who have first and second-class honours degrees we penalise the man with third-class honours for many years to come. He may find it difficult to become a headmaster or a senior teacher even if he has the ability. As far as I am aware, this is the only profession in which this happens.
  If somebody takes the Bar examination and is placed in the third class nobody worries later on. He starts level with the man who was placed first and it is up to him to exercise his skill thereafter. The same applies to medicine. This matters needs careful examination in the teaching profession. It is one of the things which leads to some teachers going to the independent schools, where they do not place such stress on academic qualifications or on the possession of teacher-training certificates.
  Apart from this, there are other examples of rigidity showing why people are scared of entering the profession. I know of a girl who is attending Glasgow University. She is a very clever girl who is reading modern languages. The honours course takes five years, and it requires a further year's training to become a teacher. That was too long a time for her and, therefore, she took the ordinary three-year course. If she

  749
  goes to a teacher-training college afterwards she will have the Article 39 endorsement, but she will be able to teach only in the lower forms of the secondary schools. Why should that be so? If she is good at the job, why should she not teach anybody in the secondary school? It seems to me ridiculous to have these strict rules.
  The Appleton Committee recommended that retired teachers should be taken on again and paid full salary and receive their pensions, but the Treasury rules that that cannot be done and that these people must not receive more pay than their final emolument on retirement. This is a ludicrous ruling. I hope my right hon. Friend will look into this and have this idiotic idea of the Treasury changed. While we are so short of teachers, I do not see why we should be bound by these stupid Treasury rules. Surely, it is not beyond our wit to overcome them, temporarily if need be.
  I believe I am right in saying that in secondary school a child cannot take the final examination until the five-year course has been completed. Since all the children come in at the same age this makes no allowance for the clever boy. The result is that some of these clever boys leave early. If there were scope for the clever boy to take his examination when he was ready for it, boys of this kind would show far more interest in continuing with their education.
  Mr. Ross: I do not want the hon. Member to develop his argument on a false basis. I know of a girl in Kilmarnock who graduated at the age of 19. If she completed the course at school and three years at the university, it is obvious that she has been able to obtain at Kilmarnock proper training in relation to her age and ability.
  Mr. Clark Hutchison: I am grateful to the hon. Member, and I am glad to hear that. I was a seeker after information on this point. I had a notion that clever pupils are held back and have to complete five years, but my right hon. Friend may be able to give me the facts.
  I welcome the appointment of the Anderson Committee, which is to look into the system of awarding grants to students entering the universities. The anomalies in the present arrangements are legion. It seems to me that it is very much easier for an English boy or
  750
  girl to be financially aided and to obtain a place at a Scottish university than it is for our people to go to Oxford or Cambridge or any other English university. I believe that almost any headmaster in Scotland will confirm that.
  A strange case was brought to my notice not long ago of an Englishman who had served in the Colonial Service and is now a medical officer at one of the hospitals in Edinburgh. His young son is at school in England, and as he is a clever boy he would probably win a State scholarship, but he cannot compete for one and get financial aid because his father is living in Edinburgh. The regulations do not allow it. All that is complete nonsense. Again, in England if a boy wins a State scholarship his parents receive an honorarium of £50, irrespective of income. That is not the case in Scotland. It seems to me that we in Scotland have been done out of something. I do not like it. I want the system changed. I hope that the Anderson Committee will look into this and will see that justice is done both ways.
  Not long ago I had a look round several schools in my own constituency. I am impressed by the new schools and the building that is proceeding. There is no doubt that under my right hon. Friend's reign, education is going forward in Scotland. There are record numbers of new places, and good buildings, and all the masters and mistresses to whom I have spoken seem reasonably well satisfied, particularly with the Edinburgh authorities. I visited a large primary school in my area of 980 pupils and of these only 13 were receiving free meals. That figure speaks volumes for the high standards that we have reached. I very much welcome that evidence.
  Many suggestions have been put forward in the course of the debate. I hope that my right hon. Friend will examine them, because he is in a very strong position. He can think and plan a long time ahead, because not only is he Secretary of State now but he will also be the Secretary of State after the next General Election.
  7.9 p.m.
  Mr. John Rankin: We are voting today a gross sum of over £57 million for public education in Scotland, and that, we are told, is an increase

  751
  of £4 million on last year's sum. It is a welcome sign. We are spending more on education, even though some of the increase may merely reflect higher costs and not necessarily an expansion in the services.
  In addition to this sum there is the expenditure by local authorities, and when we take that into account I imagine that the total will reach nearly £100 million. There are further grants for science and the arts given to learned and cultural bodies and these amount to the almost frivolous sum of £40,000. I would have liked to make a little diversion into that point, but time is limited now and I shall await another opportunity. There is also the £5,300,000 which we are voting to our universities and colleges in Scotland, and this represents an increase of £544,000.
  Those are the sums we are told about in two of the Votes that we are discussing today. These are fairly large sums, yet in my view they are still not large enough. Education needs more. There are, of course, people who question the value we are getting for the money which is being spent. We hear much today of juvenile delinquency, excessive gambling and drinking amongst the young, and various other peccadilloes. We hear this despite all that is being done by the educationists to direct the ways of our young people along proper paths. It is important that we should pause for a moment to look at these accusations, because they are fairly widespread. Many people substantiate them by Government reports, and they derive from those reports, in some cases, the conclusion that our efforts are not always producing happy results.
  I am sorry that I cannot divide the statistics I shall quote on a national basis and, therefore, I must give them on a United Kingdom basis. From this point of view, there are just over 3 million youths and girls between the ages of 16 and 21, 250,000 of whom are doing National Service. About 300,000 in those years are still at school, or have gone on to university. The remainder, 2½ million, are at work. Of these, 1,850,000 left school at 15 or 16 years of age and did not rush into dead end jobs with the highest pay. About two out of every five started an apprenticeship on leaving school at the age of 15. Most of the
  752
  courses on which they are engaged last for five year. They usually entail one, two and, as I know from experience, sometimes three evenings at school, and probably one whole day at a technical institution.
  I agree that the proportion varies widely from trade to trade, depending partly on the willingness of the employer to allow time off, and on the need for skilled workers. In engineering and in shipbuilding, nine out of every 10 boys are released for training. In agriculture and the distributive trades the number is only one in 20. Even if we look at the unskilled trades the stories of irresponsible job flitting and rootless juveniles are simply not borne out by the facts. Nearly half the boys who start at 15 are still there at 18, and another third change their jobs only once during that time.
  Girls, of course, do less training. Many look at a job merely as an interlude between school and marriage, so a well paid blind-alley job suits many of them. All the same, we must remember that girls and women form a much more stable part of the labour force than many men seem to think. Nearly 3½ million women today, out of the 7 million who are employed in industry, are married, and many of them are not only running a job but are also running a home.
  If we look at the other aspect of this problem we find that in 1956 one in 50 boys between 16 and 21 years of age broke the law in one way or another. One in 100 of them was brought to court and found guilty of an indictable offence. By comparison, convictions for drunkenness are relatively few: about 5,000 out of 3 million of our young people, one in 600 per year, are labelled with that offence.
  I agree that while these figures are low in my estimation and that of many other people, they are perhaps higher than we would like to see them. Yet I feel that this is a proud record, and it confirms the view of many people that as a result of the efforts of educationists and many others we are rearing in Scotland a race of young people of whom we ought to be proud. They are strong, healthy, clean, helpful, humane, and many of the things we often hear said against them are based on very shallow evidence.
  I submit, therefore, that every penny we have spent on education has been repaid to us a thousandfold by the young

  753
  people of our time, in spite of the fact that they are living in days when the distractions provided by their elders, in foreign affairs and other realms, might reasonably tempt these young people to try to match the irresponsibility of the old.
  Having looked at that aspect, let us consider what other things might suitably be tackled; things which lie to hand. Among these I would put, first, the one which has been fairly well canvassed already, the abolition of what is called the 11-plus examination or the promotion test, whichever name we choose to apply to it. This nation strongly opposes a class structure. It opposes the idea of rule by inheritance. As a matter of fact, this party of ours to a large extent, grew and flourished in opposing that idea.
  Mr. Lawson: A large part of the nation does oppose a class society, but a considerable part does its best to uphold it.
  Mr. Rankin: Perhaps I was a little comprehensive or over-generous. However, I have made a strange discovery—perhaps it is not a discovery. I have found in private discussions that people who oppose me politically will not defend the idea of rule by inheritance They may support it in public, and they may vote for it, but it is fairly true to say that the majority of the nation opposes the idea. It also opposes the idea of rule by those who merely hold economic power. We therefore have to get rid of those forms of rule, but we should not replace them by an oligarchy which is largely derived from an education system drawing its pupils from a very narrow section of the community.
  The 11-plus examination is a class qualification. It is a means of fitting children into a divided society and because of that the children themselves are divided. They grow up accepting the idea of division and believing that they will go into different worlds when they leave school. That idea is wrong. Educational methods must vary, like aptitudes and abilities, but educational purpose must not vary.
  I do not deny that some will be harder to educate than others. We have heard much about the late developer. As a matter of fact, the Tory Party has discovered one—the Prime Minister. The newspapers have been full of the surprise
  754
  in the Tory Party that he turned out to be such a good Prime Minister. They have called him a late developer. He did not develop until he was nearly 60. Hon. Members opposite condemn a child who has not developed at 12 years of age while following a man who is publicly acknowledged not to have developed until he was nearly 60 years of age. I am sure that hon. Members opposite, on reflection, will agree that there is no reason for flinging aside the late developer. If they had flung aside their late developer, goodness knows where they would have been today.
  We must appreciate that our standards of life depend as much on the men who work in the mines, the engineering shops and the shipyards as on the honours graduates. If we are to bring this to educational fruition, it means creating a social cohesion which has not yet become apparent in Great Britain. In seeking to create that social cohesion, the Labour Party still has a great job to do, and it will not be fostered by promoting at 11-plus a sense of separateness among our children. They must feel that as they leave primary school they move not into different worlds, but into the same world.
  What are we doing towards that? Ideas are beginning to take shape and I cannot spend time examining our own. The idea that we must examine a child at 11 or 12 years of age is astonishing. Why is there this desire to examine a child? How many parents go about examining their children every week, every month or every year? Parents know their children outside in, and perhaps the children know the parents even better.
  A teacher with a child every school day of most weeks of every year for two or three years, as may well be the case in a primary school, gets to know a child just as clearly as the parent. It is wrong to disturb that natural development by saying that at a certain time in the child's life there will be an examination which will decide his future for a long time. It may not be expressed in those words, but that is the feeling which is created in the mind of a child.
  If we are to deal with this problem, we should have two groups, one secondary school or comprehensive school for children of 11 to 15 and another group of 15 to 18 years of age.

  755
  The expression "high school" or "secondary school", or whatever it is we agree, should be the only one used. The conception of a junior secondary school and a senior secondary school should disappear from our educational jargon.
  In Sweden the authorities are now developing a nine-year common school in three three-year stages from 7 to 16, followed by sixth form colleges for pupils from 16 to 19. In India, there are basic secondary schools for pupils from 11 to 14 years of age leading to high schools for pupils from 14 to 18 years of age. While there is no national system of education in America, there is a common conception of two groups of 12 to 15 and 15 to 18 years of age. Without pursuing the subject, because much has been said about it in other circumstances, similar developments are taking place in. Russia, and by 1960 every boy and girl in Russia will be educated up to the age of 17.
  We here are not yet progressing towards that ideal and I want to take two examples from two villages in Scotland, both of which I know very well. One is Strathaven, which has 8,000 inhabitants. As a result of examinations which have been held in the last few weeks in the primary school, one pupil from Strathaven will have the privilege of going to Hamilton Academy for a full secondary education. That is a measure of our advance in Scotland—one pupil from a little town with a population of 8,000 has the opportunity of a secondary education. There is something wrong with that and nobody will defend it. Only one pupil from the town of Kilbirnie will have the chance of getting a full secondary education in Speirs School. That is our system and I am certain that no one can defend that. This is something which we have to alter and we have to alter it on the lines I have suggested.
  What must we do next to continue our advance? I would try to deal with the teacher shortage in a way which has not so far been properly tried. I found my cue in the pages of the Observer, a very reputable newspaper of 20th July last. Looking through the advertisements for appointments at home and abroad, I noticed that the Commonwealth of
  756
  Australia was advertising for a scientific officer, grade III, and have asked for a first or second class honours graduate from this country. The starting salary offered was £1,731—I agree that that means Australian pounds, but I should prefer £A1,731 to the salary I got as a teacher. It rises to £A1,951.
  The Industrial Group of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority wants an officer and is offering £1,460 rising to £2,000, and, again, it is seeking an honours graduate. A graduate with first or second-class honours who becomes a teacher, after spending a long time in the profession, will finish with a salary of £1,250. He has an opportunity of starting in industry at a salary equal to if not higher than the salary with which he would finish in teaching. The pressure is for men and women to go away from teaching into the wider world where the opportunities are greater.
  If we are to deal with the shortage in the teaching profession, we have to increase the amount of money which we are prepared to pay to bring men and women into the profession. We must give parity of esteem in the public eye with comparable jobs demanding the same qualifications, if we are to get the men and women we need. Otherwise, perhaps we will get those we deserve and we will prove true the forecast in the Report, that the teacher shortage will persist even in 1975.
  I have tried to pinpoint what I think are the clamant problems of the teaching profession, the need to try to do away with the class structure which divides our society today and on which teaching is built, the need to bring in men and women who in the public esteem will have a standard matching that of those with equal qualification in industry.
  There is one other factor which I want to mention. When, eleven years ago, I raised this matter, Sir John Barlow—
  Mr. John Mackie: Order.
  Mr. Rankin: The hon. Member is not au fait with the background of this problem. I am talking about the chairman of the Scientific Manpower Committee, who told us then that we needed to accumulate 90,000 science graduates by 1955. We did not get them, because we did not have the instruments for procuring

  757
  them and that shortage persists today. It follows us into every phase of life, industrial, professional or commercial. One reason is that we did not take the step of providing the means for securing those numbers.
  One way of getting those numbers was to build a fifth university in Scotland. That has now become a need more pressing than ever, because we want more technologists. It is felt that a technological university should be able to award its own degrees, as happens almost all over the world, except in Great Britain.
  There is a feeling that there is too much emphasis on the training of arts students. That was denied by a former Financial Secretary when I raised the point in December, 1957. It is proved from the report that the number of arts graduates has risen since last year, and that the rise in the number of science graduates has not kept pace with it. If we are going to deal with the problem as fully as we should a fifth university is essential for Scotland, and I hope that the Secretary of State will have something to say on that point when he replies to the debate.
  7.37 p.m.
  Mr. J. C. George: I listened to the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) and followed with interest his discourse upon many aspects of education. He emphasised the desire to end the class structure in education. I agree with him in that, but I would ask him to look into the causes of the maintenance of that class structure. If he did so, he might find that it is the people whom he represents who are causing the continuance of this class difference by not taking advantage of what is provided for them.
  I also agree with him about the necessity for central institutions to have the right to award degrees. On many occasions in this House pressure has been put upon the Government to take that step. We know that there is not the same prestige in a Dip. Tech. as there is in a degree, and prestige counts for a good deal in small or, indeed, in large towns. Prestige is an important thing, and the universities have had a monopoly of it, in that they have been awarding degrees for 1,000 years. Why should they not lift their hands and give this privilege to central institutions? It would do a great deal further to swell the numbers attending
  758
  those institutions in Scotland and elsewhere.
  It is now twelve years since the Act which set the pattern of our post-war education was passed, and I want to look briefly at what has been happening and what success we have achieved in carrying out the ideas and ideals of that Act. The idea behind it was that we should educate our children according to age, aptitude and ability and that a secondary education should be provided for all.
  In this connection, if we want to judge what progress we are making and what degree of success or failure we have had, we must look at the question of wastage very closely. We start with the 11-plus examination, which the hon. Member for Govan does not like, and which I do not like either, which forms the two final streams of education—the junior secondary and senior secondary streams. That has been achieved. The whole idea was that every child should have a secondary education according to age, aptitude and ability, and it was then considered that the 11-plus examination was the proper method. I am certain it is the best expert educationists can devise. I am sure it is well conducted. But it has upset many homes in Scotland.
  I want to ask the Joint Under-Secretary one or two questions about this. We now find that about 30 per cent. of the school population goes into senior secondary schools. Is that a proper proportion? To my mind it must be almost correct, because according to the English figures 20 per cent. go to the grammar schools, 75 per cent. to the secondary modern schools, and 5 per cent. to the senior technical schools. Nevertheless, there is a belief in the minds of many people in Scotland that children are being turned down in the 11-plus examination who ought not to be turned down. It is difficult to convince parents that their children are not just as clever as the ones next door.
  The examination papers are not the same in each district, and I wonder whether there is a possibility that a child could fail his examination in Glasgow whereas he might pass it if he sat for it in Edinburgh. There is an impression that because the papers are not standardised there are more failures than there should be. I realise that the provision of standard papers would increase the

  759
  difficulties still more, but I think that there ought to be some kind of standardisation of papers for this vital examination. Another belief is that some children are held back because of insufficient accommodation in senior secondary schools. It is felt that the number of passes is regulated according to the space available. I should like that suggestion to be denied tonight, if possible.
  Much will continue to be said about the 11-plus examination. I have here an extract from a letter which appeared in The Observer which says:
  "The Fairy Tale of Education runs as follows: 'Once upon a time God made three types of children. The Norwood Report discovered what they were. The Ministry put them neatly into three groups—and they all lived unhappily ever after.'"
  Mr. Thomas Hubbard: It is not a fairy story.
  Mr. George: That is the lighter side of the question. But we all know that the 11-plus examination creates tension among the teachers in the schools, and among the children and the parents in the homes. There is, unhappily and wrongly, a feeling that a public reflection is cast upon the child who fails. That may emanate from the anxiety of the parents, but that feeling is there. There is no doubt that the examination has been upsetting life in Scotland.
  If this examination is quite a good test, but we are going the wrong about it, what is the answer? I have been reading the Labour Party's pamphlet, and I have also been reading the new book to which the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) referred—the symposium by teachers of comprehensive schools in England. I am very attracted to what is happening there. The question of comprehensive schools is not a new one to Scotland; the Scottish Education Department nailed its colours to the mast a long time ago. In its report on Scottish secondary education in 1947 it said:
  "This is the natural way for a democracy to order the post-primary schooling of a given area; that it escapes many of the disadvantages attaching to other forms of organisation; that it mitigates though it does not wholly solve, the vexatious problem of selection and grading, and that, better than any other plan, it promotes the success of the school as a community."
  760
  So it is not new. We know that it is attractive, but we also know that it is contentious. It is a pity that the whole question has assumed a political aspect, because there is no room for politics in education. I am sure that hon. Members opposite are just as keen to see that the best is done for the largest number in Scotland as we are, and that if they were in office they would be turning their thoughts, as we are, to utilising their resources to the limit for the children of Scotland.
  We must study the comprehensive school system very closely. We must see what is happening in England, where the vast new experiment is continuing. I cannot believe that we are following exactly the same pattern. I do not think that we have discarded the 11-plus examination for comprehensive schools in Scotland. In those schools in England the 11-plus examination has been discarded, and the children are taken in on the recommendations of the teachers—as Glasgow is now proposing to do.
  There is a continuous process of selection all the time, but it is not obvious. The children are not segregated; they are under one roof. According to the headmasters who have contributed to the book to which I have referred, because of the large staff, possessing many and varying qualities and qualifications, it is possible quickly to divide the children into sets and to encourage what is best in each child. A child may be good at English and stupid at arithmetic. That might have held him back in his 11-plus examination, but in the comprehensive school he can hurry forward with what he does best and take more slowly the subjects in which he is backward. These headmasters think that they are producing a far better-educated child, and are doing so in far greater numbers than could be achieved by any other method.
  The hon. Member for Fife, West also suggested that for our system of comprehensive schools in Scotland we should produce a similar symposium. It would be valuable for us and for the parents. There is a lot to learn about the matter, and we want to get rid of the 11-plus examination if we can, while being assured that the method of education which we adopt is one which attracts the child and makes it want to stay longer

  761
  at school than it does now. That is the main success that these schools are having. On page 57 the symposium says:
  "There is ample evidence to show that the able pupils are intending to complete seven years of secondary school study, that the majority will complete five years and that many of the far less able group will be wishing to complete five years also."
  In another part of the book, it is said that 80 per cent. of the children are staying on to complete the course because of the atmosphere in the new comprehensive schools. That is an astounding figure.
  They have not hesitated to switch over to vocational training. They found that young boys who had formerly intended to leave when they reached the age of 15 stayed on to complete the course and became skilled and useful people because they had become interested in vocational work. I have nothing against the comprehensive school, but I would be against a quick start to create them all over the place, if that were the idea. We want more information, however, about what is going on in our own schools.
  Whatever we say about the comprehensive school, the present type of school must continue for a long time, and I want to look at what is happening there to see whether it is carrying out the ideals of the 1945 Act. There is no cause for alarm. Things are improving. More children are taking secondary courses and more are going to universities and to central institutions. There is sufficient advance to enable us to be modestly well satisfied. But when we know that in 1957 76 per cent. of the schoolchildren are leaving at 15 years of age, that 86 per cent. have gone at 16 and that 90 per cent. have gone at the age of 17, we know that there is a great deal yet to be done and that we must look at the problem very seriously.
  Far too many of our people are being deprived by somebody of the greatest social service that this country has to offer. This position must be investigated closely. The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) said that the main reason was hardship, but I do not believe that at all. There was a day when that was true. The late hon. Member for South Ayrshire told me that he had his biggest letter bag when the
  762
  school-leaving age was raised to 15 because many of his constituents did not want their children to be left at school for another year. That attitude has to be faced and cured. It is no use shirking it; there is an attitude among the working people of wanting their children to start work as quickly as possible.
  There are two traditions in this country which affect the number of children in the secondary schools. One is the tradition in the professional and managerial home, "Our children must go to the university or at least get a leaving certificate." That tradition is not strong enough in the working-class home and we have to make it stronger. We must change the idea that because their fathers and grandfathers were workers, they must be workers. That has to be altered, and it will take a great deal of effort to make the alteration.
  It may be that other things play a part in modern developments. Differential between skilled and unskilled too low. Modern attractions and diversions. It may be even that the schools are unattractive and the curricula not interesting. Here is material for research, even expensive research, to find an answer to the question why so many children are leaving the schools and so few finish the courses. We can take it as a certainty that the vast majority of children who leave before they can take the secondary school course are in the lower-income group. That is why I said to the hon. Member for Govan that if he wanted to break down the class structure he should get people to take advantage of the education structure. He should use every moment he has in public to point out that we have a first-class educational system. Thus the hon. Member will go a long way towards breaking down the class system which he abhors.
  I admire what the Department has done for publicity. It has done much by poster, pamphlet and guidance. I admire what industry has done to assist the present educational system, but when I see what is done by way of advertisement by the National Coal Board, the Army, the Navy and the Air Force and the vast amount of money they spend in order to publicise the fact that they want recruits I suggest that in publicising education we are not nearly imaginative enough. We must have not only a campaign but an

  763
  expensive campaign to tell the people, through the medium of the newspapers and in other ways, the advantage which will be derived by their children from our educational system which is there for them to use. Why could we not ask the B.B.C. to play a grand part in such a publicity campaign. Why could they not say on television, "Here is the education system. The future of this country will give scope for educated people. The right way to have a prosperous future is to have an educated population"? Let us do that as quickly as possible.
  Let us look at the new challenge to education which did not exist in 1945, I mean the challenge of technology, and let us see how we are doing in that direction. My right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) once said that the future was to the highly educated nations who alone could handle the scientific apparatus for pre-eminence in peace and survival in war. That was very true. If our nation is to maintain its position in the world and be capable of utilising the magic of scientific advance, it must have more scientists, technicians and technologists.
  How are we doing in that respect in recent years? First of all, let us look at the leaving certificates issued, which are the end result of the primary and juvenile stages of education in Scotland. Only 7,000 leaving certificates were awarded in 1955 and about 7,700, a considerable improvement, last year. The one great snag now is that 50 per cent. of that number had only two or fewer highers and were therefore not qualified to go to unnversity. The net result was 3,000 who had leaving certificates of such quality as to give them the entrance qualification for university. There is great room for more work to be done. I welcome the new certificates and the experiments in Fife and Edinburgh, as well as anything which is being don, to get better results out of our system.
  What happens after the children go to the university? Are we turning out more degrees and diplomas from our universities and the central institutions, remember, diplomas are equal to university degrees? Here is the position, pressed down to the greatest extent possible. The number of degrees and diplomas issued by Scottish
  764
  universities and central institutions in 1955 was 3,296. In 1957, that number had risen, not very much, to 3,412. A breakdown of those figures answers the questions of the hon. Member for Govan who mentioned the increase in the number of arts degrees. The number of these degrees issued in Scotland in 1955 was 1,435. In 1957, the number had fallen slightly to 1,400. The degrees and diplomas for pure science and technology combined awarded in Scotland in 1955 numbered 1,079 and last year 1,169; so progress is being made, but not very quickly.
  We are moving slowly towards creating more scientists. I have taken the trouble to examine the choice of the new entrants. I find a decided tendency to prefer pure science and technology to the arts and professions. We see the whole scientific and technological population of universities rising slowly, and it is will rise faster as new entrants in the last four years work their way through. Undoubtedly there is in Scotland a trend towards answering the challenge in the universities. Youth is keen on taking its place in this scientific age, and I believe that our universities can equip them. But we never have had enough people in our universities from the lower-income group, from which I come. That is why I would like to see that income group changing its outlook and wishing to see its standard of living changed. There is no indication at the moment that many do. Here is an opportunity not to be missed.
  Let me again quote from that remarkable book "The Cost of Education", in which we are warned strongly about being content with statistics. We may say that last year we spent £x on education and this year £x plus £y, therefore our education is better. That can be vastly misleading. The writer tried to find out by a long process of elimination who got the money spent on education, the higher, the middle, or the lower income group. He concludes that the benefit per child from the public education system is two-thirds greater for the child in the middle income group than for the working-class child. The abolition of fees has meant an increase in the subsidies already received by the middle class. Then he makes this striking comment:
  "The home background of aided undergraduates at the university now is, for

  765
  example, about eighteen times more likely to be professional and managerial than unskilled manual work."
  That would emphasise that we are leaving a vast reservoir untapped, and we should try with all the force at our command to startle that section of the public into taking action. This is not the fault of the Government. The Government are not failing to provide the education. The people are failing to take advantage of it.
  Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman is making a most interesting and valuable speech, but could he tell us whether the figures he quoted from that book relate to British universities, English universities or Scottish universities?
  Mr. George: They relate to British universities. The author did not divide them up. He had a terrific job to calculate for Britain, but it is very valuable.
  I do not want to take up much more time, but I want to say that our educational system is challenged, not only by the technological advance of the age, but by the Russian advance. Yet I would give a warning against being startled, scared or stampeded by numerical comparisons. The hon. Member for Govan has said that by 1960 every child in Russia would be educated up to the age of 17. I have been reading the latest American book, and the author suggests that there is a great gap in the Russian system where there is practically no education at all. Do not let us, therefore, be startled or stampeded by figures.
  Let us pursue our own Scottish way, which has been proved throughout the years to be an excellent way to educate our children, but let us do it better than we have ever done before. I believe that we shall get the results, because the spirit is there, if we can only stir it up. The problems of education in Scotland today are manifold, and we have heard them talked about in this debate. There are not enough new schools, the junior secondary school is awaiting a clear definition, and there is the problem of the comprehensive school, all of which must be carefully studied and watched. There are many things waiting to be done.
  Therefore, and finally, I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that he should look into the organisation of his own office in that respect. I
  766
  suggest that education is now far more important than agriculture, and in the Scottish Office, as I understand the organisation there, one of the Joint Under-Secretaries is solely responsible for agriculture. I suggest a change in that organisation so as to make one of the Joint Under-Secretaries solely responsible for education. We have a Minister of Education in England, and I believe that he has a difficult and heavy task.
  I also believe that there is plenty of work in Scotland for the energies of one Joint Under-Secretary. I believe that education, under the present arrangements, is one of many responsibilities of a Joint Under-Secretary. It should not be so. It is too important, and I therefore ask my right hon. Friend to look into his own organisation, and perhaps to make the change which I have suggested, if he considers that it is practicable and advisable.
  8.4 p.m.
  Mr. Thomas Hubbard: I have been hoping to have the pleasure of fallowing the hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George), but the boot is usually on the other foot. Let me say at once that I could not agree with him more in the great and powerful speech which he has delivered tonight, a speech which many people will do well to read and to study.
  Mr. Ross: The best speech for twelve years.
  Mr. Hubbard: I do not want to enter into the political aspects of the matter, because in my view education is not a political matter. It is a matter of interest and concern to the whole country. It is true that in the past education has been a matter of politics, but not a political matter, and I think there is a fine distinction to be drawn between the two. I think that the hon. Member for Pollok has said many things tonight which I shall have pleasure in reading in the future, and perhaps his hon. and right hon. Friends at the Scottish Office would do well to study his speech very closely.
  It is significant that nobody who has spoken in this debate tonight has been satisfied, and that is an encouraging and healthy sign. If we ever reach a stage when we are satisfied with education, we shall start to march backwards. One can

  767
  be hungry for food and be satisfied by a good meal, and no doubt many of my hon. Friends at this moment are satisfying their hunger with a good meal, but hunger for education is never satisfied. If, in fact, we reach that stage, there will not be much that we can do about it. Therefore, it is indeed healthy that all of us today have felt dissatisfied.
  We have made progress in education. did not go to school very long myself, but, in the very early part of my political life, one of the most horrible tasks I had to perform, as a member of a school management committee, was to consider whether children should be allowed to leave school at 13, and perhaps sometimes at 12, not because they did not want education, not because their parents did not desire them to be educated, but because the parents were so poor that they had to send them to work to supplement the family income.
  The County of Fife, indeed, has always been very progressive in education, and it may be that because the hon. Member for Pollok had his upbringing in Fife it has come out in his speech tonight. Fife is a very progressive county in regard to school buildings and education generally. Indeed, the county education authority of Fife is a living evidence of the advance of education in that part of Scotland. We have travelled a long way from the days when it was difficult to get children to continue their education until 14 years of age.
  The reason for my leaving school at an early age had nothing to do with education. Somebody in the neighbourhood had smallpox, and it was considered dangerous for me to go to school. I was allowed to go to work, and so I was employed in delivering foodstuffs. That is one illustration of the reasons for the lack of education at that time. It is true that there was educational opportunity, but there were restrictions on using those opportunities, such as the reason I have just given.
  I have never been satisfied that merely because someone has been to a university he is to be regarded as an educated man. In fact, at the end of the day, some of these people sometimes prove themselves to be very lacking in education. I have always believed that the main value of education is the capacity which it gives a
  768
  scholar to think for himself. That is what education should develop, and not the mere assimilation of facts. Indeed, if that were the end of education, we should be going backwards and never forward. Therefore, I believe that the true end of education is to teach people to think for themselves so that the whole nation may make progress.
  If I may now turn to another aspect of this subject, I know that we cannot discuss legislation in a debate like this, but I think we must have some regard to certain legislation in considering what are the opportunities and the chances for the development of education generally. It is in that context that I remind myself of certain legislation which is in course of being passed through Parliament—it has not yet gone through, I understand, but it was recently before this Chamber—and which, in my opinion, and in spite of all that was said about the desire to make progress in education, may put a little brake upon it. I do not think it will be altogether out of keeping with the character of this debate if I refer to the block grant.
  The Secretary of State has told us that in order to provide education, we require buildings, teachers and pupils, but to get buildings and teachers we require money. If there is anything at all that is likely to put a brake on educational development in the future, it may well be the difficulty that we are going to have in finding the money for it. I do not believe that the Secretary of State is intending to put any brake on it, but he has indicated to the local authorities the need for greater care in the expenditure of money in view of our present financial position. He has put that into the minds of local authorities which are responsible for education.
  In considering this and in considering new legislation local authorities may not be so willing to run risks in regard to expenditure in the future. As a result of legislation which includes the block grant there may be a tendency for those on education committees of local authorities, who have to take greater care of expenditure, to be a little more tight-fisted. We cannot think of development and progress in education and have the idea of being tight-fisted and afraid to spend the necessary money. That is a difficulty I fear may come upon us in

  769
  the very near future, and it is one to which the Secretary of State should apply his mind.
  How would this tendency to restrict expenditure affect education? If local authorities have to be more careful, how can they think in terms of paying salaries which would attract young people to the teaching profession as against going into industry? They will be unable to pay sufficiently high salaries. At the moment, everyone agrees that teachers are paid too small salaries commensurate with the tasks they have to carry out. No one would suggest for a moment that we ought to reduce those salaries. It is not open to local authorities to set salary scales, but this consideration must be in the mind of everyone who is anxious to see further development of education. This tendency may strain the possibilities of local authorities of building new schools and advancing education.
  In this debate everyone has spoken about more educational opportunities. Whatever may be the indication at the beginning, it does not always follow that youngsters have those opportunities throughout their educational lives. The hon. Member for Pollok said that he disagreed with the 11-plus examination; so did my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin). I disagree with it for a variety of reasons. Who can say that every child's mind has developed to a certain point by 11 years of age? All the circumstances are different. The home circumstances may be different and that may be through no fault of the child. It may be that the child developed a sickness just prior to the time he took the examination. He may have been a reasonably clever scholar up to that time, but had become sick on the eve of the examination. He may have become sick through worrying about the pending examination.
  There may have been sickness in the child's home or there may have been a removal of his home. A thousand and one things may happen which prevent the child passing the 11-plus examination That does not give the opportunity of getting the best out of our children. In this competitive world that does not provide an opportunity to develop the best brains. Therefore, the 11-plus examination must not be the end of all things at which we aim. The comprehensive school is the most desirable thing.
  770
  My hon. Friend had something to say about the late development of our present Prime Minister. It may be true that it has been a late development, but it may also be true that my hon. Friend the Member for Govan was a late developer and has just recognised that. We are all ready to sit in judgment on one another, but the fact that we are ready to do so does not mean that we find the truth. Not every child can go on to enjoy the educational opportunities which are provided. The hon. Member for Pollok said that the circumstances in a child's home had a great deal to do with the matter.
  The child who passes the 11-plus examination and goes on to further education is not always able to take full advantage of it when there are financial difficulties in the home. Parents have to be conditioned to make sacrifices, if they are necessary, so that the child shall have a proper education. I hope that the Secretary of State will see that whatever else goes by the board in any financial difficulties which arise, education will not. The strongest possible pressure will have to be brought to bear on the Chancellor of the Exchequer so that he will not curb further expenditure for education in the country as a whole and in Scotland in particular.
  There was a little skirmish on the other side of this Committee earlier in the debate on the question of St. Andrews University. There has been no skirmish on this side of the Committee on that question. The university has had a great past. Perhaps, in spite of hon. Members opposite, St. Andrews will have a good future. This problem will sort itself out. What I am concerned about is not where the university is, but whether it is sufficiently large to take in all who are capable of going to it wherever it may be. There may be divisions in the minds of people in Fife and St. Andrews as to the locus of the university. There may be disturbance in the town councils, but true educationists will not measure the success of the university by considering where it is, but by whether there are to be restrictions on university extensions.
  I join with all who have spoken in appealing to the Secretary of State and the Scottish Office on this question of education. There are none more anxious for education than those of us who have not been able to take full advantage of

  771
  it and have not had our appetite for education satisfied. In this country no greater investment could be made than in education and educational opportunities
  I welcome the educational opportunities which have been given by the National Coal Board and organisations of that type. I hope that attention will be paid to the fact that for those not going in for further full-time education in colleges and universities when they leave school there will be an even change-over from day school to night school and that other facilities will be made available, which will be continued and improved. Then apprentices can be released in order that they may obtain more education and become the best tradesmen in whatever their task may be. We cannot get the best from them if they have left school early unless their education is continued in night schools and by other educational facilities provided for the miner, the engineer, the railwayman, the painter or whatever he may be. Then, even if we cannot say that we have the best in the world, we shall at least provide the best opportunities.
  8.19 p.m.
  Mr. William Ross: This has been a pleasant debate. We have had speeches of considerable value; some of which have been surprising from the quarter from which they have come. Perhaps however, it was not really so surprising, for the one man who made a good speech from the benches opposite was the only one on that side who went to an ordinary Scottish school. He certainly speaks with the genuine accent of Scotland.
  Mr. G. M. Thomson: I would not like the record to be inaccurate in any way. Of the hon. Members opposite who represent Scottish constituencies, I think that five of them can claim that they went to anything which can be described as an ordinary Scottish school.
  Mr. Ross: That is not quite so bad.
  If I have any complaint to make about the speech of the Secretary of State, it is that it was related far too much to education in Scotland in 1957 when we in this Committee should be concerned with education in Scotland in the coming years. In the Secretary of States's speech there was
  772
  a justifiable measure of pride that we had done quite well in improvements, in the amount of money we have spent and in the number of places we have provided, and the right hon. Gentleman referred also to technical education and to his hopes for technical colleges.
  As I listened, I could not help relating all that to the conditions which we find in, for example, my own constituency. I remember the glowing hopes which were held out over two years ago about the sudden realisation by the Government that something must be done about technical education and that Britain was falling behind. We had reports and programmes, and we in Ayrshire were to have two new projects. Not one of them has been started.
  Remembering what we have been told by those who lecture us about the importance of technical education, when it all comes down to the actual building of the place in Kilmarnock, we find that the man who owns the ground in the town, the Lord Howard de Walden, preferred another purpose for the piece of ground on which the education authority would like to build the college. He is, I am sure, interested in the progress of Kilmarnock, which is a great engineering and industrial centre of high promise which so much needs the college, but he is prepared to hold up, and has held up, the progress of the technical school.
  The inquiry, however, is now over. The education authority has been upheld. I hope that there will be no further delays concerning this much-needed technical college in the town of Kilmarnock. We are looking ahead to ensure that Kilmarnock plays its full part. When we consider its great industries, built around engineering, it is a regrettable fact that we have no such college in the whole of Ayrshire.
  We are told, however, that an interval of three years must elapse from the moment of announcement before anything starts. It will be the spring of next year before anything starts. We cannot congratulate the Government on their sense of urgency and the need for all this delay. We already have technical colleges built. The Secretary of State spoke about one opening in Paisley. Surely, from the experience there, information concerning what is required is already available.

  773
  In the past fortnight, I have received four or five letters from parents, one of whom offered to send a petition, in connection with a new school which is due shortly to open in Kilmarnock. We have been building many houses there. People have been waiting in these new houses for five years with their young children having to cross to the other end of Kilmarnock, through its busiest streets, sometimes using not merely one bus but perhaps two buses to get to school. A new school has now been built. During its building, somebody in St. Andrew's House had a brainwave that it was not necessary to build the whole school straight-away and that only part of it needed to be built, the other departments being added later. What we discover now, however, is that parents who live in the same street in which the school is built will not be able to get their five-year-olds into the school because there is not enough room for them. I cannot congratulate the Secretary of State on this kind of phased hold-up in education leading to this farcical and frustrating situation. Anybody who has been concerned with the expanding area should have appreciated the kind of situation which was likely to arise.
  One parent tells me that her eight-year-old daughter who is being taught in the old grammar school of Kilmarnock, which is miles away through the centre of the town, can now be shifted to the new school, but that another child aged five, who will be starting school, must go over to grammar school or to some other school in some other part of Kilmarnock. This is a fantastic situation and not one for pride.
  I remind the Secretary of State and all the education authorities in Scotland of this. We have heard a lot about the responsibilities of parents, but parents still have their rights concerning education. They have the right, which was written into the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, for their children to be educated in accordance with their wishes. However, there is sometimes a forgetfulness of the need to consult parents about what they want and what meets their needs.
  The Joint Under-Secretary will remember that last year I raised a point concerning the promotion test and its weaknesses. I was concerned about five children who were turned down by the
  774
  promotion board for a five-year course. It has been interesting to find out exactly what happened to those children. A new examination was set because there was an overlap of three months and the children had to wait at one school before they began the term at the senior secondary school. One child was regraded and allowed into the senior secondary school. I raised the question of a child who was ill on the day in question and did not have the opportunity to sit the examination. In that and in two other cases, their right being written into the Statute, the parents appealed to the Secretary of State.
  It is a shocking state of affairs that when parents accept their responsibilities and exercise their rights and seek to get the full five-year course to which they consider their children are entitled, one of the parents should be deliberately singled out and, in the columns of a local paper with all the inevitable publicity that involves, be pilloried and have his action in appealing to the Secretary of State likened to something which was happening at that time in Little Rock That was not a very high standard of journalism. It did not denote a very great knowledge of what the Education, (Scotland) Act means, and it was not a very good invitation to parents to seek to exercise their rights in the way of education for their children.
  There were three children concerning whom an appeal was made to the Secretary of State, but no mention was made in the paper of the other two. One of the appeals was upheld by the Secretary of State. In one case the Secretary of State suggested that the child should go for a trial period to the senior secondary school, but the education authority, having already taken a decision, did not like this suggestion and turned it down. The other child was rejected. The child who was turned down, went to the junior secondary school and did so well that she was transferred to the senior secondary school. I congratulate the Joint Under-Secretary on what he did in respect of these children and for his suggestion to me that it would be possible for children to transfer from one school to the other if they could make the grade.
  I feel that we should recognise the weaknesses and unfairness of the promotion system. Even the Secretary of State's actions prove the possibility of

  775
  injustice. Last year, in thirty-six cases in which appeal was made, in one in every three the Secretary of State allowed the child to go to the senior secondary school.
  Let us fully appreciate the importance of this matter. I am worried about what will happen in the next few years, when greater and greater pressure will be put on the secondary schools as the "bulge" passes from primary to secondary school. I have a daughter aged 9. In about two years' time she with others will sit for her promotion test. All children sitting for that examination should be given the opportunity, according to their ability, to benefit from the course, and we should ensure that there will be no limitation on children passing because of lack of senior secondary school accommodation.
  We should have an assurance from the Joint Under-Secretary that the position is being watched and that there will be sufficient places for all Scottish children who can benefit from a full senior secondary school education.
  I appeal to him to take the advice which has been given to him from all sides of the Committee and set the local education authorities to work now to see how we can make a start on real comprehensive education for the children of Scotland.
  In the old days in Scotland everyone in the district went to the same school. That is what gave us the feeling of community sense and equality. One man was as good as the other and each knew the other, for he was educated with him. There has been a break away from that tradition in the past fifty years. It has not been to the good of the nation. We must return to comprehensive education of the highest standard. Only in that way will we reap the social and national benefits from what we are spending on education.
  8.33 p.m.
  Mr. G. M. Thomson: A few minutes ago I listened to one of the most interesting and remarkable speeches on education that I have heard from the Government benches. I listened to it with such interest and, indeed, with such agreement that I almost felt that it was unnecessary for the Opposition to have a winding-up speaker. The hon.
  776
  Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. George) made an excellent speech that would have served the purpose.
  This has been a most useful debate, and for someone who has sat through it, like myself, it has been a debate that has contributed greatly to our own education. It might be thought rather odd that the House of Commons, in the middle of a great international crisis and on the eve of the Summer Recess, when business is normally congested, should spend two separate nights discussing education. Last night, we were discussing the financing of Scottish education. It might be pointed out that today's debate is part of the agreed share of Parliamentary business that goes to Scotland. No matter what the international situation, if there had been any attempt to deprive us of today, the Government would have found themselves with a revolution north of the Tweed as well as across the Jordan.
  Apart from that, I think that it is probably not so silly as it perhaps seems to be spending this amount of time on education. The human race may be foolish enough, in the short run, to blow itself to smithereens, but I am optimistic enough to believe that the cold war is more likely to be resolved in the long run by what might be called a battle of blackboards rather than by a battle of H-bombs. What will matter in the future will be the way that our country competes with other countries in the sphere of increased production and living standards and how it can compete with other advanced countries in helping those who are less advanced both by giving equipment and, above all perhaps, "know-how"; and, thirdly, and perhaps most important, how far a country like ours can inspire other countries of the world who are as yet uncommitted in the cold war with the belief that our democratic way of life is the one that best meets their aspirations.
  All these things involve expenditure on education. I use the word "education" firstly, in its narrow vocational sense—in training engineers, craftsmen, doctors, administrators and lawyers. There is a rather snobbish idea that, somehow or other, academic education is non-vocational. Of course, it is nothing of the sort. Academic education is merely an education related to a certain kind of job. It is as vocational as the education of engineers and technicians.

  777
  But we shall need not only vocational education in its wider sense, but also a genuine liberal education that will teach people the art of living and which will show them how to make use of the greater production that we are all seeking. For these reasons, I think that the more the House of Commons discusses education in the midst of international crises the more far-sighted it is being.
  What emerges from the speeches that have been made today? What, for instance, could hon. Members opposite say was the attitude of the Labour Party towards education as a result of the many able and informed speeches made by my hon. Friends? I am reminded of a story about a famous pioneer of American trade unionism, a man called Mr. Sam Gompers, a somewhat salty character. On one occasion a rather pompous university economist said to him, "What, in the field of economics, does the American trade union movement stand for?" Sam looked at him and said, "More". I think that the Labour Party's attitude on education can best be summed up with the one word "more". Indeed, it is not without significance that the first sentence of our educational policy statement, the first chapter of which, I am glad to hear, has been studied with great success by the hon. Member for Pollok and which, I hope, will be read closely by the Ministers responsible for Scottish education, reads:
  "The biggest single fact about our education today is that there is not enough of it."
  It was interesting to hear from the Secretary of State the figures of expenditure on Scottish education. I think it is fair to say that there is much in them for which the Secretary of State can take credit. There has been a very remarkable increase in expenditure on education in the United Kingdom as the years have gone by since the war, but it is very important to register the point which the hon. Member for Pollok made, that we simply cannot measure whether we are spending adequately on education simply by taking what we spent in 1955 and what we spent in 1957 and doing a subtraction sum.
  What staggered me on looking into these things was the discovery that, today, we are spending a smaller proportion of our national income on education—on schooling—than we did in the darkest
  778
  days of mass unemployment in the 'thirties. We are spending today approximately 6d. in the £ of our national income on education. We were spending a bit more in the 'thirties. I should explain that I am talking about schooling—about teaching people things—not about feeding them in schools, and the other necessary social services which accompany schooling.
  I was extremely glad that the hon. Member for Pollok referred to this new book, "The Costs of Education," by Mr. John Vaizey, from whom I have purloined the figures I have just been giving the Committee. Mr. Vaizey has given us a very interesting and, indeed, the first serious account of national expenditure on education in relation to the nation's resources. He says some very flattering, but, I think, well-merited things about the Scottish education system. He notes, for instance, not only that Scotland spends relatively more money on education than is spent in England and Wales, but that Scotland is given a much better account of the money we spend. The Secretary of State and his Department who are so often blamed for things are entitled to the credit from this highly expert source.
  Mr. Vaizey notes with warm approval that the annual reports and the accounts of the finances of education in Scotland contain a great deal more information, well laid out in one comprehensive, accurate document, than is contained in similar documents from the English Ministry of Education. Mr. Vaizey even commends the Reports of the Scottish Education Department for their clarity, eloquence and wit. I am not sure that I personally would go quite as far as that, but no doubt all things are relative, and if I studied the Reports of the Ministry of Education as much I would find myself falling off my chair with laughter as I read the comparative wit of the Scottish Education Department's Reports. This is the Scottish tradition of considering education important. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was speaking of this eloquently just a few minutes ago.
  But Mr. Vaizey's findings make it clear that although we can be proud of our Scottish tradition in education we have absolutely nothing to be complacent about. The fact is—and he works this out very carefully—that during the next

  779
  ten years to 1968 it is likely that the national income of this country may go up by about 30 per cent. Mr. Vaizey concludes that even if we raise the school-leaving age to 16—and it is by no means certain that it will happen in the next ten years—the education exenditure of the whole United Kingdom, which, I think, is clearly reflected in Scotland, is likely, on present trends, to go up by about only 10 per cent.
  I have no doubt that whoever is Secretary of State in 1968 may be tempted to say, in the annual debate on Scottish education, "We are spending today 10 per cent. more than we did ten years ago." The fact is that in 1968 we shall be spending on education a considerably smaller proportion of our national income than we are now, unless we take the decision now, or very soon, that we will commit ourselves as a nation to push up this expenditure on the ground that it is one of the finest national investments we could have.
  This, I think, is the reply to some hon. Members opposite who are constantly grumbling about the way the expenditure on education goes up. We all recollect the speech made by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) in the earlier part of the proceedings on the Local Government and Miscellaneous Financial Provisions (Scotland) Bill, when he made it quite clear that his hope was that that Bill would cut what he regarded as the extravagant education expenditure.
  I notice that to many hon. Members opposite the proposals in the Labour Party's education policy seem to be more than the nation can afford. The real question, of course, is whether the nation can afford to do without that increased expenditure on education. While we gladly pay tribute to the Government for their announcement, for instance, that many more school places have been provided this year as compared with the number provided last year—it is a record number—we do want to issue this warning: we are dealing with the 1957 Report, but we are looking forward to the future and to what the expenditure will be in 1958, 1959 and 1960. We are not at all confident about the future. We have had these long proceedings on the Local Government and Miscellaneous Financial Provisions (Scotland) Bill and they have
  780
  not removed our fears that the result of this may be to slow down the rate of increase of educational expenditure in Scotland.
  The Secretary of State's own Report, on page 51, does make some reference to the future and it is disturbing. It says that:
  "Towards the end of the year it was found necessary to stabilise capital investment in 1958–59 and 1959–60 at the level of 1957–58."
  It goes on to make the point that
  "Improvements to and replacements of existing schools were restricted to projects which were urgent and essential."
  When the Secretary of State himself came to deal with this he said to the Committee, as if he were really making a very precise and concrete pledge, that he would guarantee that so far as school building went every necessary job would be started as soon as it was ready.
  If we examine these words carefully, they are neither precise or concrete, and they would give a great deal of scope to any administration which wished to hold up school building. I hope that this is not so, but it would be very helpful if the Minister who is to reply to the debate would give us a more firm assurance than we have had from the Secretary of State.
  I have said that the basic approach on this side of the Committee to the question of Scottish education is that we ought to have more of it. That, by itself, is not nearly enough—although it is not a bad start for any Government. It is necessary, however, to say what we want more of and in what order. I think that the consensus of opinion on both sides of the Committee during the debate has shown that the thing people want more of most quickly is teachers. I am sure that this is right. In their own way the teachers are more important than new buildings, although I am not for one moment deprecating the new building side of things. There are many famous schools, which hon. Members opposite have attended, which have been famous schools for a very long time in somewhat infamous buildings. Good teachers with small classes in our schools are better than bad teachers with large classes in nice, new, shining schools.
  Teachers are, therefore, the first priority. I hope that the Government will pay close attention to the many important points made by my hon.

  781
  Friends on this side of the Committee, and, in particular, to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), in her opening speech. They have pointed out that we ought to be able to increase the supply of teachers by better grants at the school level, by more deferments from National Service for candidates for the teaching profession, and so on. I am sure that these are the major matters in approaching this problem, but I want to say a brief word about another line of approach.
  I think that it is also important to try to convince the members of the teaching profession that they are being given an opportunity to acquire a higher degree of self-confidence and self-respect than some of them seem to have been enjoying during recent years. The reasons for this are complicated and the solutions, I know, are not easy. Certainly, the first responsibility is with the teachers themselves. Teachers are by far the best recruiting agents for the teaching profession and they can also be the worst recruiting agents for the teaching profession. I know many devoted teachers whose example would encourage young men or young women to go into the teaching profession, but, like everyone else, I have met other kinds of teachers as well.
  This brings me to the draft regulations for teachers' training colleges, which shortly will be before the House of Commons and which have been mentioned by a number of speakers. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) that it is a great pity that these regulations deal only with administrative and financial changes and not the actual substance of teachers' training. The two things should go together. But the regulations by themselves are related to the problem which I am discussing. They raise the question, for instance, of teachers' participation in their own training arrangements. I am glad that the new arrangements increase that participation but, speaking personally, I doubt whether they go far enough.
  I am sorry to see that one of the changes is to drop any teaching representative from the central institutions, at a time when technical education is so important. This seems to me a retrograde step. I hope that attention will be paid to it and that at least the Secretary of
  782
  State, in the appointments made under his direct patronage, will put that matter right. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs was also perfectly right in saying that there was a tremendous lack of fermentation of new ideas in the teaching profession in Scotland. That is one of the reasons why it is less attractive than otherwise it might be to new candidates. The training colleges have an important responsibility for this and the comments which my hon. Friend quoted from the Professor of Education at Edinburgh University must have the closest attention.
  I gather from teachers who have come into the profession recently through the special recruitment scheme, and, therefore, as adults, that their impressions of the training colleges are not very happy. They say that they are treated there as senior schoolchildren. They say that it is like going back to the upper classes of senior secondary schools. I know several who now make excellent teachers, full of enthusiasm, who have said that they went into the course of full-time study at training colleges with a great deal of intellectual zest which was very quickly extinguished by the narrow intellectual atmosphere that exists in Scottish training colleges. If something can be done to improve that situation, Ministers will do a notable service.
  We have had an interesting discussion of the problem of wastage in our schools. The contributions made to the debate have revealed to us, certainly to me, that the problem is a great deal broader than we generally conceive it to be. Normally, it is thought of in terms of senior secondary school children. The type of wastage that takes place in the five-year course is important but equally, if not more important, is the fact that large numbers of children leave school about 15 years of age, mainly from the junior but also from the senior secondary courses, and are not given the opportunity or encouraged to carry on some sort of part-time further education. There is very considerable wastage amongst our young people in that direction.
  I know that the Scottish Education Department does a great deal more now than it did in the past in terms of publicity. Could not something more be done? The Scottish Office had a spectacular success in recent years in combating the tuberculosis scourge in

  783
  Scotland by means of national campaigns in different localities in which the support of the Press, of the radio and television, of the local authorities and medical authorities was secured. Could not something be done, area by area, to get at the parents of school-leavers and at the school-leavers themselves to try to persuade them to make the best possible use of their aptitudes and abilities? If something could be done to dramatise the whole business of making the best use of the talents and skills of our young people it would be immensely useful.
  I believe, also, that the comprehensive type of school, which has been much discussed during our debate, makes a valuable contribution towards reducing wastage in our schools. One of the reasons why children leave school earlier than they would otherwise do is that they get into the wrong course at the 12-plus examination. They go to a junior school and develop abilities which do not get a proper outlet there. Similarly, children go to a senior secondary school and find that the course does not suit them. There is a great deal of educational evidence that the comprehensive school greatly reduces the wastage caused by children leaving school earlier than they should.
  I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Pollok in his astonishment that the comprehensive school should still be a matter of such controversy in Scotland. I listened with great interest to the speech made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart) on the comprehensive school. He told us that it was a sympathetic speech, but he had a great many critical things to say about the comprehensive approach to education. I was becoming more and more puzzled, because in my recollection the hon. Baronet was one of the signatories of the 1947 Advisory Council Report, which was quoted by the hon. Member far Pollok and which stated, with the great authority that the Council commands, that the comprehensive type of education was the most suitable for secondary schooling.
  I do not understand why hon. Gentlemen opposite feel in any doubt about this. Most of them—the hon. Member for Pollok is a notable exception—do not know a great deal personally about
  784
  Scottish education, because they did not themselves attend Scottish schools. But all are experts on comprehensive education, because almost all attended the great public schools of this country which are comprehensive schools.
  I hardly expected that the Report of the Advisory Council on Secondary Education would carry a great deal of conviction with some hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I cannot resist telling them that I have here a more authoritative, and perhaps a more persuasive voice, from their point of view. It is a recent issue of the Taller & Bystander, which contains an article on Scottish schools. There are photographs of Mr. Speaker and of the Lord Chancellor, who are both distinguished former pupils of Watson's College, in Edinburgh. The article states:
  "To an Englishman, however, the most astonishing thing about these Scottish schools is that most of them are comprehensive. In many of the Scottish schools boys enter at as early as five or six and go through the various forms in the same school until their schooldays end. There is no Eleven-Plus thumbscrew. Courses are provided for each according to his capacity; the scientists and the Latin versifiers benefit from the company of the athletes and vice versa. In the result the schoolboys' talents are developed in a singularly harmonious way."
  I could not put the case for the comprehensive school more persuasively to hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  Mr. Hamilton: Except that they breed Tory M.P.s.
  Mr. Thomson: I was going on to say, in the moment or two left to me, that although hon. Gentlemen opposite believe in comprehensive schooling for themselves and for their own families, and although they believe in comprehensive schooling for those who can afford to pay for a private education, many of them rather inconsistently seem to advocate segregated schooling for the great mass of the people. They seem to forget that the old school tie is, in fact, the old comprehensive school tie.
  The Scottish tradition of education is an egalitarian tradition of which we are legitimately proud, but it has its citadels of privilege still, and one of the things that disturbs us at this time, with the tremendous need for increased scientific education, is that the differences between one type of education and another in

  785
  Scotland seem to be widening rather than narrowing. I hope that this may turn out not to be so, but there is a real danger of it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs mentioned private enterprise funds that are now pouring into some of the independent and grant-aided schools in Scotland. We are very glad to see industry helping the educational system in this way, but if this happens by itself at a time when there is any risk at all of a slowing down of Government expenditure on State-aided schools, in terms of scientific provision, it will be very serious.
  We are moving into a period when more and more children are leaving our schools. I am told that there are to be about 1 million more children in the next few years leaving our schools than in the few years which have just gone by. They are a tremendous challenge to us, but they are also a tremendous problem and obstacle within our school system as it stands today. They are our real national wealth. Their potential brains and talents are an increment in our national wealth which will never come again.
  In addition, we have a personal responsibility to each of them, because these young people will come out of the schools to go into the institutes of further education in greater numbers and at a time when there is not the capacity for them. Unless we take drastic and energetic action, these young people, during a previous period of their lives which can never be repeated for them, will lose the opportunity of the education which should be their birthright. If we can rise to this opportunity, it will give us great national rewards. If we fail to rise to it, it will be a national disaster.
  What we need above all, not merely from the present Government, but from a whole series of Governments, one after the other, is a commitment to spend an increasing proportion of our national resources on education as our most essential form of national investment in this modern age.
  9.2 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): It would not be possible to begin a winding-up speech with more sincerity than I have on this occasion in saying that this
  786
  has been an inspiring debate. Hon. Members from all sides of the Committee have made notable contributions. The debate has shown two noteworthy Scottish characteristics, first, a deep interest in education, and, secondly, in the words of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Hubbard), that nobody has been satisfied.
  That is a very good thing and a typical Scottish characteristic. We are never satisfied with anything but the best. It has been said with truth that we have made progress, but there are certainly things which need to be put right. I am certain that when the hon. Member said that nobody was more anxious for education than those who had never had their appetites satisfied, he was speaking from his own point of view, because I am sure that everybody on this side of the Committee is equally anxious for education.
  The point has several times been made that if we are to get the best out of our educational system, we must make it known. My hon. Friend the Member for Pollok (Mr. George) made that point very strongly. We are doing quite a lot to make what we are doing known. Among other things, we have started an exhibition, called "Schools Today", which is designed to bring the teacher and parent together, to bring them to co-operate in the interests of the education of the child. Its purpose is to bring home to the parent the opportunities in education, so that the parent may be able to co-operate with the school in doing the best it possibly can for the child.
  Before going further, I want to refer to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson). Together with my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart), I regret the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland. He is quite entitled to state one side of the case, so long as he realises that it is one side of the case. I think that he will give credit to my right hon. Friend for setting up the proposed inquiry with the object of eliciting all the facts. I shall resist the temptation to try to balance the matter by stating the other side of the case, because the inquiry itself will bring out the facts. A representative of

  787
  the University Grants Committee will no doubt be there and be able to state the point of view of that Committee on this matter.
  I particularly regret my hon. Friend's suggestion that an advocate should not be appointed because he would do his best for his client, his client being my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland—that was the implication. My hon. Friend suggested that it should be a judge. Most judges have been advocates not so very long ago and are not very different persons from what they were when they were advocates.
  Sir D. Robertson: There is all the difference in the world between a barrister who is fulfilling his proper function of doing the best he can for his client, and thus earning his livelihood, and a judge who is above that and who has been especially selected for his impartiality. There is all the difference in the world, and no mouthing of words will convince me otherwise.
  Mr. Macpherson: Under our practice, the Secretary of State sets up an impartial inquiry and appoints an impartial person to carry out the inquiry. Naturally, that impartial person has to be paid for his services. I think that I had better leave it there, but I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East and not aggravate the situation in the meantime, since this impartial inquiry is to be carried out.
  Mr. G. M. Thomson: Will the Joint Under-Secretary bear in mind amidst all these difficulties the need to make haste with a decision to get the extra university accommodation which is urgently required?
  Mr. Macpherson: We shall certainly make all the haste we can, but there are steps laid down by Statute and time is required for each step laid down.
  I would like to pass from that to two matters which have been raised at considerable length. The first is the question of the proportion of pupils allocated to senior secondary courses. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have raised this matter. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) asked for an assurance that there would be enough places for those who wished to get into
  788
  the senior secondary schools. As the Committee knows, in Scotland over 30 per cent. of the pupils are allocated to senior secondary courses, the proportion varying from 20 per cent. in some areas to 45 per cent. in others. I think it can be said that very few, if any, children who have any chance of succeeding in a senior secondary course are debarred from it. In no area is there any restriction on entry to senior secondary courses because of the shortage of accommodation.
  Mr. Ross: I was drawing attention to the fact that we are going to have a greatly increased demand for these courses, with the bulge passing out of the primary schools to the secondary schools. Is the Minister satisfied that what he has said will still apply in future?
  Mr. Macpherson: As the hon. Member knows, the emphasis in our building programme at present is upon the building of secondary schools, in order to absorb the bulge.
  The controversy about the 11-plus examination is really an English one. In Scotland transfer takes place from the primary to the secondary school or department a year later than in England, and there are sufficient places in all areas for all children who can profit from a senior secondary education.
  Comprehensive schools have been common in Scotland for many generations, as hon. Members have said. They are mostly in country districts, but there are some in towns. On the question of promotion a great deal of thought and experiment is going on. As long ago as 1952, Midlothian started to make experiments of this sort and it has stuck to them. It has been followed by Stirling and also Edinburgh, where attainment tests do not form part of the selection test but are among the factors taken into account in the teachers' estimates. Perhaps I should add that in Scotland it is never a question only of passing a test; the primary teachers' scaled estimates of the ability of each pupil are also taken into account and intelligence tests are taken in two successive years. The common attainment test in English and arithmetic forms part of the test except in the areas that I have mentioned and in Glasgow.

  789
  In Glasgow, which is far and away our biggest area, under a new scheme approved in March, 1958, pupils will in future take no standardised attainments tests, but will be allocated to the appropriate secondary course by panels of the headmasters concerned, on the basis of the ability of the pupils and their aptitudes as revealed in normal class work, plus the result of the intelligence tests and the expressed wishes of the parents. That is a very interesting development which has arisen out of an experiment carried out in one part of Glasgow, and it is now being extended to the whole of the City.
  Miss Herbison: I am afraid that the hon. Member does not quite understand our point of view. Our complaint is not against the 12-plus examination, or about the form of selection done by the various methods he has described. Our complaint is against the segregation that takes place, upon whatever basis.
  Mr. Macpherson: I was coming to that point. The point that I was dealing with has been made by several of my hon. Friends, and I was coming to the whole question of the comprehensive school.
  Our attitude is well known. It has always been that, while we endorse the general preference for the comprehensive school expressed in the Advisory Council's Report on Secondary Education, we consider that each case must be treated in the light of local circumstances. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) say that local authorities must have the decision in this matter. That is also our view.
  In some places the comprehensive school is already established as the only economical method of providing for the secondary education pupils in the community, but in other areas secondary education is organised in terms of long-established and successful senior secondary and junior secondary schools. In our view there are no grounds for seeking to alter either system, if the education authority concerned is satisfied that it meets its needs, and if it wishes to continue with it.
  Many points have been raised in favour of the comprehensive school, but it is worth while mentioning one or two on the other side.
  Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Member said that the Government were renouncing
  790
  leadership in this matter and were leaving it to every authority, even those which are not really enterprising—I will not call them stupid. They can carry on, whatever the effect on the children, and leadership is being taken away from the Advisory Council and the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Macpherson: I was saying that the needs of each particular case had to be considered. Undoubtedly it is for the local authority to consider that in the first place. I did not say it had only to be considered by the local authority. Of course, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Department is in the closest touch with local authorities all the time and they are working together in this matter.
  There are certainly things to be, said for the junior secondary school, and this in particular. It is possible in a comprehensive school for the less able pupils to sit back and not take the full part, whereas if they were in a junior secondary school they could be encouraged, no doubt, to take a very much greater part in the activities of the school. That is one of the possibilities.
  There is also the fact that so much depends upon the headmaster concerned. If we have an academically-minded headmaster in a comprehensive school his interest will almost certainly be concentrated on the academic side of the school and the other side may not be developed to the full extent possible. On the other hand we may have a headmaster in a junior secondary school concentrating entirely on new ideas for education in junior secondary schools and on the placing of these pupils in jobs after they reach the school-leaving age. All I would say is that this is not a matter on which I think it right to be dogmatic. All cases should be treated entirely on their merit.
  I was asked by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) about the building programme. He was concerned about what was to happen in the future. Let me expand what my right hon. Friend said, as the hon. Member asked me to do. The economic measures that were taken in the autumn of last year made it necessary to postpone projects which were designed solely to replace and improve existing schools unless they were

  791
  urgent and essential, for example, to safeguard the health of pupils or staff. Replacements and improvements were approved where there was clear evidence that they were necessary and where the replacement of old buildings would be more economical than reconstruction. Where reconstruction and extension of buildings were necessary, opportunity was taken to bring all the accommodation up to a proper standard.
  I repeat that the economic measures have not entailed any cuts or rephasing of the building programme, apart from the postponement of desirable but not essential replacement and improvements. All projects brought forward by education authorities as necessary have been allowed to go forward. Building programmes approved are almost invariably smaller than they were when submitted because education authorities, not unnaturally, are apt to be a little optimistic as regards timing. The authorities have been told that if they can start more projects than have been approved, it is open to them to come back for additional authorisation. Some have already done so and been given the additional authorisation.
  Mr. Ross: What the Joint Under-Secretary is saying proves exactly what I said, that if education authorities had been allowed to go ahead with the original plans for Onthank School the present difficulties would never have arisen.
  Mr. Macpherson: That is a point on which I should be glad to write to the hon. Gentleman. I am afraid that I have not the answer now, but I thank him for bringing it to my attention.
  I would pass from that subject to the point raised by the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) who asked a number of questions about universities. I should say right away that the curricula and the method of entry are entirely matters for the universities themselves.
  The hon. Member asked about the expansion programme in universities and whether we were to increase our proportion alongside the rest of the Kingdom. Our proportion of students at the present time is 16½ per cent. of the total. It is expected that that proportion will remain.
  792
  Whether or not that necessarily means that we shall have the same proportion of the total expenditure is a different matter and involves a relativity which it is difficult for me to go into.
  It would be very well worth while if I were to give the Committee the figures of expenditure on education. The recurrent expenditure on universities in the quinquennium 1947–52 was £9,890,000. In the period 1952–57 it was £18,770,000 and in 1957–62 it is calculated that it will be of the order of £26 million, plus alterations that have since been made because of improvements in the salary scale.
  The non-recurrent expenditure in Scotland was £2,820,000 in the quinquennium 1947–52, and is £1 million in this year alone, so that we can say that the expenditure on the universities is doing all that we can expect to match up to the need to give all who are capable of profiting by university education the chance of receiving it. We are more fortunate in this respect than in England, for a number of reasons, and a much higher proportion of people go to universities in Scotland than is able to go to universities in England.
  I was asked about a fifth university by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin). In a sense, we have five universities, because we have the Royal College of Science and Technology, which ranks very nearly as a university. Indeed, arrangements have been made with Glasgow University so that many students of the College can receive degrees of Glasgow University under the affiliation arrangements.
  Mr. Rankin: Could the hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Macpherson: No, I have no time left to give way, and I want to give the Committee these figures.
  The proportion of students in Scotland who take science at these five institutions has risen from 11·4 per cent. in 1938–39 to 19·1 per cent. in 1957–58. In technology, the proportion has risen from 8·9 to 17·2 per cent.
  Mr. Rankin: Surely the hon. Gentleman will agree that he is not stating the case quite fairly—I will not say more than that—when he seeks to create the

  793
  impression that the Royal College of Science and Technology in Glasgow ranks as a technological university?
  Mr. Macpherson: Certainly it does in its prestige, which has risen very high indeed, and these arrangements which have recently been made will help in that direction.
  The question of the teacher shortage is a very formidable one. It is one that has been with us for a very long time, and I feel that I must remind the Committee that this is not peculiar to the teaching profession. There was a time when graduates went out to look for jobs, but now the jobs go and look for the graduates. It is by no means easy to meet the shortage of teachers at the present time. Undoubtedly, there are troubles, and no one would seek to disguise them, in the teaching of mathematics and science, but we are doing all we can to reduce them.
  In answer to the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan), I would say that the figures regarding the shortage of teachers which are given in the Report include the reassessment of Glasgow's shortage, so that the position is no worse than he thought it was. Another question he asked me was about grants to students in training under the special recruitment scheme, and we are now making arrangements to increase the grant under the special recruitment scheme by 15 per cent.
  I have been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East and other hon. Members whether we would be prepared to put the whole question of comprehensive schools and promotion to the Advisory Committee. That is something we have very much in mind. As hon. Members know, the Advisory Committee is still engaged on other matters concerning the recruitment of teachers, but it will shortly be available for a further remit.
  While I have not been able to cover anything like all the questions that have been raised, I hope that what I have said will assure hon. Members that, what- ever the shortcomings of Scottish education may be, it cannot be charged with apathy or inertia. Several hon. Members have talked about lack of ideas, but we should think of what is going on just now. We have the whole development of junior secondary schools, the junior
  794
  leaving certificate and the development of the fourth year leaving certificate. We have new arrangements for teacher training colleges and consideration of the principles of bursary awards. We shall have an opportunity of considering that later. The whole principle of bursaries is being reviewed at the moment and the other Anderson Committee is looking into the recruitment of teachers for technical education.
  All concerned with education are inspired, I am convinced, with a questing spirit at present. Established practices and institutions are being, and will be, examined to see what changes are needed to ensure that they will serve the generations now in our schools and colleges, or about to enter them, as well or better than they served their predecessors. Ministers, education authorities and teachers alike—we shall all have many problems with which to contend, but we have solid ground for satisfaction in recent achievement and for confidence in the prospect that lies ahead.
  My right hon. Friend spoke of the progress in actual building done and said it was 19 per cent. up on last year. For the financial year 1957–58 the work done exceeded that done in 1955–56 by over one-third and the projects completed were more than double as much in value. The cost limit per square foot in new schools provided, fixed at £3 6s. five years ago, is still being generally achieved despite the need to exceed it in remote places. Indeed, the average cost worked out at £3 4s. 5¼d. in 1956–57. This is not due to parsimony or reduction in standards. It is because authorities are growing more skilful, contractors are more competitive in their tenders, and all concerned are playing their part.
  Progress in education is not to be measured solely nor mainly in terms of bricks and mortar, but in rising standards of human achievement in the schools. It is difficult to measure such progress in terms of statistics, but figures can at least give some confirmation of trends which we would all welcome. We have all been anxious to see more pupils at junior secondary schools completing the three year course; 2,500 more completed it in 1956–57 than two years before, an increase of 12 per cent. We have all been anxious to see more pupils going on and completing the five year course; 680

  795
  more completed it than two years ago, an increase of 11 per cent. We have all been anxious to see more pupils staying on to 17; The proportion of 17-year-olds at school to the total age group has risen from 6·7 per cent. in 1954 to 9·1 per cent. in 1958. We have all been anxious to see more pupils sitting the Scottish Leaving Certificate. In round figures, the numbers have increased from 8,000 to 9,000 in two years.
  We have been anxious to see more teachers. The more pupils that stay on at school and the more we can remove financial impediments preventing individuals from going on to complete their education at universities, the more teachers we shall recruit. We have removed some of the impediments in the bursary regulations last year. We are now making further adjustments. The number of teachers entering teaching from school and university is higher today than it has ever been in normal times.
  Miss Herbison: It is not high enough.
  Mr. Macpherson: It is not high enough, but the Special Recruitment Scheme is also succeeding in providing a valuable addition. All this is evidence of real and steady progress. Our object in education must be nothing less than to enable each boy and each girl to develop their talents and character to the highest level they are capable of attaining, so that all may live good and happy lives in tune with their surroundings and to the benefit of the community, of the nation and of mankind.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £58,952,008, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the following Civil Estimates, viz.:—

  EDUCATION IN SCOTLAND

    CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1958–59
    £

    Class IV, Vote 14 (Public Education, Scotland) (including a Supplementary sum of £10)

    31,746,168

    Class IV, Vote 12 (Universities and Colleges, &c., Great Britain)

    27,024,140

    Class III, Vote 18 (Approved Schools, Scotland)

    181,700

    Total

    £58,952,008

    The CHAIRMAN then proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House this day, forthwith to put severally the Question, That the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the several Classes of the Civil Estimates, including a Supplementary Estimate, and the total amount of the Votes outstanding in the Estimates for Revenue Departments, and the Ministry of Defence Estimate, and in the Navy, the Army, including a Supplementary Estimate, and the Air Estimates, be granted for the Services defined in those Classes and Estimates:

    CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1958–59

      CLASS I
      That a sum, not exceeding £11,394,431, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

      £

      1. House of Lords

      125,376

      2. House of Commons

      1,024,556

      3. Registration of Electors

      370,000

      4. Treasury and Subordinate Departments

      2,159,806

      5. Privy Council Office

      23,387

      6 Charity Commission

      74,439

      7. Civil Service Commission

      326,015

      8. Crown Estate Office

      86,025

      9. Exchequer and Audit Department

      345,310

      10. Friendly Societies Registry

      60,150

      11. Government Actuary

      20,021

      12. Government Chemist

      244,991

      13. Government Hospitality

      30,000

      14. The Royal Mint

      90

      15. National Debt Office

      90

      16. National Savings Committee

      797,450

      17. Public Record Office

      84,607

      18. Public Works Loan Commission

      90

      19. Royal Commissions, &c.

      185,200

      20. Secret Service

      3,300,000

      21. Tithe Redemption Commission

      90

      22. Miscellaneous Expenses

      81,240

      22A. Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund

      68,645

      22B. Repayment to the Local Loans Fund

      202,883

      Scotland—

      23. Scottish Home Department

      1,755,482

      24. Scottish Record Office

      28,488

      £ 11,394,431

      Question put and agreed to.

    CLASS II
    That a sum, not exceeding £52,615,292, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

    £

    1. Foreign Service

    8,207,130

    2. Foreign Office Grants and Services (including a Supplementary sum of £3,270,000)

    9,478,450

    3. British Council

    1,812,300

    4. Commonwealth Relations Office

    1,790,219

    5. Commonwealth Services

    5,050,822

    6. Oversea Settlement

    132,175

    7. Colonial Office

    1,059,600

    8. Colonial Services

    10,503,061

    9. Development and Welfare (Colonies, &c.)

    13,000,000

    10. Development and Welfare (Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and South African High Commission Territories)

    900,000

    11. Imperial War Graves Commission

    681,535

    £52,615,292

    Question put and agreed to.

    CLASS III
    That a sum, not exceeding £69,021,259, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, for Expenditure ir respect of the Services included in Class III of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

    £

    1. Home Office

    5,061,248

    2. Home Office (Civil Defence Services)

    3,913,970

    3. Police, England and Wales

    32,607,077

    4. Prisons, England and Wales

    7,070,689

    5. Child Care. England and Wales

    7,095,900

    6. Fire Services, England and Wales

    4,283,300

    7. Carlisle State Management District

    90

    8. Supreme Court of Judicature. &c.

    53,692

    9. County Courts

    242,075

    10. Legal Aid Fund

    904,275

    11. Land Registry

    90

    12. Public Trustee

    90

    13. Law Charges

    423,111

    14. Miscellaneous Legal Expenses Scotland:—

    22,895

    15. Scottish Home Department (Civil Defence Services)

    374,713

    16. Police

    4,918,094

    17. Prisons

    638,308

    19. Fire Services

    578,181

    20. State Management Districts

    90

    21. Law Charges and Courts of Law

    207,217

    22. Department of the Registers of Scotland

    90

    798

    Ireland:—

    23. Supreme Court of Judicature, &c., Northern Ireland

    45,714

    24. Irish Land Purchase Services

    580,350

    69,021,259

    Question put and agreed to.

    CLASS IV
    That a sum, not exceeding £282,846,608, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

    £

    1. Ministry of Education

    255,667,154

    2. British Museum

    351,578

    3. British Museum (Natural History)

    284,030

    4. Imperial War Museum

    32,625

    5. London Museum

    22,614

    6. National Gallery

    47,080

    7. Tate Gallery

    35,092

    8. National Maritime Museum

    40,215

    9. National Portrait Gallery

    19,923

    10. Wallace Collection

    26,094

    11. Grants for Science and the Arts

    755,278

    13. Broacasting

    25,489,500

    Scotland:—

    15. National Galleries

    25,341

    16. National Museum of Antiques

    11,110

    17. National Library

    38,974

    282,846,608

    Question put and agreed to.

    CLASS V
    That a sum, not exceeding £510,748,968, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1959, for Expenditure in respect of the Services, included in Class V of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

    £

    1. Ministry of Housing and Local Government

    15,429,320

    2. Housing, England and Wales

    49,718,820

    3. Exchequer Grants to Local Revenues. England and Wales

    61,766,000

    4. Ministry of Health

    17,289,875

    5. National Health Service, England and Wales

    302,309,430

    6. Medical Research Council

    1,837,100

    7. Registrar General's Office

    277,073

    8. Central Land Board

    40,400

    9. War Damage Commission

    305,860

    Scotland:—

    10. Department of Health

    3,486,790

    11. National Health Service

    39,003,000

    12. Housing

    8,793,700

    13. Exchequer Grants to Local Revenues

    10,452,000

    14. Registrar General's Office

    39,600

    510,748,968

    Question put and agreed to.

    CLASS VI
    That a sum, not exceeding £179,402,700, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, for Expenditure in respect of the Services, included in Class VI of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

    £

    1. Board of Trade

    3,432,385

    2. Board of Trade (Assistance to Industry and Trading Services)

    1,178,330

    3. Board of Trade (Strategic Reserves)

    891,000

    4. Services in Development Areas

    1,843,060

    5. Financial Assistance in Development Areas

    55,510

    6. Export Credits

    90

    7. Export Credits (Special Guarantees)

    90

    8. Registration of Restrictive Trading Agreements

    102,145

    9 Ministry of Labour and National Service

    13,850,000

    10. Ministry of Supply

    154,300,000

    11. Ministry of Supply (Purchasing (Repayment) Services)

    90

    12. Royal Ordnance Factories

    3,750,000

    179,402,700

    Question put and agreed to.

    CLASS VII
    That a sum, not exceeding £50,510,120, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1959, for Expenditure in respect of the Services, included in Class VII of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

    £

    1. Ministry of Works

    4,857,380

    2. Houses of Parliament Buildings

    225,000

    3. Public Buildings, &c., United Kingdom

    19,297,200

    4. Public Buildings Overseas

    1,696,000

    5. Royal Palaces

    347,000

    6. Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens (including a Supplementary sum of £10)

    534,810

    7. Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments

    671,000

    8. Rates on Government Property

    12,157,130

    9. Stationery and Printing

    9,065,600

    10. Central Office of Information

    1,644,000

    11. Peterhead Harbour

    15,000

    50,510,120

    Question put and agreed to.

    CLASS VIII
    That a sum, not exceeding £224,942,439, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, for
    800
    Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VIII of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

    £

    1. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

    11,600,506

    2. Agricultural and Food Grants and Subsidies

    160,094,200

    3. Agricultural and Food Services (including a Supplementary sum of £63,000)

    7,199,725

    4. Food (Strategic Reserves)

    1,250,000

    5. Fishery Grants and Services

    4,441,735

    6. Surveys of Great Britain, etc.

    2,279,400

    7. Agricultural Research Council

    2,596,000

    8. Nature Conservancy

    200,000

    9. Development Fund

    704,500

    10. Forestry Commission

    6,217,000

    Scotland:—

    11. Department of Agriculture

    26,578,193

    12. Fisheries (Scotland) and Herring Industry

    1,781,180

    £224,942,439

    Question put and agreed to.

    CLASS IX
    That a sum, not exceeding £140,238,728, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IX of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

    £

    1. Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation

    6,866,500

    2. Roads, etc., England and Wales

    46,898,260

    3. Transport (Shipping and Special Services) (including a Supplementary sum of £90,650)

    329,650

    4. Civil Aviation

    4,718,500

    5. Ministry of Power

    2,923,650

    6. Ministry of Power (Special Services)

    2,099,110

    7. Atomic Energy (including a Supplementary sum of £80,010)

    63,080,010

    8. Department of Scientific and Industrial Research

    6,197,358

    Scotland:—

    9. Roads, etc.

    7,125,690

    £140,238,728

    Question put and agreed to.

    CLASS X
    That a sum, not exceeding £362,894,685, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, for

    801
    expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class X of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

    £

    1. Superannuation and Retired Allowances

    10,443,000

    2. Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance

    3,030,125

    3. War Pensions, etc.

    65,241,250

    4. National Insurance and Family Allowances

    187,630,000

    5 National Assistance Board

    91,533,000

    6. Pensions, etc. (India, Pakistan and Burma)

    4,328,310

    7. Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, etc.

    689,000

    £362,894,685

    Question put and agreed to.

    ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1958–59
    That a sum, not exceeding £274,951,037, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the Estimates for Revenue Departments, viz.:—

    £

    1. Customs and Excise

    11,333,037

    2. Inland Revenue

    29,920,000

    3. Post Office

    233,698,000

    274,951,037

    Question put and agreed to.

    NAVY ESTIMATES, 1958–59
    That a sum, not exceeding £184,951,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services, viz.:—

    £

    3. Medical Establishments and Services

    1,487,000

    4. Civilians employed on Fleet Services

    8,408,000

    5. Educational Services

    1,411,000

    7. Royal Naval Reserves

    1,194,000

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

    Section I.—Personnel

    43,945,000

    Section II.—Matériel

    44,417,000

    Section III.—Contract Work

    64,967,000

    9. Naval Armaments

    19,122,000

    184,951,000

    Question put and agreed to.

    ARMY ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1958–59
    That a sum, not exceeding £246,530,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services, viz.:—

    £

    1. Pay, &c., of the Army (Supplementary sum)

    29,500,000

    4. Civilians

    85,830,000

    5. Movements

    29,140,000

    6. Supplies, &c.

    47,820,000

    7. Stores

    54,240,000

    246,530,000

    Question put and agreed to.

    AIR ESTIMATES, 1958–59
    That a sum, not exceeding £125,440,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1959, for Expenditure in respect of the Air Services, viz.:—

    £

    4. Civilians at Outstations

    36,230,000

    5. Movements

    12,870,000

    6. Supplies

    63,140,000

    10. Non-Effective Services

    13,200,000

    125,440,000

    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported.
    Report to be received Tomorrow;
    Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

  WAYS AND MEANS
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
  That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, the sum of £2,804,637,275 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Simon.]
  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow;
  Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

  PNEUMOCONIOSIS AND BYSSINOSIS (BENEFIT SCHEME)
  9.34 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. W. M. F. Vane): I beg to move,
  That the Draft Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Benefit Amendment Scheme, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.
  This draft Scheme seems somewhat complicated, but there is only one material point in it: that is, the adjudication on the cause of death arising on claims for death benefit. I will try briefly to explain how this arises. The Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Benefit Act was designed to bridge the gap between the old Workmen's Compensation Acts and the new Industrial Injuries Act. The adjudication provisions followed the pattern of the old Workmen's Compensation Acts and the decision as to the cause of death was made by the Silicosis Medical Board, from which there was no appeal. This draft Scheme is in no sense a criticism of the Silicosis Medical Board, but experience during the last few years has suggested that this could be improved and some appeal allowed. We should bear in mind, too, that the decisions are not wholly medical, but that there are also legal implications.
  The Franks Committee, in its recommendations, supports this line of thought. This Scheme, in effect, substitutes the adjudication procedure which is familiar under the Industrial Injuries Acts. The new procedure will be, first, the cause of death determined by the insurance officer appointed under the Industrial Injuries Act, with, of course, medical advice, and from his decision a right of appeal would lie to the local appeal tribunal and then there could be a further appeal to the Commissioner. Once again, there is no criticism of the Silicosis Medical Board. We do not expect there to be a large number of appeals, but experience leads us to believe that a few people would have been better satisfied if they had been able to exercise a right of appeal.
  This step is in keeping with the general development of our social services. My right hon. Friend has, therefore, laid this Scheme and commends it to the House.
  9.37 p.m.
  Mr. Bernard Taylor: First, I should like to offer my congratulations to the hon. Gentleman. I think that this is his first appearance at the Box in his new office.
  As he has rightly said, this Scheme is very limited in scope. Nonetheless, it is important. The first thing that it does, and which we on this side have had in mind for a long time, is that it regularises the position between those who come under the Industrial Injuries Act and those pneumoconiosis and byssinosis cases that come under the 1952 benefit scheme.
  I have only one question to ask the hon. Gentleman arising out of the Scheme. I am not clear about it, and maybe the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give us some information on this point. Paragraph 1 (e) of the Schedule reads:
  "any question arising on a claim for death benefit whether the deceased died as a result of pneumoconiosis or byssinosis."
  Will the medical diagnosis of the Silicosis Medical Board be the subject of an appeal to any of the statutory authorities; in the first place, the insurance officer; secondly, the local tribunal; and thirdly and finally, the Commissioner? This matter has for some time caused perturbation to some of us on this side.
  Those are the only comments I wish to make on the Scheme, except to say that we give it our support and we are grateful to the Minister for bringing it forward. We hope that it will be in operation at the earliest possible moment.
  9.39 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Finch: I want to join my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor) in thanking the Minister and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for introducing the Scheme which now allows the right of appeal to the dependants of those who die as a result of pneumoconiosis and who do not come under the Industrial Injuries Act. There has been an anomaly in these cases because, as has been said, under the Industrial Injuries Act the dependants of those who are believed to be suffering from pneumonociosis as a result of their employment on and after 5th July, 1948. have had this right of appeal. Cases have gone to the Medical Board and, through an insurance officer, there has been the

  805
  right to go to the local tribunal and thereafter to the commissioner. That has never been allowed in the time barred cases.
  I would point out that there are three types of cases. First, there are those under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act with a right of appeal. Secondly, there are the time-barred cases. They are men who were debarred from claiming compensation or even from being examined owing to the fact that they finished work more than five years since the date at which it was suspected they were suffering from pneumoconiosis. The third type of cases are those under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
  We pass this scheme tonight and give it our blessing because it will give a right of appeal to be made against the Medical Board's decision. It will give a right of appeal to a widow to appeal against the decision. That will be welcomed by a large section of workers, particularly in the mining industry. As the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said, widows and dependants have always felt aggrieved at not having this chance.
  I was hoping that perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would have brought in a scheme for those under the Workmen's Compensation Acts. Had we had that we should have put the whole matter in order and have been able to deal with all three types of cases. At it is, we are still left with compensation cases in which there is no such right of appeal. However, we welcome the Scheme.
  9.41 p.m.
  Lady Megan Lloyd George: I wish to join my hon. Friends in welcoming this Scheme, which is putting right an anomaly which has created a great deal of hardship, and not only hardship but a sense of injustice even as between claimants and dependants themselves. There is one question I would ask the hon. Gentleman, and that is whether the Scheme will act retrospectively, so that claims which have already been turned down will be considered again. I should be very glad if the hon. Gentleman would answer that question.
  9.42 p.m.
  Mr. Vane: First, I should like to thank the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor) for the kind words he said about me. In fact, this is my second appearance at this Box. On my first appearance
  806
  there was not a single hon. Member belonging to the other side of the House here to hear what I had to say, not even a Whip.
  Mr. Ernest Popplewell: I was here.
  Mr. Vane: The hon. Member must have been well hidden.
  As to the question which the hon. Member for Mansfield put to me, the medical advice which will be given to the insurance officer is advice and not a decision. Therefore, there is no question of appeal from the pneumoconiosis medical board's decision, because it no longer represents a decision but a recommendation.
  As to the question asked me by the hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George), the answer is, "No". Cases which have been decided under the existing arrangements will remain as decided finally.
  I should like to thank hon. Members for the kind words they have said about this Scheme and I hope that they will now approve it.
  9.43 p.m.
  Mr. James Griffiths: I should like to join in the congratulations to the hon. Gentleman.
  This matter is rather more important than I thought it was at first sight. I am not for the moment objecting. However, do I gather that the pneumoconiosis panels will make only a recommendation and not a decision in cases of death? Therefore, if they say that death was caused or accelerated by pneumoconiosis, or if they make a contrary decision, will it be open to either side to appeal? Will the insurance commissioner be able to make an appeal if, let us assume, the decision is that death was caused by pneumoconiosis? If the contrary decision is arrived at, will the workman's widow or other claimant have an appeal?
  It is rather an important departure. Will other medical advice be admissible? I want only to get this matter clear for everybody concerned, and I hope that the Government will make it clear, as the trade unions will, of course.
  I used the word "accelerated" deliberately, because it is not interpreted as generously as I hoped. In these cases,

  807
  the Medical Board will make recommendations as to whether the death was caused or accelerated by pneumoconiosis, and when it has decided that it makes its recommendations to the insurance officer who makes a decision upon it, and unless the claimant appeals to the tribunal and from the tribunal to the Commission, presumably the claimant will, as in normal cases, be entitled to seek evidence from his or her own doctor or consultant.
  This is a fairly important change in the whole of the judicial machinery established. It will be more costly and complicated and will take time. On the other hand, the important thing is not only that justice should be done but should appear to be done, and to the extent that it will give people at once the realisation that they have an opportunity to appeal we welcome it.
  It is very important that this should be known. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Ministry will take every step possible to make known this new procedure to claimants, because it is very important that they should know what their rights are.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Draft Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Benefit Amendment Scheme, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.

  INDUSTRIAL INJURIES (COLLIERY WORKERS)
  9.46 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. W. M. F. Vane): I beg to move,
  That the Draft National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme) Amendment Order 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.
  This Order is a good deal more complicated than the last one, but I shall be as brief as I can in giving the outline of what it proposes. The House will remember that Section 83 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946 provided powers for a supplementary scheme to be set up within an industry. As yet, the coal mining industry alone has taken advantage of it, and a scheme came into
  808
  operation in 1948 which provides for supplementary benefits for colliery workers and their widows who are in receipt of benefit under the Industrial Injuries Act. This scheme is a supplementary scheme and is financed entirely from contributions from within the industry and no public money is concerned. Changes in this supplementary scheme need the approval of Parliament.
  My right hon. Friend, having assurred himself that the proposals put to him here are actuarially sound, has laid this Order. The changes are made, of course, at the request of the National Committee which administers the scheme. There are three principal points. The first provides for an increase in the rate of supplement to widows' benefit. The colliery workers' benefit is expressed in the supplementary scheme as a proportion of the current rate of industrial injuries benefit, and so moves automatically with it; but the widows' rate is not so expressed and needs amendment by regulations.
  The second point really is a complicated one. It concerns the limitation on the amount of supplementary benefit which, in certain circumstances, should be paid. At present, it comes into operation where the post-accident earnings plus industrial injuries benefits exceed the pre-accident earnings and operate after the injured man has returned to work and been in employment for 13 weeks. The National Committee which administers the supplementary scheme now asks that this should operate after a man has been on supplementary benefit for three weeks and should include National Insurance benefits in the calculation. This limitation does not apply to widows' benefit and death benefit, nor to a person receiving constant attendance allowance.
  The third and last point is that the National Committee, like trustees of so many other funds today, is seeking powers to enable it to invest a larger proportion of its funds in industrial securities. The present maximum allowed is 25 per cent. and it has asked that it should be increased to 30 per cent. As I have explained, all the changes brought about by the Order have been requested by the national committee. My right hon. Friend has been assured that they are actuarially sound and I hope, therefore, that the House will approve the Order.
  9.50 p.m.
  Mr. Bernard Taylor: I am very much obliged to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance for the clear, understanding and simple explanation he has given of what is, in its language, a somewhat complicated Order. I confess that, after listening to him, the Order is now much clearer to me than it was before.
  The first of the brief comments I wish to make is that the Order refers to the only scheme of its kind under the Industrial Injuries Act. As the hon. Gentleman reminded us, during the past ten years of its operation there has been ample evidence that it has worked exceedingly well. That fact is a tribute to the foresight of both sides of the mining industry in 1948.
  The additional benefit which this Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme has provided for the injured and disabled has been very welcome. That must be evident to us all when we remind ourselves that, as I have said in the House on more than one occasion, the incidence of accident and disease in the mining industry is colossal and represents almost two-thirds of the reportable accidents that take place. This has been a welcome supplement not only to the beneficiaries of industrial injuries benefit, but also to the old workmen's compensation cases.
  As the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said, a number of changes are proposed in the Order and they have been agreed upon by the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers. I know that many of them are administrative changes for the convenience, particularly, of the National Coal Board. One has no complaint to make about that. What gives me great pleasure is that two types of cases have received consideration. The first is that of widows. The benefit to the widow, irrespective of age, who has a dependent child or children, is increased by 25 per cent. from 25s. to 31s. The supplementary
  810
  allowance to the widow under 40 without dependent children is increased from 7s. 6d. to 9s. 3d. But another important and long overdue change is made to deal with the case of the woman who has the care of a deceased persons' children. During the ten years of which I have spoken, this type of beneficiary has received no increase at all in benefit. Now it is proposed that she should be placed on the same basis as that of the widow.
  The second type of case is that of the most seriously disabled, that is, those in receipt of constant attendance allowance. They are the worst type of case, the sad case, the helpless, almost the hopeless case, who must have someone to look after them. I echo the sentiments of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary who said that this type of case will differ from the other disabled inasmuch as there will be no ceiling upon their post-accident income.
  Reading the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debate in another place yesterday, I noted the advice of the Actuary that the Fund will allow the additional payments to be made to the two types of case I have mentioned. I understand that the additional cost of this supplementary scheme will be in the neighbourhood of £5 million per annum. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong.
  Mr. Vane: Not per annum. A capital sum.
  Mr. Taylor: I am obliged for that correction. Those are the main points in the Order, and in view of the agreement reached by both sides of the industry we on this side of the House give the scheme our support and welcome it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Draft National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme) Amendment Order, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.

  SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS
  Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Bideford [copy laid before the House, 17th July], approved.—[Mr. Renton.]
  Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Dunheved otherwise Launceston [copy laid before the House, 17th July], approved.—[Mr. Renton.]
  Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Looe [copy laid before the House, 17th July], approved.—[Mr. Renton.]
  Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Horsforth [copy laid before the House, 17th July], approved.—[Mr. Renton.]

  BRITISH ARMY (SERGEANT GRIBBIN)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]
  9.58 p.m.
  Mr. James Simmons: I want to raise the question of the case of Sergeant Gribbin, a Regular soldier with eighteen years' service, a married man with four children. Last December he wrote me concerning irregularities that were taking place in the stores of the British Military Hospital at Tripoli. The information passed on to me was, in my opinion, rather startling, and I forwarded it to the War Office.
  The Under-Secretary of State for War wrote to me on 18th February that the commanding officer of the hospital was satisfied with the condition of the store and considered that Sergeant Gribbin was capable of taking charge. He concluded his letter by saying:
  "There appear to be no good grounds for my intervening in the matter."
  On receipt of further information, I again got into touch with the War Office and the Under-Secretary of State replied on 9th May. He said that further investigation of the previous report, upon which he had based his earlier letter to me, had proved that the report was incorrect in some respects. The situation had been investigated by the Director of Medical Services and the brigadier in charge of administration in the Middle East, who found that the position had been unsatisfactory.
  The Under-Secretary went on to say that the buried stores—
  It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Sir G. Wills.]
  Mr. Simmons: He went on to say that the buried stores were time expired. I have heard of soldiers being time expired, but this is the first time that I have heard of stores being time expired. He said that they were condemned and the operating tables were unserviceable.
  The letter went on to say that the sergeant's allegations had been proved to

  813
  be substantially correct—I take it proved by this investigation. Did the sergeant get any medals? Oh, no. His C.O. had expressed satisfaction with the state of the stores, but the sergeant had proved himself right in asserting that they were not satisfactory. One cannot expect the sergeant to get medals when he proves his C.O. to be in the wrong.
  To quote the Under-Secretary of State:
  "The whole affair seems to have left a rather strained atmosphere at this unit … decided in fairness to all that Sergeant Gnibbin should be found employment elsewhere … probably in his best interests."
  On receipt of that letter, I was very angry and amazed. Why had Sergeant Gribbin been moved in fairness to all? He was the man who had done the spade work and who had exposed the scandal.
  I at once wrote to the Under-Secretary, anxious to protect Sergeant Gribbin, to inquire whether the move meant any demotion for him, because Sergeant Gribbin himself was worried. He wrote to me on 17th January saying:
  "I am a married man with four children and have been afraid that when matters came to a head I would be used as a scapegoat."
  Matters did come to a head. The sergeant had been proved to be right and the C.O. proved to be wrong, but the sergeant was to be moved.
  In his letter of 4th June, the Under-Secretary said:
  "I have been carefully into this case … can assure you this N.C.O. has suffered no demotion by his move."
  At the very time that letter was written, Sergeant Gribben had been disrated from a trade rating which he had held for eleven years. A soldier disrated from his trade has no defence or appeal, and so I made the appeal.
  In reply, I had an amazing later of 1st July. This next episode should be entitled "Amery's amazing antics." This letter admitted that Sergeant Gribbin had been disrated because
  "on 28th February, on leaving the sergeants mess at 2 p.m. he was in no condition to give full support to members of the survey board."
  It did not say that members of the survey board had to support him, but that he was in no condition to give support to members of the survey board. It was admitted in the letter:
  "technically, disrating is not the way to deal with this sort of thing. We have accordingly made arrangements for the rating to be restored."
  814
  Round 2 to Sergeant Gribbin.
  However, in the same letter—and this is the scandalous part—the Under-Secretary said:
  "I have learned that before that he went before a court-martial on 1st May on a charge of using insubordinate language to a superior officer … found guilty and reduced to rank of sergeant."
  There followed this amazing passage:
  "He has not suffered loss of rank or pay or similar victimisation for what he did in Tripoli."
  What a coincidence it is that after he has proved his C.O. wrong and after the War Office has had to admit that his allegations were substantially correct, there is first an attempt to disrate him and he is then "put on a peg" and court-martialled. In that letter the Under-Secretary expressed the hope—
  "that Sergeant Gribbin will repay my interest in his case by avoiding trouble and the consequential court-martial."
  He is now threatened with a further court-martial if he does not keep his mouth shut. How easy it is to provoke trouble and to make sure of getting him before another court-martial.
  What was the first court-martial about? On 27th March, an order was published in the British Military Hospital, Tripoli:
  "No issue of medical equipment is to be made in any circumstances after 1300 hours."
  Sergeant Gribbin naturally took that to be a natural consequence of the cleaning up of the mess which he had discovered, a tightening up of the hospital stores. At 11.30 p.m., an officer demanded the issue of a thermometer. The sergeant refused. He was under orders to refuse, and yet he was charged with insubordination.
  I suggest that a deliberate trap was set and that this order was issued so that the sergeant was compelled either to disobey the order and be charged with disobeying an order or to disobey the order of the officer and thus to be wrong on that count. And remember, all this was going on in what the Minister himself has called "a strained atmosphere" in the unit.
  Now Sergeant Gribbin is being posted to the Army Medical Depot at Ludgershall, but there is no guarantee that he will get a square deal even there. Why? Because confidential reports have already been sent on ahead to his new unit by

  815
  his commanding officer, Lieut.-Colonel MacKenzie, who has had only two five-minute interviews with the sergeant, but who has been given the tip by the Director of Medical Services, who called Sergeant Gribbin "the most disloyal N.C.O. I have ever met," and sent in a stinker of a report.
  This report was submitted on 9th July. It has gone ahead of Sergeant Gribbin, so that he can be given the full treatment when he gets there after the treatment he has had in Tripoli. I have proved the War Office wrong again and again in this case, but each time it has retreated and has ganged up to attack Sergeant Gribbin from another angle. I now ask for a civilian inquiry into the scandal of the stores at the British Medical Hospital at Tripoli.
  Sergeant Gribbin refused to take over these stores in December and officially requested a board of officers to examine the books, stores, etc. I have in my possession his letter dated 13th December to his officer commanding. This request was ignored. On 13th February, two months later, daily Part I Orders listed a stocktaking board composed of officers all drawn from the British Medical Hospital, Tripoli. They were not impartial people; they were all drawn from the same hospital. Sergeant Gribbin was posted to his unit two days after the board was set up, on 15th February.
  He was ordered to bury the stores on 29th January, prior to inspection by the Director of Medical Services, which took place on 7th February. It is untrue to say that the stores he buried were condemned. In the Army, before stores can be condemned a board of officers must have examined them to see whether they are serviceable. This is common Army practice.
  These stores could not have been condemned because they were buried on 29th January and the general inspection took place on 7th February and the board of officers were appointed on 13th February—a fortnight after the stores were buried. These stores included medicines, dressings and dangerous drugs. In addition, there were five operating tables, valued at £40 each. They were a solid mass of rust. The Minister says that they were unserviceable; they were unserviceable because
  816
  they had been left out in the rain and allowed to rust. There was also a spare portable X-ray machine floating about. Nobody knew where it had come from or where it was going, so it was sold to the 4th Royal Marine Commando.
  Sergeant Gribbin should be present at the inquiry that I am asking for, because he is an experienced man. He has had eleven years in his present rating of Dispenser, Grade A, Class I. He has been in far better hospitals than that at Tripoli. His last posting was at the Military Hospital, Catterick Camp—a much bigger and more important hospital than this tinpot affair at Tripoli where all the trouble is coming from. He is being posted home because he knows too much. I appeal to the Minister to let him come home after the mess has been cleared up, with his rank of staff sergeant restored.
  I want protection for this man, who has made the Army his career and has risked that career because of an innate sense of duty. In about four years he will be entitled to a pension, after 22 years' service. It will be a fairly decent Army pension at the rank of sergeant or staff sergeant. He has a wife and four children. No man will throw such a pension away recklessly; a man has to be imbued with an enormously strong sense of duty to take action which might risk a pension like that. This man took that risk.
  If the present attitude towards this sergeant persists and traps and deliberate persecutions are continued, those who are "gunning" for him could deprive him of his pension. I would like to know more about this "bloke"—this very senior officer, the Director of Medical Services. When he tells an N.C.O. that he is the most disloyal N.C.O. he has ever met, because he has exposed a mess, it reveals a monstrous bias on the part of that senior and high-ranking officer. The Army and its senior officers owe some loyalty to the senior N.C.O.s who serve under them, especially when they do a difficult job and do their duty.
  I urge the Minister to take over this case personally. I ask him not to let the wool be pulled over his eyes by the "brass hats" and "red tabs". Let him go into the job himself and clear up this cesspool of victimisation. Let him restore this man to his previous rank, and bring

  817
  him back home to England with honour so that his wife and children do not suffer as a result of his being posted home. Let him destroy the vindictive confidential report prepared by Lieut.-Colonel MacKenzie, and let this man finish the remaining years of his Army career free from further persecution.
  This man was proud to serve in the Army. He did so for 18 years with pride. He should be allowed to soldier on until he is time-expired, so that he can come back to this country and live here with pride in the career which he has chosen and which the Army today is trying to make intolerable for him.
  10.15 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Julian Amery): The hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) has pleaded the case of Sergeant Gribbin with eloquence, as he has supported it in these past months with zeal. As the result partly of his activities, a good deal of publicity has attended this case.
  If the allegations that have been made were substantiated, two very grave charges would lie against the Army. There would be a grave reflection on the efficiency of the Royal Army Medical Corps. There would also be a grave reflection on the sense of justice of the Army. I am, therefore, grateful to the hon. Member for having raised this matter on the Adjournment and so giving me an opportunity to deal with these two aspects of the case more fully than I could at Question Time.
  Let me deal, first, with the question of efficiency. The scene which we are considering is the British Military Hospital at Tripoli. There, on 23rd October last year, Staff Sergeant Gribbin, as he then was, was posted to the stores. In December of that year he complained to his commanding officer about the state of the book-keeping and the state of the stores themselves. As the hon. Member has said, he asked for a board of officers to be appointed to look into this matter.
  The commanding officer refused this request. He did so on two grounds: first, that a board of officers had checked the stores in February when he himself had taken over command; and, secondly, that there had been a second check by the Command Secretariat in August. These seemed to the commanding officer reasonable grounds for refusing the
  818
  request. At the same time, he was impressed by the staff sergeant's criticisms of the book-keeping difficulties and irregularities and he accordingly appointed another staff sergeant to help Gribbin with the clerical work.
  Staff Sergeant Gribbin was not satisfied with this solution and when, in February, the Director of Medical Services, Middle East, visited Tripoli, he made strong representations to him. He also took advantage of the visit of the Director-General of Medical Services a little later to renew his representations. As a result of these representations, which impressed the two officers concerned, a board of officers, for which Staff Sergeant Gribbin had asked, was convened, and with it a special investigations branch component. Therefore, it was not only the officers of the hospital who formed the board for which Staff Sergeant Gribbin had himself asked.
  I outlined in answers to Questions by the hon. Member the other day the conclusions of the board. Broadly speaking, they showed that there had been irregularities on the bookkeeping side. These, in fact, boiled down, after investigation, to a deficiency of £12 and a surplus of £250 worth of stores, that is to say, £12 worth of stores were missing and £250 worth of unrecorded stores were in stock. There was no evidence whatsoever of dishonest practice. But there was evidence of incompetence in bookkeeping.
  Where the disposals of stores were concerned, the board was satisfied with what it discovered. The burial of time-expired stores—the hon. Member may be surprised at my using that phrase—arose because drugs, as the hon. Member may have noticed from the dates on bottles on chemists' shelves, lose their potency after a certain time. As to the operating tables, it has been difficult to reach a conclusion. The best evidence is that they were left out in the open after they had become unserviceable. Staff Sergeant Gribbin himself, in his representations to the Special Investigation Branch, said he did not know when they had first been put out in the open.
  There clearly was bad bookkeeping, and this showed a certain inefficiency. On the other hand, the discrepancies were relatively small, only £12 down, and £250 to the good. The hon.

  819
  Member will also remember that this was the time when the garrison in Libya was being run down. Certain medical stores from different parts of Libya had, therefore, been accumulating in the hospital in Tripoli. The local commander came to the conclusion that there was no need here for disciplinary action. There was no serious reflection on the efficiency of the Royal Army Medical Corps. But steps were, of course, taken to make sure that this particular sort of inefficiency should not recur at the hospital.
  It is clear from the story I have told that Staff Sergeant Gribbin, as he then was, was right in making the representations he did to his commanding officer, the Director of Medical Services in the Middle East and the Director-General of Medical Services. He was doing his duty, and did a service to the Army, and we are grateful to him for that service. It is, moreover, an unpleasant duty to have to perform. It is never easy to have to criticise the actions of one's superiors in any organisation.
  The question now arises, and here I come to the second charge, whether Gribbin has been victimised on account of the representations he made. It is extremely difficult to discuss cases of this kind, when one has only paper evidence to go on and does not know all the personalities oneself. But I have looked carefully at Gribbin's qualifications reports over the years. The picture I form of him is that of a man of considerable ability, a man of very strong convictions, a man who resents infringement of what he conceives to be his rights or privileges, and, therefore, a man not always popular with his superiors—a man who is, perhaps, not very self-controlled, not always very disciplined, who has, in the course of his military career, once or twice, and perhaps more than that, got into trouble before.
  Let me then, against this background, deal with the particular occurrences which have given rise to the charge of victimisation. The first is disrating. What happened? On 28th February, Gribbin was helping the board of officers which was investigating the representations which he had made. Although, as the hon. Member knows, he had already been posted away from the hospital, he continued, in practice, to work at the hospital and to
  820
  help the board in its duties. He was, it appears, too drunk after lunch on this day to be able to help the board of officers. He was accordingly summoned next day before his commanding officer and was summarily disrated.
  The decision seemed to the commanding officer to be in order, and he had some grounds for thinking this. The year before, in February, 1957, Gribbin had been warned by the Assistant Director of Medical Services in Libya that if he was again found in a condition in which drink prevented him from fulfilling his duties he would be summarily disrated. The regulations say that a man can be disrated for, and I quote, "lack of diligence". It certainly could be represented that to be so incapacitated as to be unable to fulfil one's duty was lack of diligence.
  Mr. Simmons: He was too diligent.
  Mr. Amery: The commanding officer had a case for thinking that disrating was the appropriate punishment. But when we received representations about the case at the War Office we thought that disrating was not the proper punishment for this. It was a disciplinary offence, not a trade or technical one, and so should have been dealt with as a disciplinary offence. This might have meant a severe reprimand or a forfeiture of rank, but not disrating. We therefore quashed the decision. So far from there having been victimisation, Staff Sergeant Gribbin, got off scot free on what was quite a serious offence for an n.c.o. of his seniority.
  I come now to the question of loss of rank. This occurred a month after the disrating, again in the hospital. At 11.30 on the evening of 27th March the orderly medical officer called for a special thermometer. He called for it for a patient who was dangerously ill. He sent one of his soldiers to Staff Sergeant Gribbin, who referred the medical officer to the written order to which the hon. Member has drawn attention. This said that the stores would not be opened after a certain hour, and that they certainly would be closed before 11.30 p.m.
  The medical officer went personally to Sergeant Gribbin, who was supervising a social function at the time in the hospital. He made strong representations to Sergeant Gribbin, explaining that this

  821
  was an urgent case of a man dangerously ill. Staff Sergeant Gribbin not only lied about the whereabouts of the keys to the stores—according to the court-martial—but used what was held to be insubordinate language.
  I do not want to repeat it in the House, but I will do to the hon. Member afterwards. It certainly was not to Sergeant Gribbin's credit. He was accordingly punished by reduction in rank. There was no trap here at all. To obstruct an officer in a case in which a patient is dangerously ill is not the kind of attitude for an n.c.o. to take. To use rough language was to lay himself open, not unnaturally, to a court-martial charge. I am not prepared to say that in these circumstances the punishment was excessive.
  I hope that what I have said shows two things. First, there is no serious reflection on the efficiency of the Royal Army Medical Corps. The bookkeeping irregularities to which I have drawn attention were the kind of thing which can happen very easily in any organisation. Secondly, there was no victimisation of Sergeant Gribbin. I do not think, therefore, that there is a case for a civilian inquiry.
  Out of all this, however, I hope two things will come, a still higher standard in the Medical Corps and the assurance
  822
  that Sergeant Gribbin will get a square deal in the time that lies ahead of him in a new job.
  10.29 p.m.
  Mr. James Griffiths: I was present when this question was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) and have listened to what he said and to the Minister's reply. In fairness to this man and to everybody concerned I do not think that this matter should be left in this way. I ask the Under-Secretary seriously to consider whether the interests of the Army, of everyone, would not be best served by holding the kind of inquiry for which my hon. Friend has asked. A case of this kind can have an effect on the Army, especially on recruiting.
  The Minister will know that when he dealt with this case at Question Time there was deep concern among Members on both sides of the House about it. It smelt of victimisation. In those circumstances, I hope that the Under-Secretary will reconsider the matter and see whether an inquiry can be held.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Robberies with Violence
  Robberies with Violence
  Fireworks
  Fireworks
  Shops and Offices
  Shops and Offices
  Children's Home, Limpsfield (Fire)
  Children's Home, Limpsfield (Fire)
  Air-guns
  Air-guns
COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS
  United Kingdom Emigrants (Assistance)
  United Kingdom Emigrants (Assistance)
  British Nationals (Migration)
  British Nationals (Migration)
HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES
  Under-Secretary of State (Visit)
  Under-Secretary of State (Visit)
SWAZILAND
  Co-operatives
  Co-operatives
EDUCATION
  School Dentists
  School Dentists
  Direct Grant Schools (Travelling Expenses and Fees)
  Direct Grant Schools (Travelling Expenses and Fees)
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Secondary Modern Schools (G.C.E. Courses)
  Secondary Modern Schools (G.C.E. Courses)
  Youth Service
  Youth Service
  Select Committee of Estimates (Reports)
  Select Committee of Estimates (Reports)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  New Industries, Immingham-Grimsby Reach
  New Industries, Immingham-Grimsby Reach
  Hire Purchase, Scotland
  Hire Purchase, Scotland
  Sulphate of Ammonia
  Sulphate of Ammonia
  Factories, Maesteg and Cymmer
  Factories, Maesteg and Cymmer
  Cotton Imports
  Cotton Imports
  Apples
  Apples
  Chemical Works, Glynllifon
  Chemical Works, Glynllifon
  Leather
  Leather
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Local Authorities (Loans)
  Local Authorities (Loans)
  Public Service Pensions
  Public Service Pensions
UGANDA
  Bunyoro Native Government
  Bunyoro Native Government
CYPRUS
  Prisoners, United Kingdom
  Prisoners, United Kingdom
  Nicosia General Hospital (Escapes)
  Nicosia General Hospital (Escapes)
  "Viking" Patrols
  "Viking" Patrols
NORTHERN RHODESIA
  Trade Unionists (Restrictions)
  Trade Unionists (Restrictions)
MAURITIUS
  Electoral Cards
  Electoral Cards
HONG KONG
  Textile Firms (Taxation)
  Textile Firms (Taxation)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Farm Improvement Schemes
  Farm Improvement Schemes
  Fertilisers
  Fertilisers
  Forestry Policy
  Forestry Policy
  Flooding, Lincolnshire
  Flooding, Lincolnshire
  IRAQ
  IRAQ
  MR. DULLES (CONVERSATIONS)
  MR. DULLES (CONVERSATIONS)
  MIDDLE EAST (BRITISH TROOPS)
  MIDDLE EAST (BRITISH TROOPS)
  ICELANDIC FISHERY LIMITS (DECLARATION OF POLICY)
  ICELANDIC FISHERY LIMITS (DECLARATION OF POLICY)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Middle East (Expenditure)
  Middle East (Expenditure)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Dentists (Recruitment)
  Dentists (Recruitment)
HOSPITALS
  Broadmoor Institution (Report)
  Broadmoor Institution (Report)
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
NATIONAL SERVICE
  Call-up
  Call-up
EMPLOYMENT
  Plymouth and Devonport (Exchanges)
  Plymouth and Devonport (Exchanges)
TRANSPORT
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Constructional Contracts
  Constructional Contracts
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
  BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  TEES VALLEY AND CLEVELAND WATER BILL
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  SERVICE MEN'S WIVES' VOTES
  3.7 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: 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 what proportion of the wives of personnel of the Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force respectively, living with their husbands abroad, are registered as Service voters.]
  THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, about 40 per cent. of the wives of members of the Army and Royal Air Force living with their husbands abroad are registered as Service voters. In the case of the Royal Navy, the proportion of the wives living overseas who have registered is not readily available. The regulations of the three Services provide proper facilities for registration. Wives going abroad are given a declaration form to enable them to register as a Service voter, and the form explains what they must do.
  It would, I think, be difficult for us to do much more than this. If, however, the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, has any particular case in mind in which there has been difficulty, I should be glad if he would let me know in order that I may investigate it.
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord, though,
  168
  without any great enthusiam, for the reply he has given, I must ask him whether Her Majesty's Government are satisfied with the situation disclosed, whereby 60 per cent. of those wives are without their vote.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask one further question? In the case of wives abroad who are under age, are there any facilities for them to acquire voting rights when they are abroad, or must they come home first?
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I think the difficulty here is that you can take a declaration form to a Service wife, but you cannot make her sign it. As to the Service wives who are under age, I believe that arrangements are made for the necessary forms to be given to them when they come of age. I should like to confirm that, if I may, and tell the noble Lord whether I am right or wrong.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, at what stage is this official form sent to the wife before she proceeds overseas? May I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that the wife will be presented with a document containing at least three pages of close print of a technical character? Would the noble Lord not agree that it is highly possible that the wife may not understand what she is required to do and, therefore, may not fill in the form? Would the noble Lord ask the Minister whether some greater assistance could be given to the wives prior to embarkation to fill in these forms?
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords a Service declaration form is sent, with other documents, to every Service man's wife when she is about to proceed overseas to join her husband. I know that in many cases commanding officers make it their duty to explain to Service wives what the form involves and what their rights, and possibly their obligations, are. It may be that that explanation is not sufficiently widespread, and not in sufficiently simple terms. I will look into that point, and if there is any improvement that can possibly be made in that respect I will see whether it can be done.
  LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, can the noble Lord say how many of the 60 per cent. unregistered wives are, in fact, under twenty-one?
  LORD MANCROFT: No, my Lords.
  THE EARL, or LUCAN: My Lords, would the Minister say whether there is any reason why units should not be required to make an annual check of wives serving under their command overseas and render a certificate as to the numbers who have registered? That is done in the case of men serving overseas. Why should it not also be done in the case of the wives, because it would give them a second chance of obtaining their vote?
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am not quite certain that I understand what sort of check the noble Earl wants made. An inquiry is made, because it is upon the results of that inquiry that the figures I have given the noble Lord are based. Whether that inquiry is sufficiently far-reaching I should have to find out. I think we must be careful here. The liberty of the subject is slightly involved. If the Service wives do not wish to register, I do not think we can go a long way out of our way to make them register. If a Service wife misunderstands what she has to do, and would like to register but has not done so, that is a different matter.
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, the noble Lord has given no evidence that it is because of unwillingness to register that there is this large total of non-voters. Would he not agree that it is the responsibility of the Service Departments to ensure that the right given to soldiers' wives by Parliament is not taken away from them?
  LORD MANCROFT: Yes, I would cordially agree with that. As I have told the noble Earl, so far as I know most commanding officers of units go out of their way to see that the right to vote in this way is brought to the notice of Service wives. I do not think the large percentage—I must confess a surprisingly large percentage—of the number of people who do not register is due in any way to negligence on the part of commanding officers. What it is due to, I should not like to guess.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, is it not important for all Parties represented in the country to try to get the maximum possible vote in an Election, and for those votes to include, so far as possible, all those in the Services who want to vote?
  170
  I am disturbed to hear that the noble Lord is not able to give comparative figures for the Royal Navy as in the case of the other Services. I do not understand why that should be so. Could we be assured that the noble Lord will obtain the same kind of information for us in respect of the Navy as he has for the other Services?
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the reason why the Royal Navy is unable to provide figures is that there is no central machinery for keeping a record of forms forwarded; nor have the naval authorities been instructed to make returns on this subject. Why they are not instructed to make these returns available is perhaps something which the noble Viscount, as an ex-First Lord, would know better than I.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am quite sure that while I was there we did all we could to see that they had the facilities. Since the matter has been raised by some people who think that they have not had the full facilities, I think some step should be taken to get information from overseas naval stations.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the noble Viscount will remember that it is much more difficult to collect this information from the Navy than from the other two Services. At a rough guess, I should imagine that the proportion is roughly the same. If the noble Viscount would like that information gathered, I will see if that can be done.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Yes, please.

  FORESTRY POLICY
  EARL DE LA WARR: 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 if they are in a position to make a statement on forestry policy.]
  THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD STRATHCLYDE): My Lords, with the permission of the House I propose to make a statement on forestry policy shortly after half

  171
  past three. Accordingly, I should be obliged if the noble Earl would await that statement.

  MEDICAL ACT, 1956 (AMENDMENT) BILL
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
  Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 21), Bill read 3a, and passed.

  SLAUGHTERHOUSES BILL
  3.13 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I recognise that this measure does not receive the full approval of the noble Lords who sit opposite, but I hope they will agree that it takes us an important stage on in legislation dealing with this highly important subject. During the Second Reading and in Committee certain criticisms were made of the Bill. We have tried to deal with them fairly and conscientiously. One question was whether lairages were part of a slaughterhouse for the purposes of the Factories Acts. Fortunately, on this matter we have been able to get an Amendment agreed to by both sides. In addition a few drafting and clarifying Amendments have been accepted.
  The noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, also expressed anxiety lest the introduction of the freedom period would adversely affect the hygienic production of meat. We understand but, frankly, do not share the noble Lord's anxiety. Considerable changes are taking place in the meat industry, and there is a role that can now be filled by the modern larger type of slaughterhouse. We believe that this period of freedom will make it easier for traders to provide, subject to planning permission being obtained, new and better slaughterhouses in the districts which best suit the needs of their individual businesses.
  This does not mean that smaller slaughterhouses cannot be satisfactory or that they will not continue to exist. On the contrary, we think that they can and
  172
  will continue to serve a useful function, particularly in the less densely populated areas. But we recognise that there are older slaughterhouses which cannot readily or economically be made to conform with the new standards which are to be introduced. They will be replaced by new premises, often on new and more suitable sites. It is in assisting this transition from the old to the new that the freedom period will play a useful part. We believe that some of the older less satisfactory slaughterhouses will be replaced by a smaller number of new premises which will conform at once to the new standards. We are also convinced that the new standards will considerably help local authorities in their task of safeguarding the public health, and will result in more satisfactory conditions at slaughterhouses for meat inspection. We have not forgotten those local authorities who have provided public slaughterhouses. They will still, with the Minister's approval, be able to restrict the use of private slaughterhouses in their districts, but only so long as, broadly speaking, they maintain public facilities which are fully adequate for the needs of traders.
  We believe that under the provisions of the Bill we shall go forward towards the aim that is shared by all of us: to the slaughter of stock in humane conditions, to the improvement in the standards of hygiene in the production of meat, and to the provision of satisfactory conditions for the workers employed in slaughterhouses. We think that this Bill will enable these aims to be achieved by a process of steady development and without the need for an arbitrary limit on the number of slaughterhouses or the central planning of their location. This Bill is designed to help the meat industry forward in ways that are suitable to the industry's present-day requirements. It is in that spirit that I commend the Bill to the House for Third Reading. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
  3.17 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should not have wished to trouble your Lordships to-day on this Bill but for the fact that my noble friend Lord Faringdon has had to go to a business appointment abroad, and

  173
  at the present time should be in South America. I do not know whether he will be able to see slaughterhouse facilities there. I should like to say a word of thanks to him personally for the work he put in on this Bill.
  I am bound to say that whilst, of course, we have no objection to the points here and there in the Bill which perhaps justify the noble Earl in saying that it is part of the process of progress in slaughterhouse facilities, we are exceedingly disappointed with the Bill as a whole in relation to its provisions. We have some doubts what attitude certain types of administration will adopt in respect of a local authority area in which a good slaughterhouse facility has already been provided, and its continuance in that respect may be subject to the approval of the Ministry, although I am quite sure that a local authority which has had experience of providing modern up-to-date public service to the community in a municipal slaughterhouse would not be so unwise as not to enlarge it or develop it in a way that would meet the increasing demands of an increasing population. I wonder why these words have been included in the Statute. However we shall have to wait and see how that works out.
  Of course, it is exceedingly disappointing find that all the work that was put in, both here and in the other place, to try to get the Government to deal with the question of slaughterhouses attached to private dwelling-houses has not had better success. In these days it seems to me almost unthinkable that we should contemplate having a slaughterhouse attached to a dwelling-house. Of course, all the references in the Bill to the exact position of the slaughterhouse within the particular curtilage, as to whether it is going to be approved or not, mean that what happens will depend almost entirely on the attitude of the particular local authority, on whatever spirit they have, whether progressive or reactionary. In the light of our known experience in times of emergency, when, owing to the circumstances of the emergency, we had to close compulsorily large numbers of slaughterhouses of the smaller kind (we had to close some of them which were not inefficient; that I recognise), it seems to me that there is no doubt at all that the concentration of the distribution of the slaughtered meat from the control points
  174
  set up was very useful indeed. What is more, it meant that it was far easier, with the limited staff available, from the point of view of meat inspection as a whole, to have the meat properly inspected.
  I was very concerned on the Report stage to have the figures given by the noble Earl, which showed that by no means all the meat concerned was certain to be inspected. I might reiterate what my noble friend Lord Faringdon said upon the Report stage: that there was no proof at all that there was a double check, something which is very desirable if it can be obtained, so that there is proper inspection, from the human consumption point of view, of animals both on the hoof and in the carcase. That is not provided for in the Bill in any way.
  I could quite easily go on and speak about other details of the Bill, but there are other matters to come before your Lordships' House, and I know that at this stage I can do nothing to amend the Bill. But I should be quite false to our principles if I did not express disappointment that, with a Bill which purports to make considerable progress in this matter, we should have so little achievement of the progressive desires that we have set for procedure in this particular sphere of public service. Whatever Government may be in office in the near future, in the next year or two, I hope that they will pay some attention to the need for developing a widespread public service of slaughterhouses, or equally good slaughterhouses, which may be provided not by small individual businesses so difficult to cover by inspection, but by collective slaughterhouses, by co-operative or farmers' or producers' undertakings, so that they can fit into the whole scheme of things. I, am sorry that we have not been able to obtain more concessions from the Government.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, so far as I have been able to inform myself about the slaughterhouse business, it seems to me that the high standards of British slaughterhouses have been achieved and set by quite small slaughterhouses, run by special suppliers supplying selected customers who run catering businesses and who cater for holidaymakers and visitors from abroad. Moreover, these small slaughterhouses are far easier to inspect efficiently than the large municipal slaughterhouses, and the inspectors

  175
  find it much easier to insist on a high standard. I should be very sorry if there is any hostility by noble Lords opposite to the smaller slaughterhouses as such, and I therefore feel that I ought to put in a word at this stage to that effect.
  On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  STATE OF SINGAPORE BILL
  3.24 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, I have it in Command from Her Majesty The Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty places Her prerogative and interest, so far as concern the matters dealt with by the State of Singapore Bill, at the disposal of Parliament.
  This Bill is an enabling Bill; that is to say it gives Parliamentary sanction to an Order in Council to provide for the establishment of the State of Singapore and for the peace, order and good government thereof. Before touching on these matters it is the custom—and I think a very good custom—to go back into history and briefly survey progress since the time when the territory became a British responsibility.
  For Singapore we have to go back 140 years. To be precise, on February 6, 1819, Raffles, who was then Lieutenant Governor of Bencoolen, in Sumatra, signed a treaty with the Sultan of Johore Lingga and with the Malay Governor of the island, which provided for the building of a British factory in Singapore. At the time it was a petty fishing village, its early history as a strong fort and city in the 13th and 14th centuries having given place to complete decay. Wa Hakim, a fifteen-year old Malay who saw Raffles land on Singapore Island, wrote later:
  " At the time when Tuan Raffles came here there were under 100 small houses and huts at the mouth of the river."
  The population at that time of a mere 150 became 10,000 within five years. By the end of the century it was 200,000;
  176
  now it is over 1½ million—Singapore is about the size of the Isle of Wight. Of the people of Singapore, the great majority, about 85 per cent., are of the Chinese race.
  The reason for the astonishing growth of Singapore lies in the fact that it is a free port, strategically placed to serve the Far East. The proof of this is the volume of trade to-day, which is nearly 6,000 million Straits dollars or, in sterling,£700 million. Of course, Singapore owes a great debt to its industrious and skilful citizens. Of its individuals, apart from Raffles, who laid its foundations so brilliantly and so imaginatively, whether for town planning or education or good government. I would mention only Mr. Ridley. Many of your Lordships will remember that he fathered the rubber industry which has revolutionised the world, a revolution which he lived to see, for he died, aged 101, only two years ago. The Straits Settlements, of which Singapore was a part, became a Crown Colony ninety years ago. After the First World War Singapore became a first-class naval base. Since then there has been its conquest by the Japanese, and its liberation in 1945. These things are too well remembered to need mention in detail now. But I would remark how brave and loyal were many of its citizens during the occupation and how fabulous has been its reconstruction and development since then.
  So much for the "bare bones" of Singapore's history. Let me now turn to the constitutional side, with which we are to-day particularly concerned. In 1946, on its detachment from the Straits Settlements, Singapore became a separate Colony and a Constitution was granted which introduced elected members into the Legislative Council and a few years later, into the Executive Council. In 1953 a mission was sent out, under Sir George Rendel, to advise on further constitutional development. The sequel in 1955 was a Legislative Assembly larger than in earlier Constitutions, which was in greater part elected by universal adult suffrage. There was a Council of Ministers, of which the majority were drawn from elected members of the Legislative Assembly, one being the Chief Minister.
  Broadly speaking, the democratic form of this Constitution is not to be changed under the proposed new Constitution,

  177
  except in the important respect that the powers of the Singapore Government will be greater, and those of the United Kingdom less. Singapore will be responsible for all internal matters, and the United Kingdom for defence and foreign affairs, though even here it may delegate some of its powers. In taking on this responsibility the Singapore Government has willingly worked out with us several important steps to ensure peace, order and good government. The Judiciary and the Public Service are to be independent, and that will be stated in the Constitution. It is clearly of great importance that expatriate officers are encouraged to stay until Malayanisation is possible. A plan has been worked out to compensate them for loss of career at that time. This plan has been made effective in the Retirement from the Public Service (Compensation) Ordinance, 1956, which, together with the Public Service Commission Ordinance of the same year, came into effect on January 1, 1957. In order to ensure that these assurances are binding on future Singapore Governments, those concerned have readily agreed to their being enshrined in the Constitution Order in Council.
  I have talked about those concerned, and of course I have particularly in mind the delegations led by my friend, Mr. Lim Yew Hock, last year and this. I should like here to pay my tribute to him and to all the other members, whether of their Government or of their Opposition. I have had the happy experience of taking part in constitutional talks with these delegates, and while, naturally, there has been some straight talking, questioning and worrying-out of answers to difficult mutual problems, the meetings were always constructive and were based on trust. Those words, "based on trust", hold the key to what is by far the most important issue which these conferences had to face and to settle. That is, how best to reconcile the wish of the people of Singapore to have self government with the essential need of Her Majesty's Government to retain adequate rights to ensure the defence of Singapore and have the use of it as a base in troublesome times.
  The solution which was threshed out is along the following lines. Singapore is to have virtual self-government in home affairs, including internal security, while Her Majesty's Government will control
  178
  defence and foreign affairs. Clearly, in these two fields there may be quite a measure of overlap, and in recognition of this inter-relationship between internal security and defence and external affairs an Internal Security Council is to be set up. Its composition will be equal numbers for Singapore and the United Kingdom and one member of the Federation of Malaya. This Council will be able, if need arise—though I hope, and expect, that this will be very rare—to settle by majority vote decisions on internal security matters; and those will be binding on the Singapore Government. It may well be that there will be honest differences of opinion between ourselves and Singapore as to whether a particular question is defence (or external affairs) or an internal matter, and if such should arise the Internal Security Council will have the competence to decide where the matter lies.
  The rôle of the Federation of Malaya in this Council is clearly a most responsible one, and we and Singapore are under a very real obligation to the Federation, and particularly to the Government of Tunku Abdul Rahman, for helping us to an agreement on what is a central feature of the new Constitution. But again I would stress that the solution is based on trust and on the belief that the democratic way of life is best, and that we and the citizens of Singapore share and will continue to share this belief. On our part it has needed some pretty severe heart-searching to reach this conclusion. The majority of the citizens of Singapore are, as I have said Chinese, and naturally some of them still feel the attraction of China. But we believe in these citizens and we believe that giving them liberty to tackle on their own, their own affairs is the best way to ensure that they will act responsibly and fairly and will succeed in defending their way of life against the Communist threat.
  To all this we have made only one qualification on which I must now touch, as it is the only issue on which we and Singapore have differed. Her Majesty's Government have insisted that persons in detention known to have engaged in subversive activity shall not be eligible I to stand for election to the first Legislative Assembly under the new Constitution. We are determined that the

  179
  new Constitution shall get off to a fair start and not be jeopardised by the interference of those who we know have in their mind the overthrow of the Constitution and the way of life of free peoples.
  Before leaving the field of Constitution I should perhaps also mention that it always remains open to Her Majesty's Government to suspend the Constitution, but this is a last resort not easily to be contemplated, for it would be a confession of failure to work together and the failure of our trust. I confidently hope, as I am sure we all do, that this failure will not occur. So much for the Constitution.
  There are just two further matters which I should mention. One of these is citizenship. The people of Singapore are to have their own Commonwealth citizenship. The other point is the change of name to the State of Singapore. This change shows to all the world that Singapore is far on the road to self-government. And should there come a day when she and her close neighbour, the Federation of Malaya, wish to join together in one nation, that is a step which we would gladly consider.
  The Bill itself is necessary as it involves the surrender of some of the powers at present conferred on Her Majesty by Act of Parliament, and the amendment of other Acts of Parliament. It has only one main clause, in which there are four subsections. Subsection (1) enables Her Majesty to set up a new Constitution—whose main features I have outlined—by Order in Council, and provides that Singapore shall become the State of Singapore. Furthermore Singapore citizens shall be recognised as British subjects and Commonwealth citizens. Subsection (2) provides for the surrender of Her Majesty's powers to make Orders in Council under certain existing Acts. Subsection (3) lays down that the Order in Council for the Constitution may be revoked or amended only as detailed in the Constitution. Subsection (4) enables consequential and transitional provisions to be made by Order in Council.
  So we come to Clause 2 and the Short Title of the Act "The State of Singapore Act, 1958". But I prefer, my Lords, the Long Title which is to "Provide for the Establishment of the State of Singa-
  180
  pore and for the peace, order and good government thereof ". My belief and hope is that what has been worked out will help achieve just this purpose. I am encouraged in believing this by what I have seen of Singapore and its people, and I know I echo all your wishes in wishing them well. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Perth.)

  FORESTRY
  3.40 p.m.
  THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE, (LORD STRATHCLYDE): My Lords, may I, with the permission of the House, make a statement on forestry similar to that which is now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?
  In accordance with the statement which was made in your Lordships' House in October, 1957, the Government have carried out a review of forestry policy. In the light of current conditions—strategic, economic, agricultural and social—they have reached the following conclusions. The planting programmes of the Forestry Commission should be fixed for periods of ten years at a time. For the five-year period 1959 to 1963 the programme will be about 300,000 acres which allows for some increase over the present annual rate of planting. For the period 1964 to 1968 the planting programme will be reduced to about 235,000 acres, when the Forestry Commission's existing plantations will begin to come into full production.
  The size of the subsequent programmes should be reviewed in five years' time in the light of the national needs. In deciding where planting shall take place special attention will be paid to the upland areas, particularly in Scotland and Wales, where expansion of forestry would provide needed diversification of employment and important social benefits.
  So far as private forestry is concerned, the Government propose to continue their support to private woodland owners, particularly through the dedication scheme. The present maintenance grant of 5s, 6d. per acre will be replaced by a management grant of 18s, Od. per acre on the

  181
  first 100 acres, 12s. 0d. per acre on the next 100 acres and 7s. 0d. per acre on the remainder. This will substantially increase the value of the grants, particularly on the smaller woodlands. Secondly, the planting grant will be continued; but for approved woodlands it will be raised from one-half to the full rate per acre. These increased grants are contingent on the formation of an effective Woodland Owners' Association as recommended by the Watson Committee. Thirdly, the grants for thinning and poplar planting will be terminated.
  The new structure of grants will be reviewed in five years' time. In reviewing in future years the level of grants, consideration will be given not only to trends in costs but also to trends in receipts for private woodlands as a whole. As production from private woods taken as a whole—and thus the income of private owners as a body—rises, the level of assistance needed by way of planting and management grants will fall. Eventually—in, say, twenty or thirty years' time—it should become nominal.
  The system of felling licences will be continued. In present circumstances it does not seem necessary to continue to fix a quota for the total annual felling, but the licensing system will be continued though with some relaxations. A statutory instrument will be made so that fellings in dedicated woodlands will no longer require a licence. In addition, licences will in general be freely granted for other fellings, subject to the existing arrangements for consultation with planning authorities. In order, however, to provide against the undesirable exploitation of woodland areas the licences will normally have a condition attached requiring restocking. And licences for thinning or selective felling will not be granted where they would in effect permit exploitation without restocking.
  The Government recognise the importance to the forestry industry of an efficient home-grown timber trade. They believe that the measures now announced will be welcomed by the trade as well as by woodland owners, and will help both to plan ahead with confidence.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, we are much obliged to the noble Lord for his statement. He must not expect, if he is riot subjected to detailed questions on it at this stage, that that is an indication
  182
  either of approval or of disapproval of what he has said. But I should like to ask him whether he can give any estimate as to what this is going to cost, if anything, over and above what we are spending at the present time on forestry?
  LORD REA: My Lords, may I supplement the noble Lord's question by asking whether it would not be better in such cases that Parliament should have some opportunity of considering such a widespread increase in the present scheme? I congratulate the Government on what appears to be a great improvement in forestry arrangements, but it is a very wide scheme. I agree that the Forestry Commission exist to do this sort of thing, but it affects a large number of owners, and I should have thought that Parliament would have welcomed an opportunity to consider this scheme before it is put into effect.
  LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, the amended grant and increase in planting grant to approved woodland owners will cost about£180,000 a year; the thinning grant, now being abolished, about£50,000 in 1957.
  LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, may I ask two questions arising out of the full statement which the noble Lord has given to your Lordships' House? The first is: is it envisaged in this new programme to reach the figure of 5 million acres contemplated as being under forestry by the end of this century? That has been the target of Her Majesty's Government. The second question is with reference to paying special attention to upland areas in Scotland and Wales. Is it proposed to proceed by compulsory purchase in this direction or to continue by negotiated acquisition of land?
  LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, in reply to the first question of the noble Lord, I think that to try to set targets so far ahead as 2000 A.D. is not realistic.
  LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, it is only about forty years ahead.
  LORD STRATHCLYDE: It is much more sensible, I should have thought, to review the whole position, as now proposed, at ten-yearly intervals. The proposals so far as woodland owners are concerned are to encourage satisfactory forestry development. In reply to the

  183
  noble Lord's second question, I should hope that compulsion would not be necessary.
  EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, referred to the considerable increase in the scope of assistance to forestry. For the purpose of accuracy, may I say that I think I am right in assuming from the noble Lord's reply that in fact it represents a reduction in the overall planting programme as anticipated. I would ask two further questions of the noble Lord. The first is: could we have assurances from the Government that the basis for holding the new type of review to which he has referred will be fully discussed and agreed with woodland owners; and, secondly, that when the time comes for holding the periodical review woodland owners will be afforded the opportunity of full discussion and participation in any discussions that there are? Also, I wonder whether the noble Lord could tell us whether this is the Government's final word in deciding to abolish the thinning and scrub clearance grants—I think it is only the thinning grant. Is that so?
  LORD STRATHCLYDE: The scrub clearance grant remains.
  EARL DE LA WARR: I am glad to hear that. I thank the noble Lord.
  THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the Government are aware that it takes anything from 70 to 150 years before a tree is mature, and that the trees being planted now will not be half mature in the year 2000. Is he aware that it is a little difficult to carry out a long-term national forestry policy if Governments change their mind every five years, as was general between the wars? And could my noble friend say whether the Government are still of the opinion that homegrown timber is necessary to Great Britain on strategic and on economic grounds, as every Government always thinks during and for a few years after every national emergency; or whether the Government now feels that home grown timber is of little strategic or economic importance, as every Government is apt to think about ten years after the end of an emergency and to go on thinking until the next emergency comes along, by which time even the trees planted
  184
  before the last emergency but three are not yet ready to be cut?
  LORD STRATHCLYDE: In answer to the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, the Forestry Commission will consult with the woodland owners. I realise the difficulties to which the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, refers, but I said that the review was to be at ten-yearly intervals, and I would inform him that, in relation to strategic needs, it would be rather a bold person who would care to prophesy as to the course of any future war. In regard to economic grounds, the Government realise the importance of homegrown timber to the balance of payments. The value of imports of timber and timber products amounted to over£300 million last year.
  THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The value of home-grown timber will be immeasurably greater when the Forestry Commission's woods come into full production.
  THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: Would the noble Lord be good enough to tell us what action, if any, is going to be taken by the Government in regard to the recommendations made in the Report of the Hedgerow, Farm and Timber Committee presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, which was submitted some two years ago, remembering particularly how very much hedgerow and farm timber is now being felled to the general detriment of the countryside, and also what a very large proportion of the country's total volume of timber is represented in the hedgerows?
  LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, we do not propose to go further than I have indicated in the statement that I have just made.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I ask a question touching on the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee? The noble Lord has told us that the grants are to be for five-year periods. Are the Forestry Commission satisfied that this five-year period is a sufficient length of time before dropping the grants for the second period?
  LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, the Forestry Commission have been consulted, and agree with the statement that I have made.
  EARL WINTERTON: Might I ask the Minister a question which he may feel

  185
  is rather a delicate one to answer? It arises out of the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Dundee, who drew attention to the fact that, of all industries, forestry is, so to speak, the most long-term one. In the past there have been a great many variations in policy. Has this policy been discussed in any way, formally or informally, with the Labour Opposition? Is there reason to believe that it can be adopted as a national policy?
  LORD STRATHCLYDE: I am not aware that any discussions of that nature have taken place.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: We might be very much in favour of such an arrangement. We should have to examine everything very carefully front the landlords' point of view.

  STATE OF SINGAPORE BILL
  3.55 p.m.
  Debate resumed.
  LORD OGMORE: My Lords, we on this side welcome the Bill and are grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for the care and detail with which he expounded it to us. The history of Singapore, at any rate in its recent development, goes back some 139 years, and almost overnight it grew from a sparse fishing settlement, first to a trading port and then to a political and economic centre wielding decisive influence over a vast area.
  The noble Earl did not mention in terms the long association between Singapore and Penang and Malacca, but this association was a happy one and a very close one. In the old days, Singapore used to refer to Malacca as "the sleepy hollow", and to Penang as "Palau Nanti Sekit", which means "The Isle of wait a little bit". They used to say that civil servants who went there became so fond of it that when promotion came up they said: "Wait a little bit: I will stay where I am." I cannot say here exactly what Penang and Malacca used to call Singapore, but perhaps the most polite terms were "brash" and "youthful". I think, however, that Sir Stamford Raffles' description of it was probably the most accurate when, in his prophetic way, he said that it would be
  186
  "a great commercial emporium and the fulcrum whence we may extend our influence politically, as circumstances may hereafter require."
  That was not a bad shot in the dark, in 1819, as to the future development of Singapore. It is also interesting to note that Raffles founded Singapore in the teeth not only of the East India. Company but also of the British Government at home; so it was, in fact, very much a personal decision on his part, and one from which not only we in this country but the world as a whole, have benefited very greatly as the years have gone by.
  The decision to cut off Singapore from its fellows, Penang and Malacca—and also, of course, from the mainland—was taken about 1943; at least, I first heard of it then: it may have been a little before that. At the same time, the Malayan Union was proposed of the rest of the peninsula of Malaya and Penang and Malacca, and a loose Federation of Malayan and Borneo territories, with a Governor General at the head of it. As the noble Earl has said, a great deal of water has flowed under the bridge at Johore Bahru since then; the Federation of Malaya is now an independent member of the Commonwealth, and the Governor General is no more. I feel that, in the long term, the destiny of Singapore must lie with the Federation and, possibly, in some loose connection between the Federation and the Borneo territories as well. I believe that the proposals in this Bill are wise. Some of them are not only wise but original, which is unusual. The Bill is one more example of the flexibility of the constitutional arrangements which it is possible to make in the British Commonwealth.
  The plan, as the noble Earl has described it, is in three parts. First of all, the self-government by the State in internal affairs; secondly, the exclusive responsibility of the United Kingdom for defence and foreign affairs; and, thirdly, internal security, which will be the responsibility of the Singapore Government but, because of its defence relationship, will involve the setting up of an Internal Security Council, consisting of three United Kingdom representatives, three Ministers from Singapore and (this is something very original) one Minister from the Federation of Malaya. The first and second of these, the internal

  187
  self-government and the responsibility of the United Kingdom for defence and foreign affairs, are common form. But the third part—that is to say, the Internal Security Council, on which not only Singapore and ourselves but also the Federation of Malaya are represented—is unorthodox and original, and I think has much to commend it. In the case of disagreement, presumably the Minister for the Federation will be in a decisive position. The Chairman has no casting vote, I understand, under the new order.
  The idea of the Head of State is also new and original, I think, and I commend it. He is to be called the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, which, roughly, means the "Head of State", and will be appointed by the Queen and will be Malayan-born—presumably of any race, provided that he has been born in the Federation or in Singapore. The representative of the United Kingdom will be a Commissioner appointed by the United Kingdom Government, who will have special concern with defence and foreign affairs.
  I think that our congratulations are due to the three Governments concerned. I would especially pick out, because they have had so much to do with it, Mr. Lennox-Boyd, Mr. Lim Yew Hock and my old friend Tunku Abdul Rahman. Tunku Abdul Rahman has only recently recovered from a serious illness and I hope that his health is improving. I should like to commiserate with him on the death of his brother, His Highness The Sultan of Kedah. It gives me great pleasure to congratulate Mr. Lennox-Boyd, because in regard to other parts of the Colonial Empire I have been, and still am, a somewhat sharp critic of his. But here in South East Asia he seems to have been able to flow with the prevailing tide: he has been able to fit himself into the mood of the moment in an extraordinarily happy way, and his touch has been just right all along during the last few years, as I have had every opportunity to observe. I suppose that no Secretary of State could have the temperament to fit in with all parts of the Colonial Empire, so varied are they; but so far as South East Asia is concerned Mr. Lennox-Boyd has certainly been very happy.
  The development of our relations with the peoples of India and Pakistan, South East Asia, the Far East, the Pacific and
  188
  Indian Oceans, West Africa, the West Indies and the Caribbean has on the whole been successful during the last few years, and we have had developments which have been a pattern to people everywhere. There is one problem that exercises me, however, to which I find it difficult to find an answer. Why is it that we have been able so successfully to come to terms with nationalism in all these parts of the world and yet have so signally failed to do so in the Middle East? This is not the time to investigate that problem, but I think that it deserves examination at some time.
  The background to this Bill is of armed conflict diminishing, but still not completely ended, on the mainland, much Communist influence in Singapore, a small island which, as the noble Earl has said, is the size of the Isle of Wight, with a population of 1½million, a volatile and inexperienced electorate and a standard of living which, for the East, is comparatively high. So there is a risk in what we are doing. But we live in a dangerous world and I, for my part, and my noble friends think that this risk is worthwhile.
  The only controversial question, as the noble Earl has said fairly, is the ban imposed by the United Kingdom Government, against the wishes of the Singapore Government, on the people known to have been engaged in subversive activities from standing for election to the first Assembly. I see the arguments for and against, but I think that it is a mistake to have this ban. If the people who have been engaged in subversive activities are so popular, then they will be elected at the second Election. If we are going to have trouble, we might as well have it now as defer it for a year or two. If they are not so popular, they will still have a powerful stick with which to beat the elected members, because they will say to the public, "If only we had been allowed to stand, these fellows would never have got in." So they will put the elected members in a difficult position. Here again there is a risk. But the whole thing is a risk; I think this is a risk worth taking, and that the Government would be wise to accede to Mr. Lim Yew Hock's request and allow those with qualifications to stand to do so.
  There are a few questions that I should like to ask the noble Earl—I have given

  189
  him notice of all but one, which occurred to me while he was speaking. First, what is to be the exact status of the State of Singapore within the Commonwealth? Is it to be in the same position as the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland? It will not be a fully independent member of the Commonwealth. Will the Head of State have the same access to the Sovereign as Governor-Generals elsewhere have? Will the United Kingdom representative be answerable to the Commonwealth Relations Office or to the Colonial Office? Who will look after the interests of United Kingdom citizens? Elsewhere I have found that when self-government is granted there is no one to look after the commercial and other interests of citizens from this country. When a State becomes fully independent, of course, this question does not arise, because the Commonwealth Relations Office appoints a High Commissioner and Commissioners, who are in fact Ambassador and Consuls; but where there is self-government without full independence there is no one in those positions and I think that that is a need which has to be filled.
  Then I would ask: When shall we see the two Orders in Council, the one constitutional and the other relating to the ban; and will they be laid before Parliament before we rise for the Summer Recess? From what the noble Lord has said—and this is the question of which I have not given him notice—I understand that the citizens of Singapore are to be British subjects and Commonwealth and Singapore citizens, and I assume that they will no longer be citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Finally, will the Government strongly advise the Government of Singapore, from experience in other parts of the world where this sort of development has occurred, not to be too hasty in getting rid of their expatriate advisers, technical and otherwise? Because until their own people are trained to take their place it is very expensive, and often unsatisfactory, to have to find substitutes for these expatriate officers. In conclusion, may I say that we on this side of the House wish the State of Singapore—the Lion City, as it is named—every success in 'her journey into time. May her future be one of peace, prosperity and happiness under God!
  4.10 p.m.
  LORD REA: My Lords, I cannot speak with anything like the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, who has made such peculiarly interesting remarks to-day on this Bill, for which we are greatly indebted to him; nor, indeed, can I know anything like as much about it as the noble Earl who introduced the Bill. However, like some Members of your Lordship's House I have had the pleasure and privilege of visiting this very pleasant island, and I wish, shortly, to add support to what the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has said, and to join in congratulating the Minister. I hope that this new State of Singapore will enjoy prosperity and be an example to that difficult area in South-East Asia where indeed a new State can make or mar the future of many other of its neighbours.
  4.11 p.m.
  LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, in rising to support the Second Reading of this Bill, I should like to add my congratulations to the general chorus of approval which has been given to the imaginative optimism which lies behind these proposals. The Secretary of State for the Colonies and Mr. Lim Yew Hock, deserve, I suggest, the warmest congratulation on these results of their negotiations. The State of Singapore will of course come into being with the warmest good will of everyone in this country. I do not propose to weary your Lordships with a detailed examination of the proposals for which this is the enabling Bill, but they will give the State of Singapore as great a measure of internal self-government as its international importance in the realm of trade, commerce and defence will reasonably permit. As has been said, the constitutional arrangements are unique; but so are the circumstances in which this little island of 217 square miles has grown to its present population and importance. If I may say so, in passing, I am glad of the assurances that have been given about protection of minorities, and especially the assurances given as to the protection of the interests of members of Her Majesty's Overseas Service.
  I also welcome the arrangement whereby a representative of the Government of the Federation of Malaya will be given a seat on the internal security Council. The interests of the Federation

  191
  of Malaya and the new State of Singapore are so interlocked that this evidence of willing co-operation between the two Governments is a good augury for the future. But perhaps your Lordships will pardon me if I take one look into the future. I do not propose to make any prophecies, because, as we all know, prophesy is the most gratuitous form of human error. But in looking at this new State of Singapore, I naturally see it in its Malayan background. From a background of anarchy, chaos and bankruptcy in 1874 there arose in Malaya the richest country in the world for its size, and Singapore, as its chief port, became in an incredibly short time the seventh seaport in the world. It was my good fortune to work in this area from 1908 to 1933, and to serve in all the eight Malay States, as well as for five years in Singapore and for four years as Governor of North Borneo. Naturally, I see Singapore in that setting. Many of the problems of today, political, social and economic, arise from the breathless pace of the development which has taken place. As the Director of the International Labour Office once said:
  " Having an adequate revenue at its disposal, the Government of Malaya has been able to develop health and education to a point attained nowhere else in the East."
  It is true that that development was temporarily suspended and harmed by two world wars, but, none the less, that is the background which the people of the Malayan Peninsula have known.
  The mainland Malay States grew rich in tin and rubber and a whole range of agricultural products, while Singapore achieved immense prosperity on the trade not only of Malaya but also of the rich islands to the south and east. Its chief tradition has been that of a free port. Its population, as has been said, was and still is 85 per cent. Chinese, and it had none of the dynastic Malay attachment to a feudal past. The Federation of Malaya is now busy in trying to forge a nation out of the main racial ingredients of Malays, Chinese and Indians, and it has still many vital problems to settle. Singapore, on the other hand, is a great international centre—oil, air traffic, industries, rubber milling, tin smelting, engineering and wood-working, foundries, vehicle and ship repairing, saw mills, furnishing, breweries, biscuit factories
  192
  and factories for other food products, tailoring, shoemaking, soap, rubber goods and rattan products, and a mass of modern industry.
  One of the questions which a not too remote future must answer is that of the artificial separation of the Federation of Malaya and this State of Singapore. To look at one aspect of it, the Federation will need in the future all the business ability and the wisdom and knowledge of the technique of administration, as well as of business, which the Chinese citizens of Singapore might well help to supply. The statesmanship of Tunku Abdul Rahman and his colleagues, Malay, Chinese and India, inspires hope of success in welding together a new nation, while the courage and sense of responsibility of Mr. Lim Yew Hock, the Chief Minister of Singapore, cannot but excite admiration and hope for the future.
  But think, my Lords, of one of the main problems ahead of both of these countries. The population rate of increase in the Federation of Malaya is 3 per cent. per annum, and that in Singapore is 3½per cent. per annum, probably the biggest increase anywhere in the world. Think what a major problem that involves in education alone, when one half of the population is under twenty-one years of age. The problem set for the future is immense, and once more the key to it is the way in which education is going to be handled in this new State of Singapore, as well as in the Federation.
  There will be two Malayan Governments sharing a single economy closely and inevitably unified by the interlocking of trade and finance. It needs an effective focus of thinking, I suggest, for the Malayan economy as a whole, a centre in which the Federation and Singapore can be brought together in relation to many issues of economic policy which go far beyond mere monetary questions. Incidentally, that is why the International Bank Mission advocated the early formation of a Central Bank in Malaya. I am looking at this matter from a slightly different angle from previous speakers, because the economic background of this country is going to affect so much of its future. A restricted national income and a fast

  193
  growing population constitute a challenge to the future Governments of Malaya, and many of their questions will have to be looked at jointly if they wish to be successful in facing them.
  As I have said, there are two Malay Governments sharing a single economy which is closely and inevitably unified by the interlocking of trade and finance. In a common central bank may be found the only effective focus of thinking for the Malayan economy as a whole, a centre in which the Federation and Singapore can be brought together in relation to the many issues of economic policy which, although they involve monetary questions, go far beyond them. A central bank could make a great contribution as a centre for economic study and thinking about the course of development and the problems of this economy as a whole, and as a source of advice and guidance to both Governments. It has also been recommended by the International Mission that a specialised credit institution to serve both the Federation and Singapore in providing medium and long-term capital for private industrial enterprise should be instituted.
  The Mission pungently pointed out—and I think we should remember this background—that in its pre-war days Malaya in many respects was rather a geographical region, where capital and labour belonging to other economies found it convenient to carry on certain specialised operations within the British monetary as well as political framework. That situation to-day is quite different. Although many of the pre-war economic fixtures remain, Malaya—taking the Federation and Singapore together, as is inevitable in this context—is now a distinct national economy, with its own settled labour force, a wide and growing area of monetary transactions and of local capital and enterprise and indigenous banking system, and its own evolving political organs which must cope with Malayan economic problems from a Malayan viewpoint, which often has not been the case in the past. Above all, Malaya will have to think of its future development, not in terms of outside merchant mining and plantation capital arriving on a large scale to develop the economic opportunities in Malaya, but primarily in the terms of making the best use of domestic savings for the development of natural resources
  194
  of a modern domestic industry. This task requires a new emphasis on domestic financial facilities and monetary conditions to help channel savings into effective investment and to promote a favourable internal climate for steady economic development.
  In conclusion, I should like to mention what has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and that is the suggestion that there might be a closer union between the territories of North Borneo, Sarawak, Brunei and Singapore, or the Federation of Malaya. I suggest that it is premature to consider any such movement to-day, and, in any case, it will be a matter for the people of those territories to decide in the future.
  LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I say that I entirely agree with the noble Lord? I did not suggest for one moment that anybody should advocate such a course now, or perhaps for some years to come. What I said was that I thought inevitably the destiny of Singapore would lie with the mainland, and possibly in a wider federation with the Borneo territories. I was not advocating that anything should be done about it at the moment, but in fifty years' time that may well be the case.
  LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, I have no wish to misrepresent the noble Lord. In that case we think alike. I was merely suggesting that that must be in the remote future, because those territories have so many problems of their own to settle before they could reach a condition in which closer union would be a desirable thing.
  It has not been mentioned in this debate, but I have seen it suggested that perhaps Port Swettenham may be developed as a rival to Singapore. I think anybody who knows port Swetenham would hesitate to place any faith in that likelihood, because the natural advantages of Singapore are so immeasurably superior. The future prosperity of Singapore would seem to be quite secure unless the old German dream of a canal through that narrow neck of Southern Siam, the Isthmus of Kra, which would join the Andaman Sea and Gulf of Siam, were in the future to be revived, in which case Singapore would be short-circuited as the route for sea traffic to the Far East. But that, of course, is part of what is at the moment

  195
  old history and an abandoned scheme. If one wants to look into the future one can always consider that sort of possibility. It was at one time, many years ago, a very live issue. That is all I wish to say, except to conclude by adding my own congratulations to those who have been responsible for the proposal for which this is the enabling Bill, and to wish it all success.
  4.28 p.m.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it could not have been any part of a wild dream of mine ten years ago practically to this day when I flew out to Singapore to start a business career, that I should have the honour of rising in your Lordships' House to support a Bill granting self-government to the Colony of Singapore. I went to Singapore without a friend. I can say truthfully that during that period I made more friends than I possibly could have made if I had remained in this country, for the people of Singapore and Malaya have big hearts; they are generous; they are hospitable, and in fact they are all that one could wish as a friend.
  It is a mere twelve months ago since your Lordships' House gave a warm welcome to a Bill granting independence to the Federation of Malaya. I think we can honestly say that our hopes for the Federation of Malaya have been realised, and that in spite of many difficulties that country has come through with flying colours. I should be less than honest if I declared that I could view the future State of Singapore with the same confidence as I expressed in support of the Bill granting independence to the Federation of Malaya. However, the people of Singapore have clearly declared their wish for greater responsibility in their government, and I think it would be wrong for this country to deny them that opportunity.
  This Bill provides a Constitution considerably in advance of the existing Constitution. As the noble Earl who introduced this Bill said, it is customary to review the period of our control over our colonial territories. Sir Stamford Raffles, in an inspired moment, foresaw Singapore as a great trading port. Singapore developed, as we know, considerably, and to-day well over one hundred ships a day pass through the
  196
  port going to various parts of the world. Great credit must be given to the British officials. I do not believe one can allocate any particular credit since men of all nations have played their part, but I think we should appreciate that it was under the British flag—the British naval flag—that this Colony has prospered.
  Quite rightly, we pay tribute to Sir Stamford Raffles and to Dr. Ridley, the founder of the rubber industry, but I should like to pay a personal tribute to one man who I believe typifies the service of Europeans to the people of Singapore, a man who, unhonoured by his country, recently died, and who spent practically his entire life in Singapore and Malaya. I refer to Dr. Garlick, who, on his retirement from Government service in Malaya, decided to remain among the people he loved, and devoted the last years of his life to an attempt to stamp out tuberculosis, which is the dreaded disease in Asia. It was through his initiative and determination that to-day stands in Singapore the Royal Chest Clinic, equipped with the finest equipment available and staffed by devoted doctors and nurses. Through that clinic, which is supported entirely by voluntary subscriptions, over 16,000 patients pass a month. I believe that here is a great example of dedicated service, and the people who criticise European activities in our colonial territories should remember this example.
  This Bill will give self-government to the elected Government and Assembly in Singapore. It does not go as far as some political leaders in Singapore would wish, but it is recognised, I believe, both in London and among the responsible leaders in Singapore, that complete independence is not possible for this island standing alone. Independence can come only when the island federates with Malaya, and when this will come about it is not possible to say. It is not only the Causeway and Straits of Johore that divide those two territories. The divisions which exist only the people of Singapore and Malaya themselves can clear away. However, I hope there will be a great effort to bring unification, for I believe that if the divisions which now exist remain they will grow to the detriment of both those countries.
  For Singapore the problems of self-government would frighten even the bravest man, but in Mr. Lim Yew Hock

  197
  we have a man of sterling qualities, in which courage dominates. We should realise and appreciate that the tools in Mr. Lim Yew Hock's possession for dealing with the many problems are relatively few. The economic problem which the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, spoke about is very serious, although to outward appearances Singapore is prosperous and enjoys great development. The island, to those who know it, has few natural resources, it is pathetically weak industrially. Its major livelihood, as we know, is that of a great trading port or a great warehouse. Already the economy of Singapore has been gravely affected by the fall in world trading and the fall in prices of commodities which pass through Singapore from the neighbouring countries. Already there are reports of cut-back in expenditure of Government finance. Even if the entrepôt trade were to increase, this would have little effect upon providing employments for the rapidly growing population of Singapore.
  We have heard that over 50 per cent of the population is under twenty-one. The population in Singapore increases by 50,000 a year. Flowing from all the schools come young men and women seeking employment, and unless work is available a terrible and dangerous situation will certainly arise. Development of industry may well provide the answer, but if that is to occur considerable overseas capital will be required. It must be obvious to any responsible person in Singapore, however, that, with the unstable political situation, overseas capital will not flow in the quantities required. Industrial development is already handicapped, in that the cost of production is a good deal higher than it is in other manufacturing countries in the Far East, such as Japan, China and Hong Kong.
  I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government what is the position of the Colonial Development Corporation in relation to the State of Singapore. No mention has been made of this matter so far, but, as your Lordships will be aware, on other occasions when Colonies have obtained independence the Corporation has been precluded from continued investment. I presume that, as no mention has been made of this here, the fact that Singapore is not becoming completely independent means that the Corporation will be allowed to continue to invest. For
  198
  economic reasons alone, I do not believe that Singapore can attain complete independence. I would therefore urge the Government of the Federation of Malaya to take an active lead in bringing about unification. I recognise that there are many great difficulties to be overcome, but I believe that it is as much in the interests of the people of Malaya as in the interests of the people of Singapore that this unification should be brought about.
  Of all the problems and dangers that will beset Singapore, perhaps the question of internal security has dominated our thoughts more than any. External attack is relatively remote compared with the insidious threat of Communism. The Communist Party was banned in 1948, following the armed insurrection in Malaya, but this cancer has grown in various disguises. It has appeared as a musical society; it has appeared as a cultural society. It has infiltrated into all the middle Chinese schools; it has infiltrated into the trade unions; it has infiltrated into the political Parties. It has infiltrated, one might say, into nearly all spheres of public life. Malaya received the full brunt of a military attack, while Singapore experienced the killer Communist gangs and intimidation on a very wide scale.
  To some degree, these forces were held in check by a loyal and efficient police force. In spite of many difficulties, of which perhaps the greatest was the non-co-operation of the public, the police have behaved magnificently, and I feel that, this House should pay tribute to those services. I personally should like to pay a special tribute to the volunteer special constabulary, in which I had the honour to serve for a number of years. This force has set a great example to the multiracial population of Singapore. All races formed this special constabulary. Singapore is particularly in debt to the volunteers, not only for what they did during the riots of 1950 and the subsequent Communist riots, but through their constant patrols and duties.
  To provide internal security a rather ingenious plan has been adopted, and my noble friend Lord Ogmore, has congratulated the Government in this matter. In the Internal Security Council the key appointment will be that of the representative of the Federation of Malaya.

  199
  I am perfectly sure that careful consideration will be given in regard to this appointment. I personally hope that the man appointed will be of Cabinet rank. He must be a man of courage and incorruptibility, for I can well visualise circumstances when his position may be delicate, and possibly fraught with danger.
  My Lords, I have deliberately refrained from commenting on the political instability in Singapore, for this is now the responsibility of their people. But the seeds of Communism are well sown. I should like to raise one point on the question of freedom of speech and the freedom of the Press. Under existing regulations, the Government of Singapore can suppress, and have suppressed, various newspapers and periodicals. It is therefore possible, under the regulations, for a Government disliking the views expressed by responsible newspapers to close those newspapers. I should like to ask the Government whether there is clearly written into the Constitution power to protect the freedom of speech and the freedom of the Press.
  In addressing my final remarks to your Lordships' House, I should like equally to address them to the people of Singapore. The United Kingdom could hold Singapore in colonial bondage, if necessary by military force. I believe that we could hold it indefinitely. But that is not our way: our action in granting independence to India, Pakistan, Ceylon. Burma, Ghana, the Federation of Malaya, and the continued advancement towards independence in all our colonial territories, proves that point. It should be obvious to all that our actions are quite contrary to those of the Communist Powers. We in this country believe in democracy; we believe in the rights of man: and these principles we have tried to establish in all areas under our influence. We hope that the seeds of democracy are well sown in Singapore. We hope that they will be cultivated and protected, and that Singapore may flourish in peace and happiness.
  4.45 p.m.
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, this Second Reading has been a happy occasion, in that all noble Lords who have spoken have welcomed the Bill and recognised the great service that has been done by the Sinapore delegation itself
  200
  and by the Federation of Malaya in (if I may put it this way) coming to our rescue in relation to the Internal Security Council. Further, it has been a happy occasion because the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has spoken in such generous terms of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, Mr. Lennox-Boyd. I know that he will greatly appreciate it, and I know that the Colonial Office as a whole will appreciate what the noble Lord has said. Running through the speeches that we have heard on this subject, again and again there has arisen the question of the destiny of the State of Singapore, in the sense of whether it will find its way in with the Federation or possibly with the Borneo territories. As various noble Lords have pointed out, in the final analysis that will be a matter for the people of those territories to decide; but I am quite sure that what has been said on the economic side, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, will be looked at and considered by those who have this problem to tackle.
  The only issue on which any difference of opinion has been expressed is in regard to what we know as the "subversive ban". I recognise that this is a matter of opinion. It is our firm opinion that the right thing is to maintain this ban at the start of the new State of Singapore; but I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that it is probable that the new Administration or Government, when it is elected, will last, or should last, not for a year but for its full term; and that will give considerable time for people to gain experience, to weigh up and to learn something of governing themselves in the way that is proposed.
  I think I should now try to deal with several questions which were raised by noble Lords. In particular, the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, who gave me notice, asked several questions which I can deal with relatively shortly. He asked about the status of the State of Singapore in relation to the Commonwealth. As with so many matters in the Commonwealth, I think it would be a mistake to try to give too precise an answer as to exactly where somebody may stand or exactly what may be its relationship; but I would say that generally Singapore will remain a dependency of the United Kingdom. That answers, too, the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on

  201
  economic assistance: it will still be open to the Colonial Development Corporation to invest, and the State will still be eligible, for the Colonial Development and Welfare grants.
  I was asked to whom the United Kingdom Commissioner might report. The answer is, to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
  LORD OGMORE: My Lords, what about the Head of State—though probably the noble Earl is coming to that subject.
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I shall be coming to that. So far as the interests of United Kingdom citizens are concerned, it will be the responsibility of the United Kingdom Commissioner to look after these, in so far as they are distinct from interests which are particularly those of Singapore. The Yang di-Pertuan Negara, as the Head of State will be called, will have access to the Sovereign, if he so wishes, through the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The Constitution Order in Council will be laid before Parliament when it is made, though just when I cannot tell. It will certainly not be before the Recess, and it is likely that it will not be laid before Parliament reassembles. Your Lordships will understand that there is a great deal of drafting and so forth to be undertaken. The Electoral Provisions Order under which the subversive ban will be retained will be dealt with and laid separately.
  On the question of expatriates, as I said earlier a plan has been worked out with Singapore. The plan aims at Malayanisation over a period; it has been worked out in considerable detail to ensure that those of the expatriates who are so important to the good government of the State will, if possible, remain for a period of years appropriate to the particular job they are doing, having regard to the grades of Malays or Singapore citizens who may come up to fill those posts. It is certainly our hope and wish that expatriates will stay. As I have already mentioned, a plan of compensation, with assurances, has been worked out and will be enshrined in the Constitution; and I have myself little doubt that the expatriates will carry on and will continue to meet the needs of the State of Singapore.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if the noble Earl will allow me to interrupt, are the Government officers of the City Council protected under this Constitution?
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I believe the answer is: No, they are not protected. Under the Constitution those who are protected are those for whom the Secretary of State for the Colonies was directly responsible—that is to say, those expatriates in the Singapore Government.
  The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, asked what was the citizenship position. Here I would say that, with all questions of citizenship, the more one delves into them, the more difficult and dangerous they become. If I may, will just give the noble Lord a short answer, which is as follows: Singapore citizens who were also citizens of the United Kingdom and the Colonies will retain that citizenship, but the acquisition of Singapore citizenship now does not, or will not, carry with it in future, citizenship of the United Kingdom and the Colonies.
  LORD OGMORE: My Lords, the noble Earl spoke earlier of something called "Commonwealth citizenship," which seems to be something new. I thought that there was to be, as it were, a Commonwealth nationality, and that they were to be subjects of the Commonwealth but citizens of various parts of it. Is that not the case, or am I mistaken?
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I knew that I was likely to get into trouble on this question, for on certain matters it is always difficult to give precisely the right answer. When I was analysing subsection (1) of the Bill I said that it provided that Singapore citizens shall be recognised as British subjects and Commonwealth citizens. I believe that that is the usual form of citizenship in these circumstances, and so far as I am aware it is not a new device or invention for the occasion.
  The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked whether freedom of speech and freedom of the Press were specifically written into the new Constitution. The answer is, No, they are not written in specifically, any more than they are written into the Constitution in this country. But there are the safeguards, such the existence of an independent Judiciary and a Government which is responsible to the electorate, which of course are safeguards which

  203
  one hopes and expects will be sufficient for the purpose. One last question raised was whether in the Internal Security Council the Chairman would have any casting vote. The answer to that question is: No, there will just be the three members from the State of Singapore, three members from the United Kingdom and the representative from the Federation who will be able to vote. It is quite true, therefore, that in agreeing to take on this job the Federation has been of very great help and assistance, as so many noble Lords have said.
  It was a great pleasure to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, with all his experience from 1908 onwards, of which we have heard, that he believes that, on the whole, this Bill does the right thing. It was also a particular pleasure to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who went out there some years ago, of the many personal friendships he made. I am not sure he is right in saying that he made more friendships there than he would have made here; but it is a great thing to know from him something of which I have had some small personal experience—that is, how friendly and welcoming are the people. I was glad to hear his tribute to the police, bath regular and voluntary. We also have to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for what he said in relation to the Bill.
  It is quite true, as noble Lords have said, that there is a risk, and a conscious risk, which we and the delegation and the Government of Singapore have taken in this Bill. Something might go wrong. But we do not believe that it will. We remain convinced that the best defence against the threat of Communism is freedom of expression and for the people of Singapore to rule themselves. Last autumn I had the good fortune to travel in the area, in Malaya, Singapore, and the Borneo Territories, Sarawak, Brunei and North Borneo, and I was struck by what I saw in Singapore, above all, in relation to housing, dealing with the immense problem of 50,000 added population every year. I was greatly impressed by the educational system and the schools that were going up; by the cleanness of the city, its efficiency and the good health which, on the whole, it was enjoying. Of course, there are problems; of course there are slums; but
  204
  because of the way the problems are being tackled, anyone who has seen it can do nothing but admire.
  My Lords, as I said, this Bill and all that goes with it are based on a trust—trust in the people of Singapore. It was good to hear that echoed by those who spoke, and good to know that what I felt at the beginning is true: namely, that this Bill is welcomed by all, and that with it go the good wishes of all the House to the State of Singapore in its new adventure.
  On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
  Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 21), Bill read 3a, and passed.

  DOMICILE BILL [H.L.]
  5.2 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  LORD MESTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time. If it is convenient, as is the practice in your Lordships' House, we can deal with the Amendments now and there will be a Motion that the Bill do now pass, and on that Motion there can be the general debate. In the meantime I beg to move that the Bill be read a third time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Meston.)
  On Question, Bill read 3a.
  Clause 1 [New rules for determining domicile]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR) moved to leave out "be applied in" and insert "replace the rules of the Common Law for". The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is moved in deference to the doubts expressed on the Report stage by the noble Lords, Lord Silkin and Lord Pethick-Lawrence, speaking on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Denning, as well as by my noble friend, Lord Meston, as to whether the Bill as it stands makes it sufficiently clear that the new rules prescribed by the rule determining a person's domicile would apply to a married woman as they apply to any other person of full age and capacity. I am bound to say, as I said

  205
  on the last stage of the Bill, that I think that this fear is misconceived. I have considered the point again and, apart from the reasons I gave when the point was raised, noble Lords will see that the purpose of the Bill, as appears from its Long Title, is to amend the law relating to domicile; from this it is difficult to see how it could well be argued that the law must be presumed to be the same after the passing of the Bill as it was before.
  Clause 1 requires that the new rules for determining a person's domicile be applied without any suggestion of qualification or exception. Clause 2, which is the first of a group of clauses under the heading of "Independent Domicile", is expressly made subject to Clause 5, which is headed "Dependent Domicile", from which the inference seems irresistible that Clause 5 is the only exception to the general rule stated in Clause 2. If there were to be any other exception, based on an applied intention to exclude the rule of the Interpretation Act, 1889, that the masculine gender is to include females, Clause 2 would then be as inapplicable to unmarried women as to married women and the effect of the Bill would be confined to the male sex.
  Despite these reasons for my view—and I wanted to show your Lordships that I had considered the matter—as your Lordships know, I am always anxious to meet the wishes of noble Lords. A matter of this importance should be crystal clear. Therefore, although I consider that there was no need for the Amendment, I equally believe that there is no objection to stating in the terms of Clause 1 that the rules prescribed by the Bill are to replace the rules of the Common Law. I hope that that will meet the anxieties of the noble Lords who spoke and I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 6, leave out ("he applied in") and insert ("replace the rules of the common law for").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for having given this matter the consideration he has done, and for having decided in the end that, in spite of his certainly that the Bill met the apprehensions that I have expressed, and those of my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence, he would nevertheless put down an
  206
  Amendment to make certainty even more certain than it was already. This is a matter of such great importance that one cannot be too careful in ensuring that the Bill does what it sets out to do. In its present form it will be welcomed by a great many people who have been looking forward to some such reform as this. Therefore I am sure that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor need have no apprehension that he has gone beyond what is proper in a case of this kind. I am perfectly satisfied that this meets the case, so much so that I do not propose to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
  LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I should like just to add my thanks to those of my noble friend, and to say that we appreciate very much the courtesy which the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has shown in this matter and the very wise form of Amendment which he has put down. I will say only this regarding the position as it was without this Amendment. Some of us are aware that in times gone by, although matters of this kind were perfectly clear as we understood them, this very question of the position of women has been negatived by the authorities of the day. That has occurred when, apparently, the whole legislation was to the other effect. Having been several times bitten, we were shy in this particular case. The noble and learned Viscount has completely met our difficulties, and we thank him very much.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the two noble Lords for what they have said and I am glad to think they are satisfied.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Amendment 2 is not moved. This concludes the Amendments and, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, he can now move that the Bill do now pass.
  LORD MESTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
  Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Meston.)
  5.9 p.m.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I must apologise for butting in at this late hour in the life of the Bill in which I have taken no part until to-day. However,

  207
  yesterday I heard for the first time certain fears expressed in very responsible quarters, and I find that there is nothing in the official record so far in which these fears have been mentioned. Therefore I thought it my duty to get them on the record. The Bill, in origin, is to deal with matrimonial difficulties, but there is a section of the business community who fear unforeseen and unpredictable consequences in the field of taxation—taxation both of their incomes while living and of their estates after they are dead. Now, these people are largely foreigners, but to some extent are people—I will not use the word "citizens"—from the Commonwealth working in this country. My noble friend, Lord Baillieu, wanted to be here to voice the fears of these people, but unfortunately he is unavoidably prevented from getting here, so he has asked me to do it for him.
  Now the field of taxation and the law of domicile thereon is an extraordinary and tricky one, and no layman would dare to venture into that field, so I merely content myself with expressing the fears of these people so that at another time and in another place those fears can be assuaged. As I understand it, those people from abroad who live and work here are for tax purposes regarded at present as domiciled in the country of their origin and are presumed to be going to return there in due course. If the Inland Revenue wish it to be otherwise, they have to prove it to be otherwise. By and large, these people are taxed on their British income, on the remittances they make to this country, and, when they die, on the possessions they leave in this country. But if they were held to be domiciled here they might be taxed during their lives on their entire world income, regardless of whether it ever came to this country, and on their death perhaps on their world possessions.
  Now, Clause 3 of this Bill lays down that a man has the intention to live permanently in the country where he has a home unless he can prove to the contrary under Clause 4. The people I am talking about may well have only one house in the world, and live in it with their families in this country. The Bill uses the word "home", and I am informed that even the word "home" may give rise to considerable legal argument.
  208
  But if one assumes that "home" and "house" are synonymous, then one has to consider what their taxation position might be after the passing of this Bill. They fear that this new definition of domicile might be applied to them for tax purposes, in which case their whole status would change. The onus of proof that they did not intend to live here for the rest of their lives would rest on them and not on the Inland Revenue, and if they failed in that proof they would be taxed on their world income instead of on their British income. Those, very briefly, are the fears of my friends, and I may say that they are based on the opinions of some eminent lawyers skilled in this international field.
  One may say, of course, that these fears are quite fanciful and that the promoters of the Bill and Her Majesty's Government have no intention whatsoever of allowing the Bill to alter the status of any man for taxation purposes; but one must remember that most of these people are foreigners. Our tax law is to them foreign. Our taxgatherers are foreigners, and they definitely fear having to prove future intentions to a foreign revenue collector. If there is going to be any doubt in their minds, and if they think that by coming to this country they are going to "buy a lawsuit", or that their executors are going to "buy a lawsuit", they will take care to keep away. Then we shall lose their services and very often the capital that comes in with them—the very things that we want to encourage.
  The best remedy, from their point of view, of course, would be that the Bill should never pass, but that would be a little hard on those people for whom the Bill has been introduced. If the Bill is really wanted, I would suggest that it may be a long time before it is dealt with by another place, and I hope that the promoters and Her Majesty's Government will in that event fully consider the tax angle. I do not think that any ordinary assurance would really do much to reassure these people. My friends know perfectly well that the Legislature makes laws and that the Judicature interprets them. They also know that the Inland Revenue is bound to collect its lawful dues, and the Inland Revenue might find itself in the position of having to collect taxes on monies as to which the Government of the day had given an assurance that they were never intended

  209
  to be assessable. Of course, that could be put right, but it would require a clause in the Finance Bill, and that always takes time. Time and delay would lead to fear and confusion, and that would cause damage to our interests if we really want these people to live and work within our country.
  I realise that I am much too late to expect any considered opinion now from my noble friend on the Woolsack, as I only gave notice yesterday of what I was going to say, but I hope that if and when the Bill appears in another place the promoters and the Government will he able to cast it in such a form that there is no doubt left whatsoever in the mind of any foreigner working in this country that his status for taxation purposes is not going to be changed by this Bill.
  5.18 p.m.
  LORD MORTON OF HENRYTON: My Lords, I had heard that certain fears were held in certain quarters as to the effect of Clause 3, subsection (1), of this Bill, and as Clause 3, subsection (1), is exactly in accordance with the unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce, of which I was Chairman, I thought that perhaps it would be right to say a few words about it.
  The change in the law which is brought about by that subsection can be very shortly and simply stated. At the present time a man retains his domicile of origin unless it can be proved by anyone who desires to assert the contrary that he has formed a fixed and settled intention to make his permanent home in another country. It is not only the Inland Revenue who are concerned with this question, though sometimes they are: sometimes it is a man's relatives, and sometimes it is a question that arises under his will. All Clause 3 (1) does is to provide that, subject to subsection (2) of the same clause, a person who has a home in a country is presumed to intend to live permanently in that country. It applies only where a man has only one home, because if he has two homes then subsection (2) comes into play. Subsection (2) is as follows:
  "If a person has a home in more than one country he is presumed to intend to live permanently in that one of them with which he is most closely connected."
  210
  Now, the previous law gave rise to some very curious situations. For instance, a man who had lived in this country for between thirty and forty years and who had never shown the slightest intention of going away from it was held in the celebrated case of Winans not to have acquired the domicile of this country because in certain rather farfetched events he might possibly have wanted to go back to America. It seemed to the Commission and also to the Standing Committee on International Law that that was an absurd situation, and that the sensible and sane thing to do was to provide that if a man makes his only home in a country it is for him to show, if he wants to, and if he can, that he has not formed a permanent intention to live where he has his one and only home. It seems to me fair enough that, if he spends all his days in this country and has his only home in this country, the presumption that he intends to live here should prevail.
  I have not given any personal attention to the tax problems which may or may not arise. All I would say is that on the face of it the change in the law seems to me a fair and reasonable one. If it has unfortunate effects as regards tax in the case of certain individuals, I think it does not seem unfair, that if a man lives here, his only home is here and he dies here, he should be presumed to have formed an intention to reside here permanently. If he never does move, it seems to me not an undue hardship that when he dies, still living here and never having manifested an intention to go elsewhere, his estate should share in the burden of taxation which might arise at his death.
  5.22 p.m.
  LORD KEITH OF AVONHOLM: My Lords, I find my name on the list of speakers without really having had any intention of speaking, and I shall not detain your Lordships for any length of time. As has been said, this Bill has a much wider content than that of merely fixing domicile for matrimonial purposes. That, I think, is one of the merits of the Bill. The Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce were only concerned with dealing with domicile for purely matrimonial purposes, and could not go further. This Bill deals with the question not only for matrimonial purposes

  211
  but for other purposes as well, and from that point of view it seems to me a very fair Bill.
  All that Clause 3 does, after all, is to establish certain presumptions, and these may be set aside by proof of a different intention. As my noble and learned friend Lord Morton of Henryton has just said, if a person lives in this country and dies in this country, after having had his home, and his only home, here for many years, I see no great hardship in saying that unless his executors can prove that he had a different intention during his life, the State is entitled to tax him as if he had died domiciled in this country. I welcome the Bill, and before it passes from your Lordships' House, as I hope it will pass, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Meston, on having introduced it and having effected, as I hope he will effect, a very important alteration in the law of domicile.
  5.24 p.m.
  LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to intervene for a moment to clear up one point. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, I am beginning to have some fears whether this Bill is perhaps not all that it appears to be on the face of it, especially after reading an article in last night's London Evening Standard dealing with this Bill, entitled "When is a Scotsman not a Scotsman?" The article points out that if this Bill is passed into law, hundreds of thousands of people—and obviously the suggestion is that they will be mainly Scotsmen—will be affected.
  I should like to ask the noble Lord who is promoting the Bill, and the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, than whom there is no stouter Scot in this country, whether there is any ground for that suspicion. Like many Scotsmen living in England, I value, as we all value, our Scottish nationality. I should like to be assured that there is nothing in this Bill that affects our Scottish nationality or prevents us from claiming and enjoying this privilege here in England.
  LORD KEITH OF AVONHOLM: My Lords, may I be allowed to intervene to say that as a Scotsman I have no apprehensions about the effect of this Bill?
  5.27 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if I may add a second Scottish opinion to that of my noble and learned friend who has just intervened, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Drumochter, that I should never be a party to a Bill which would endanger anyone's Scottish nationality. He may take it that I entirely support both my noble and learned friends. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Hawke has raised the point about taxation, because I gather that there has been some apprehension about it, and any sort of apprehension of that kind ought to be carefully considered, as I assure him that his speech will be. It may be convenient if I state broadly the general tax position as I see it to-day, though I hope that no one, including my noble and learned friends, will consider that this is an opinion to the foot of the letter.
  In general, a foreign resident ordinarily resident in this country (and my noble friend will appreciate that that is a term of art, to be distinguished from domiciled) is liable to the United Kingdom taxes on income in respect of foreign income which is remitted to this country. If he is also domiciled in this country, he is liable on the full amount of the income arising abroad, irrespective of whether it is remitted to this country or not, except that earnings and pensions from business or employment abroad are liable only on a remittance basis. Foreign income for this purpose includes not only income from property abroad but also earnings from employment exercised in this country where the employer is resident abroad. Of course that is subject to the proviso that a credit may be due, under double taxation agreements or unilaterally against United Kingdom tax, for tax payable in the country where the income arises. That is broadly and generally the position in life.
  On the death of a person who is ordinarily resident in this country but not domiciled here, estate duty is payable on movable and immovable property situated here, except for certain Government stock; the liability is in general the same as on the death of a person not resident in this country. If the person is domiciled in this country estate duty is payable on any movable property situate

  213
  abroad. A credit may be due, again, under double taxation agreements for tax paid in the country where the property is situated, as well as on movable and immovable property situated here. Therefore the noble Lord has made a correct point, if he will allow me to say so, in saying that the question of domicile is an important one. I recognise that it makes the differences which I have tried briefly to explain.
  But when one turns to the Bill, I think one ought to start with Clause 2, because that says:
  "Subject to section five of this Act, a person's domicile is in the country in which he has his home and intends to live permanently."
  It is important that the original definition has the two limbs: "in which he has his home and intends to live permanently." It is true that Clause 3 (1) says:
  "Subject to subsection (2) of this section, a person who has a home in a country is presumed to intend to live permanently in that country."
  As my noble and learned friend Lord Morton of Henryton pointed out, that is limited to the case where there is one home. But, again, one must take into account, as indeed my noble friend Lord Hawke mentioned, Clause 4 (1), which says:
  "The presumptions set out in section three of this Act may be displaced by proof of a different intention"
  In the case of somebody who is alive, and presumably has many opportunities to make clear his intention, I cannot see that putting the presumption in this way would place him in any difficulty. If one takes the ordinary case—that is, apart from these public service employees who have been dealt with by Clause 4 (2)—of, say, an employee of a world-wide business, possibly from New York or Chicago, who is over here for a long period, and who, it may be, has his only home in this country, it is almost inconceivable that during his lifetime he would not have made it clear that this was an incident of his earning his living and that he intended to return to the United States at the conclusion of his tour of duty.
  When someone is dead, although he may not have a personal interest in the problem it is still his interest, from the point of view of the disposal of his
  214
  property, that the law of domicile should be clear. My noble and learned friend Lord Morton of Henryton will correct me if my memory of Winan's case is wrong, but I think I am right in saying that this House, in its Judicial capacity, by a majority, reversed the decision of both Courts below. One cannot say that that reflects a crystal clear state of the law. I think everyone agrees that it was beneficial that the law should be put right, and we shall never have better guidance on the method of putting it right than that of the Royal Commission presided over by my noble and learned friend Lord Morton of Henryton and the Private International Law Committee of experts on Private International Law, presided over by Mr. Justice Wynn Parry. Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, was proceeding on very high authority indeed. I should like my noble friend Lord Hawke to consider the point of view that, the law having been clearly stated in the Bill, it will be quite open to those people, the foreigners coming here either for work or, if you like, for health, to make clear and create the evidence of the position, which is that they want to maintain their domicile.
  There is one other point, though I do not wish to stress it too much, because I want to be scrupulously fair in putting this. My noble friend Lord Hawke has got the point, of course, that where you have very finely balanced evidence, the presumption is now the other way—that it is for somebody to displace it by proof of a different intention. But I think my noble and learned friends will agree that in nine cases out of ten a case is not decided on the first presumption; it is decided on a consideration at the end of the day of the evidence as a whole. I cannot but believe that, when the law is clarified, it will be easier to come to the right decision and the decision which the person wanted to preserve.
  I was anxious that my noble friend Lord Hawke, and those who have communicated their anxiety to him, should know that this point has been considered. But, as he says, to-day cannot be the end of the matter; and if those who have—I will not say briefed him, because I do not want to apply words of my own profession to my noble friend, but those who have communicated their anxieties to him, would care to elaborate them and communicate them to me, and bring to

  215
  my attention any points of special difficulty which I have not seen at the moment, and, above all, to suggest any methods by which they would like the problem dealt with, then I assure him at once that I shall give them my fullest consideration; and knowing the generous heart and mind of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, I am sure that he would be in complete accord and would also be ready to give them consideration. I hope that my noble friend Lord Hawke will feel that what I have said meets the point. I have tried to set out the problem as I see it, for the convenience of those who have communicated their anxiety to him as well as of my noble friend; if they have any further points I shall be glad to consider them.
  5.38 p.m.
  LORD MESTON: My Lords, in conclusion, I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for the great help he has given us on this Bill, as indeed he gives on every measure which comes before your Lordships' House. I should also like to thank the various noble Lords who have assisted in an active and constructive way in making this Bill what it is, including the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I feel that I should emphasise once more that this Bill is not restricted to matrimonial affairs: on the contrary, it applies to all matters.
  I should like to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Drumochter, who asked the question: "When is a Scotsman not a Scotsman?" As your Lordships know, many Scottish people leave Scotland and come down to England but do not cut away every connection they have with Scotland. While they are in this country they enjoy themselves greatly and frequently evince a desire to return to their native country one day, but they never tell you precisely when that day is going to come. Some of your Lordships are among those Scottish people who come here and at the same time do not cut adrift entirely from your native land. If you want to prove to the satisfaction of your executors and administrators, to the Inland Revenue and to the Bank of England that you are domiciled in Scotland, my advice to you is that, while in England, you should walk about wearing a kilt, with a sporran, carrying a bottle of whisky in one hand and in the other hand a
  216
  banner bearing the words: "My home is in Peterhead in Aberdeenshire and not in Petersfield in Hampshire." I feel quite sure that conduct of that description will induce the authorities to hold that you are domiciled in Scotland. I can only say that it has been a great pleasure and an honour to be allowed to introduce and pilot this Bill through your Lordships' House.
  On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  AGRICULTURE BILL
  5.40 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty The Queen to signify to the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Agriculture Bill, has consented to place Her Majesty's interest so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, at the disposal of Parliament for the purpose of the Bill.
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, in moving the Third Reading of this Bill, I must say that we have had very full discussions in our earlier proceedings, and I am sure your Lordships would not wish me to go over all the arguments again. But this is an important measure and has given rise to a great deal of interest and also, I fear, to some misunderstanding. I think it is incumbent upon me, therefore, at Third Reading, to take this last opportunity open to me to put it in its correct perspective, and to try to allay any lingering doubts due, as I believe, to misunderstanding, that may still remain.
  What does this Bill do, and why? Subordinate issues apart, it does only two things: it repeals the disciplinary powers, and seeks to improve the working of the landlord and tenant system. First, the disciplinary powers: I made a very full statement when we considered this matter on Report, and have really little to add to it. But I must repeat that we are repealing these provisions because, in the light of practical experience and the

  217
  needs of the times, we are satisfied that it is the right and, indeed, the only course open to us. We must face the facts. We are repealing these provisions on their merits, and there is no connection in our minds whatsoever with the financial guarantees which we dealt with quite separately in Part I of the 1957 Act.
  The landlord and tenant have always had their rights against each other for the protection of their own interests. These rights will remain with proper safeguards, and we are taking steps to make them work more effectively in the light of experience. All concerned, whether landlords, tenants or owner-occupiers, are subject to the economic forces which reward efficiency and penalise inefficiency. What we are repealing is the State's power to intervene, whether against the landlord, tenant or owner-occupier, to try to force him to be efficient with the ultimate sanction of depriving him of his tenancy or his freehold if all else fails. Experience has shown that our advisory services are hampered and not helped by the existence of these penal powers. You cannot force a man to be efficient with threats. You must instead create an atmosphere in which he will readily come to those who have help and advice to give.
  The second thing the Bill seeks to do is to make the landlord and tenant system work better. Few deny the need for this. Our landlord and tenant system, which is—I almost said was—the envy of the world, is steadily giving way to a system of owner-occupation. The private landlord is either selling up or taking the land in hand and farming it himself with a manager. The result is that young men find it ever harder to enter the industry. Acre for acre, an owner-occupier needs probably at least three times the capital that a tenant needs. So the advantage is probably always on the side of the older man with the money, against the younger man with initiative and drive.
  Of course, owner-occupation has its rightful place, notably on specialist or intensive farms, on which most of the capital is farmer's capital. But that is not typical. On a typical farm the landlord's capital is a far larger contribution 10 the total than the tenant's, and it is There that the immense advantage of the system of dual partnership is found. Here express a personal view, though one
  218
  which is widely held. What I think cannot be gainsaid is that the two systems should be allowed to develop and compete with each other naturally. Our aim in this Bill has been merely to remove obstuctions which have distorted the natural trend.
  What are the reasons for this running down of the landlord and tenant system? There are, I think, two main causes. First, the security of tenure provisions, which were meant to protect the good farmer, have tended to make all tenants virtually life tenants. That is why I had to resist, at an earlier stage in the proceedings, the suggestion put forward by some noble Lords opposite that personal inconvenience or hardship which might be suffered by the tenant should be allowed to be an overriding factor, a bar to termination of the tenancy, no matter what other grounds might be established. That would indeed have meant life tenancies. As the Bill stands the position is fully safeguarded, not only by the proviso of reasonableness, but by the provision that in any case when the landlord bases his case on hardship the tenant is secure if he can establish his greater hardship. It is the present position which has produced the log-jam in which landlords hesitate to re-let their farms when a tenant dies.
  Secondly, the rent provisions which were meant, quite rightly, to protect the sitting tenant from exploitation, have tended to keep rents too low and out of line with the landlord's maintenance expenses. In the short term, this has enabled the second-rate tenant to hold on at the expense of a better man. In the long term, it has frightened landlords into selling or direct farming. And all the time it has made it difficult for landlords unless they have outside money, which cannot be assumed, to fulfil their obligations under the landlord and tenant system. This is the situation in which we have proposed what are no more than slight adjustments of provisions for security of tenure and provisions for rents, adjustments designed to cure the ills which the authors of the 1948 Act cannot have foreseen or intended, and to enable the system to function. It is surely perverse to call this a landlord's charter, or to talk of the Bills loading the dice against the tenant. It is not a landlord's charter in any derogatory sense. We are trying to save the landlord and tenant system.

  219
  To sum up. The only real change of policy and principle is in Clause 1, which repeals the State's power to evict, and this, we feel, is the course which in present circumstances is clearly right on ethical and practical grounds alike. The rest of the Bill does not change policy. It is designed in the light of experience to find better means of giving effect to the true intentions of the Act of 1948. Left to run on unchanged, that Act—meant to give the landlord-tenant system a new lease of life—might well have broken it up. Now I hope that it will be able to function properly with all the benefits that will follow in its train. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
  5.49 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the noble Earl, in moving the Third Reading, opened his remarks by saying that he intended to do what he could to ensure that there was no further misunderstanding about this Bill, and that he intended to allay any lingering doubts. I should like to assure him that he has done nothing of the kind. There was no misunderstanding of this Bill on this side of the House, and we had no lingering doubts; we had real doubts, and he has not allayed them. We started off with a feeling that this was a bad Bill designed to upset the balance as between landlord and tenant in favour of the landlord, and we remain of that opinion. There may be good reasons for it, but the fact is that it is quite wrong to suggest that it does not change the balance which has existed, certainly since the 1947 Agriculture Act.
  It has changed the balance in two very material respects: first, it has taken away from the tenant the security which he hitherto enjoyed. I have no particular objection to giving a tenant a tenure for life if he is farming his land well and paying a fair rent. If the noble Earl has equally no objection, then that view is not translated into the Bill, because it is possible for a tenant who is farming his land quite efficiently and is prepared to pay a fair rent to lose his security of tenure. That is one of the things we object to in this Bill. The other is that it enables a landlord to charge an increased rent not on the basis of what is fair and economic having regard to the quality of the land but
  220
  on the basis of scarcity value. That we think is wrong; we think it is the wrong criterion.
  Our final objection to this Bill is that in the last resort it removes the power of supervision which enables the community to get possession of a farm which is being badly farmed, although a substantial subsidy is being paid by the community in respect of that farm. So far as the tenant is concerned, that assurance of efficiency still exists, because one of the grounds for obtaining possession by the landlord is that the farm is being inefficiently worked. But so far as the owner is concerned, the owner-occupier of a farm, this particular power is being taken away. I think the figure is that about two-thirds of the farms in this country are owner-occupied. Therefore, as regards two-thirds of the farms there is no longer any sanction against bad or inefficient farming.
  Over and over again the noble Earl and others on the other side have said that there is a sanction; that the sanction is the economic one; that if you farm inefficiently and badly you lose money. But what sort of an argument is that? After all, if that were the case, if efficiency could be ensured by that means, there would be no bankruptcies. Everyone has the urge of making a profit and if that was sufficient to ensure that people were efficient no losses would be incurred, either by individuals or by companies, and of course the plan would work. But we know that, in spite of the fact that it is not good business to be inefficient and the result of inefficiency is, generally speaking, disastrous, nevertheless there is a good deal of inefficiency. Where the State has an interest in ensuring that there is efficiency because it provides a subsidy, we think that this sanction ought to continue. We certainly think it is wrong that it should continue as regards one section of the community and should be taken away as regards the other.
  I do not want to develop these arguments. I have put them forward, both at this stage and at earlier stages, I had hoped without misunderstanding and that at any rate there was no lingering doubt in the mind of the noble Earl as to what our views about this Bill were. I would conclude by saying that this Government has produced some pretty bad Bills. I

  221
  have had to condemn a good many of them root and branch. I think the last one I condemned was the Local Government Bill, but I should not have said about the Local Government Bill that it was particularly a partisan Bill. But I do say it about this Bill; I say it is cynically partisan. And apart from the fact that it is a Bill which, in my view, is uncalled for and will not really work, I think it is one the Government will long regret as having created bad feeling in the farming community and the belief that they are not holding the balance as between one section of the farming community and another.
  5.55 p.m.
  THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, this has been a fairly controversial Bill, and as, unfortunately I have been prevented from being here at any of the earlier stages of the Bill I certainly do not want to become involved in any agricultural controversy on the Third Reading. I do not intend to speak for more than one or two minutes.
  With regard to the final objection of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, concerning the removal of the disciplinary powers in Part II of the 1947 Act to enforce good farming on owner-occupiers and so on, I am, of course, very familiar with the noble Lord's case, because it is a case which was approved by the National Farmers' Union and also by some landowners: I think that the English Country Landowners' Association decided at one time to support Part II of the Act, although the Scottish landowners were more cautious about committing themselves. I have always taken a different view, which I have expressed to your Lordships more than once. The reason why the farmers were afraid to lose Part II of the Act was not because they liked these disciplinary powers but because they were afraid that the removal of the stick might also mean the removal of the carrot; and that sooner or later tile Government might say, "We have no power to enforce good farming upon you, and therefore we are under no obligation to guarantee that you get a fair price for your products." That is what they were afraid of.
  I have always held the view, however, that if, owing to a flood of cheap foreign imports, some future Government, in response to pressure from public opinion, should decide to change our agriculture
  222
  policy and abandon price guarantees, the existence of Part II of the Agriculture Act, 1947, would not make the slightest difference, one way or the other, either to public opinion or to the decision of the Government. I have expressed the view to your Lordships before that the existence of these powers has had a negligible effect on improving the general standards of farming, at least in times of peace. They are powers which could be justified only by the most desperate national emergency. They are so entirely contrary to all our traditions of liberty in this country that they could never have survived so long had not the farmers been afraid that the abolition of Part II would also mean the end of Part I. The power to turn a man out of his home on the decision of a committee appointed by a Minister, without any appeal to any open court, is utterly contrary to all the traditions of freedom which we like to think we stand for in this country.
  These powers were first imposed at the beginning of the war, in September, 1939. Your Lordships may remember that only about seven months later, in April, 1940, a certain Hampshire farmer. whose name I think was Mr. Walton, who lived at a farm called "Burrow Bridge" near Itchen Stoke, was ordered by the Hampshire Executive Committee to plough up four acres of old pasture and to summer-fallow it in preparation for sowing it out with wheat in the following season. I understand that Mr. Walton was quite a good farmer, but he was an opinionated man and he refused to obey this order. He was a man of over sixty, I think a bachelor, who had lived at the farm all his life, and so had his father—he and his family had been there for nearly 100 years.
  Two months later the Hampshire Committee gave him notice to quit, to leave his home, because he had refused to plough up four acres of grass. A month later because he had not gone, they gave him notice, I think on July 20, that he would be evicted by force. Two days later a force of police arrived to turn him out. He barricaded his house and opened fire on the police with a shotgun. I think the battle lasted for about eighteen hours. Unfortunately, several policemen were wounded, and the farmer himself, Mr. Walton, was mortally wounded, and died a day or two later. Of course, the verdict at the inquest was

  223
  one of "justifiable homicide" because he had been killed while unlawfully resisting the police in the execution of their duties. I believe that the Coroner observed that this case had excited some notoriety, but when it was all boiled down there was very little in it.
  I have no doubt that this Mr. Walton was a very obstinate, probably a very tiresome and unto-operative sort of man. So, I think, was John Hampden who refused to pay ship money to King Charles I at a time when money for the Fleet was badly needed in the national interest. I sometimes think that it depends a good deal on the state of political feeling at the time whether a man of this kind is forgotten as a tiresome nuisance or remembered as a hero and a martyr for human liberty. As for the agricultural executive committees, of course, they never have spent all their time in turning people out of their homes by force. Most of them are good, kind people who are doing their best to help their neighbours and to increase production. But exactly the same can be said of all the authoritative, corporative bodies set up in any industry in any Fascist State. They are not all violent hostile people. Most of the Fascist corporative bodies maintaining discipline in an industry are well-meaning. But this system that we have had under Part II of the Agriculture Act, is nothing else than pure unadulterated Fascism, and it is a wonder that it has survived so long in our society.
  As for the misunderstandings which the Minister and the noble Lord opposite have referred to, I do not want to pursue them, because I think that if they are misunderstandings they will certainly be removed in the course of the next twelve months or so by events. If noble Lords opposite are right in their objections, no doubt there will be a dissatisfaction in the industry. But if, as I believe, the new provisions in this Bill about the fixing of rents are based on fairness, and that the instructions to the arbitrators are such as to instruct them to make their decisions not on scarcity value but on real and fair value, then I think that the discontent will rapidly disappear. The experience in working the changes made under this Bill, rather than the assurances of the Minister or the objections of the
  224
  opponents of the Bill, will be the decisive factor in showing whether or not the Bill is justified. My own view is that the discontent and misunderstanding, if it has not disappeared now, will disappear within the course of the next year or two as we see how the Bill works.
  6.6 p.m.
  LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, I have listened to a great deal of the discussion on this Bill as it has passed through the House, and I take this opportunity, for a few moments, of expressing my complete disapproval of it. Speaking as a farmer, and as one who has taken some interest in agricultural and political affairs here for a number of years, my view is that the effect of this Bill will be to cripple, and eventually destroy, the safeguards for agriculture contained in the Agriculture Act, 1947. I sat in another place during the years 1945 to 1950, and I thought that one of the greatest achievements of the Labour Government during that time was the passing of the Agriculture Act, 1947.
  I think it is true to say that the average farmer in this country has regarded the 1947 Act as a Magna Charta of British agriculture. Its most outstanding provision was that concerning guaranteed prices, and markets to farmers. The confidence that the industry has achieved, and its great achievements in production and efficiency since those days, is evidence of the great success of the Act. Why seek to destroy it? Who wants to repeal the basic provisions of the 1947 Act. Every organised body of farming opinion in this country is opposed to the Bill now before the House. Almost every local branch of the National Farmers' Union throughout the length and breadth of the land, is opposed to the Bill. Who wants to destroy the 1947 Act? I submit, as did my noble friend Lord Silkin, that it is a few people who were opposed to that Act, and who have been opposed to it all the way through, and who are now seeking this occasion and this method to sabotage and destroy it.
  The main provision of the Bill now before the House—I am reading from the Explanatory Memorandum—is to repeal the
  " powers of supervision, direction and dispossession under Part II of the Agriculture Act, 1947."

  225
  The supervision and direction of agriculture is an essential condition of guaranteed prices and markets. The agricultural industry thoroughly understands and accepts that. May I remind your Lordships that the total net income to-day of British agriculture is£360 million, of which£285 million comes from direct Government subsidy. To put it another way, for every£1 of the net earned income of the farmers of this country 16s. comes from the taxpayer. A country which supports its agricultural industry so generously surely has a right to ensure that the land is properly and adequately farmed. The fear of the average farmer in this country is that if this arrangement is scrapped it will not be long before subsidies and guaranteed prices will also he scrapped.
  To-day, every major country in the world fosters and protects or subsidises its agricultural industry. We here in the United Kingdom need agricultural subsidies and protection more than any other country. Great Britain is the target for every food "dumper" in the world, and without the protection of the safeguards provided for us in the 1947 Act our agriculture would be in a very bad state. I submit that not only has the time not passed for using the provisions of Part II of that Act but rather the need for that Part of the 1947 Act is greater than ever. There is still far too much waste land and badly farmed land in this country, arid far from scrapping these provisions we require to-day rather a tightening up of them and increased encouragement and supervision for good farming in this country, in order to get rid of the badly farmed land that we see up and down the country to-day. I believe that this is a bad Bill and I hope that it will be rejected.
  6.12 p.m.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Waldegrave pointed out that one of the objects of this Bill was to make it easier for young farmers to get farms. I want to add a little to that, and to point out that the 1947 Act has also had some effect in preventing good farmers from getting on in the world. If I heard him correctly, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that two-thirds of the agricultural land in this country was in the hands of owneroccupiers—I hope I am quoting him correctly. I believe that the process has
  226
  been accelerated by the 1947 Act. I would point out to your Lordships one effect of extending owner occupation, because while I know that from a political point of view it tends towards political stability, as far as agriculture goes I believe on the whole it is very bad.
  I will give your Lordships a case of which I know. A very good farm of about 150 acres was bought on the break-up of an estate, and the new owner-occupier, who was a thriving, go-ahead farmer, did well on it. He wanted to farm on a larger scale. Such a man should be able to farm on a larger scale, and had he been a tenant on the estate before he had had to buy he would have had very much less capital invested in the farm and would have been able to go to a new farm, whatever the conditions of his lease; because it is a well-known truism that no sane agricultural proprietor ever willingly gets rid of a good tenant but that no agricultural proprietor can ever retain a tenant who wants to go. The tenant can always break his lease and it never pays to try to stop him. In this case this farmer had his eye on a farm which he had the opportunity of buying, on very fine land further up country—a larger farm. He wanted to be an offerer for the farm but was prevented, because he could not sell the farm he was in and had not sufficient capital to undertake both farms. There was a man whose operations deserved to be extended yet he was hampered in them because he was an owner-occupier.
  It seems to me that there is another danger attending when too much of our agriculture is in the hands of owner-occupiers. Men grow old arid die. They know they are going to die, and two things happen as a man approaches the end of his life. First, his energy flags and he is unlikely to farm his land so well. Secondly, he wants to make provision for his children, and the tendency, therefore, is for him to get all the money he can out of his farm. Then sulphate of ammonia comes into its own and the fertility of the land is reduced in order that the farmer may provide for his children. Moreover, it often happens that on his death the place has to be sold; and that also is bad. So it is not only for the sake of the young aspirant that one wants a Bill of this

  227
  kind; it is also for the general benefit of the farming community as a whole.
  6.15 p.m.
  EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I am really sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, still feels that he must call this a "cynically partisan" Bill, because I do not feel that it is anything of the kind, and I can only conclude that I have marshalled my arguments very badly if that is what he still thinks. The noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Drumochter, who also disapproves of this measure, laid great emphasis on the excellence of the 1947 Act. Nobody would deny that for a moment; but it is no wish of ours to destroy the 1947 Act. We have brought in the 1957 Act which takes the place of Part I of the 1947 Act and, in our view, puts the guarantees on a longer and more secure foundation.
  The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said, I believe rightly, that farmers originally misunderstood the position. I stress the word "originally" because I believe their opposition has very largely, in fact almost completely, died down. Originally, quite wrongly (and I believe this was the basis of the misunderstanding) they coupled Part I with Part II, believing that if Part II should go Part I would also go. But they were wrong, because the 1957 Act has replaced the previous provision on the guarantees. The relationship is not what it was before the 1957 Act. I suggest to your Lordships that justification of State eviction from a freehold home is something which a Government ought to have in its power to do only in the direst emergency, not as a normal business; and it should not be on the Statute Book but never used.
  I do not believe that the new rents will be scarcity rents. I believe I can sum up in the words of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, that "time will show." I shall certainly be very surprised if we get scarcity rents and alarm and despondency in the farming industry as a result of the working of this Act. We cannot go over all these arguments again, and if I may I should like to end on a small personal note. At an earlier stage the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, who cannot be here at this time, was kind enough to say some nice
  228
  things about me, which, coming from an old hand is always warming for a novice. But, and I hope I shall not be accused of "looking a gift horse in the mouth", in doing so the noble Viscount implied that I was making the best of a bad job; that I was batting on a sticky wicket. My Lords, I am afraid I cannot accept that. I do not think this is a sticky wicket. I think it is such a sound and true wicket that if I have not made runs it is entirely my own fault. I commend this most excellent Bill to your Lordships, with complete confidence.
  On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL
  6.20 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a,—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD LATHAM: My Lords, we on these Benches think that the Third Reading of this Bill is an appropriate occasion for restating our view that the Bill is quite unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, and to regret that our successive efforts to improve the Bill met with no success. The intention, of course, of the Bill is to protect the tenants of those dwellings which, under the Rent Act, 1957, will be decontrolled in October, from the hardships and indeed one might well say the suffering to which many of those tenants may be subjected. There are some 800,000 dwellings that will be decontrolled in October next, which means that there will be in total some 2,400,000 persons affected in one way or another. In London alone the number of dwellings is estimated to be 190,000, which means something in the region of 570,000 persons.
  I have some sympathy with the Minister. This Bill was not his originally. He found it, as it were, on the plate when he sat down at the ministerial table in January, 1957. Unhappily for him, he adopted it with enthusiasm. Having

  229
  had quite a lot of close association in another sphere with the present Minister of Housing and Local Government, I feel bound to say, and indeed entitled to say, that I do not think he has ever really understood the housing problem. He has seen, and I think still sees, the housing problem as one of rents and economic returns; whereas, of course, the housing problem is a matter of homes in which families can be brought up.
  The Government generally take the view, so far as I can judge from their pronouncements, that the housing problem is more or less solved in this country except for slum clearance. An examination of the lists of waiting applicants for municipal houses clearly shows that that is far from the case. It is estimated that there are two million people sharing accommodation or existing in inadequate housing accommodation; that there are seven million dwellings which are substandard to the extent of having no separate lavatories, no bathrooms, no separate kitchen sinks, no separate stoves, and lacking many other ordinary amenities. I submit, that when this grave shortage still exists it is idle to say that there is a free market in housing. It reminds me of the satirist's comment, "There is no housing problem; only a rumour put around by people with nowhere to live! "Indeed, in our submission, the present Bill is proof that there is no free market. There is a "scarcity market" and properties are letting at "scarcity" rents. If there were a free market, there would be no need, in my submission, for this Bill.
  The present Minister was warned what would be the consequences of the provisions of the Rent Act. He proved, however, obdurate—I sometimes think he mistakes obstinacy for firmness of mind—and he refused to take account of the warnings given on numerous occasions about what the situation would be in October of this year under the decontrol provisions of the Rent Act. For instance, as recently as February 11 of this year the Minister said in another place [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 582, col. 188]:
  "I have already said that, while there will be no amendment of the Rent Act, I am quite sure that the great majority of difficult cases will, in fact find a solution before October."
  230
  I repeat, that that was said on February 11. Less than two months afterwards, on April 2, the Minister made his statement of intention to introduce a Bill having, roughly speaking, the terms of the Bill now before your Lordships' House. What happened to change the Minister's mind? One can only think that it was the circumstance that we were then approaching the county council elections, including that of the London County Council; and the present Minister is not unaware of the housing activity of the London County Council; nor is he unaware of the still grave and serious housing problem which there is in London. And so, having sworn that he would "never consent." he consented; and the critics of his proposals as embodied in the Rent Act were proved right and the Minister has been proved wrong. Hence this Bill.
  In some quarters it has been suggested that some of the difficulties likely to arise in October flow from the alleged threats of municipalisation contained within the Labour Party policy on housing. I confess that I was a little sorry, and more surprised, to find in a statement made by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack that that attitude was adopted by him in his speech on the Second Reading of the Bill. I should like to quote what was said by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor on July 3 [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 210 (No. 87), col. 530];
  "Circumstances since the Rent Act became law have not been favourable. Credit restrictions, essential as they are in the national interest, have deprived many who might otherwise have bought their homes of the means of doing so."
  That is a matter of policy for which the present Government must carry and accept full responsibility. The noble and learned Viscount went on to say:
  "Threats of municipalisation of rented property made by the Labour Party, with only the vaguest of references to compensation, have frightened many owners, who might otherwise have been willing to re-let, into trying to sell."
  If I may say so, with appropriate respect, I think that the noble and learned Viscount has the chronology wrong. It is the case, of course, that the statement of Labour Party policy was published in June, 1956, whereas the Bill was not introduced until November, 1956, and received its Second Reading in

  231
  another place on November 21, 1956. The statement of Labour Party policy was made, therefore, six months before the Bill was introduced into another place—not after, but before—and the Government were on full notice as to the policy of the Labour Party in regard to housing, as were the public. Nevertheless, the Minister went forward with his proposals, and although he was urged on many occasions in another place to amend his proposals, he steadfastly refused to do so.
  It is, therefore idle, in my submission, to claim now that the policy of the Labour Party has contributed to difficulties which will be met with in October of this year. It is, in my submission, complete conjecture—convenient conjecture, no doubt. No evidence has been produced that owners are refusing to let because of the declaration of policy embodied in the Labour Party brochure. Further, if some owners are selling, then there are some persons who are buying in what the Government says is a free market. Those persons are evidently not frightened, and it seems to me that it is a little tenuous to contend that the difficulties which will be met, and which this Bill is designed (inadequately, as we say) to meet, arise from any statement of policy by the Labour Party.
  Our contention is that this Bill casts the whole burden of securing protection upon the shoulders of the tenant. A tenant has to satisfy the court as to his incapacity to pay the rent which is demanded. He has to satisfy the court that he has taken every proper step to find alternative accommodation. He has then to satisfy the court that his hardship will be greater than the hardship of the landlord if he is required to give up possession. Now, my Lords, that is a pretty serious and, I submit, unfair burden to cast upon the tenant.
  There is another unfairness in this Bill—a very serious one. Large numbers of dwellings are owned by companies or corporations. For instance, there is one company that owns 5,000 decontrolled dwellings in London; another with 2,000; another with 815, and a further one with 650. How can one appraise the relative hardships as between a corporation, which is the landlord, and a tenant? A corporation, it has been said, "has not a body to be kicked nor a soul to be damned";
  232
  but a tenant and his family will be out in the street if the notice is allowed to run. If, on the other hand, the notice is not allowed to run the worst that can happen to a corporation is that it will be short of the higher income that it would have obtained from the premises if they had become vacant and if the corporation had been able to let them at a higher rent. How a county court is to be able to compare the hardship of a corporation with the hardship of a tenant and his family who are to be evicted I find difficult to comprehend. It seems to me that that provision indicates a cynical disregard of human rights: a reduction of human rights and of human considerations to the base material of pounds, shillings and pence, represented in a profit and loss account or by way of dividends which are paid. We therefore take the view that, as with the Rent Act so with this Bill; it represents a housing policy which is wrong and which a succeeding Government will have to correct in due time.
  6.36 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, at this stage of this Bill I am somewhat reluctant to follow the noble Lord into controversies which really relate to the Rent Act itself. I will therefore limit my remarks to the shortest and most effective answers that I can. The first is that I am deeply sorry—and I am sure that someone like my noble friend Lord McCorquodale of Newton, who was there at the same time, must he deeply sorry—for the late conversion of the noble Lord, Lord Latham. I only wish that he had taken these views about the need for homes when the noble Lord and I were fighting, day after day, to try to persuade the Labour Government to build more than 200,000 houses a year. We could not persuade them. We came back from our Divisions over and over again, and asked them to deal with the human problem; and they refused. The noble Lord, of course, agreed with that.
  So to-day, when he talks of the position, I ask him only to remember two things. First, if his policy had gone on there would have been over three million people added to those looking for homes but who to-day, fortunately, thanks to the fact that the policy to which he clung was done away with and our policy substituted, are now comfortably in homes

  233
  of their own. That is the first thing the noble Lord should remember when he talks about the policy being a matter of homes. The second thing is this. As I reminded him more than once during the passage of the Rent Act (I cannot recall the exact period, because I have not verified it again, but I think I am right within a matter of months) it is now something like five years since the next most distinguished Member of his Party to himself and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in this field of politics, said that we were getting near, if we had not already reached, the point when there was a sufficient number of houses. The only difference, of course, is that since that time a least a million more houses have been built. I hope that he will remember that point. I am sure that if he looks up the debates he will find the exact figures and will have them at his disposal.
  Another point I want to put to the noble Lord—again with great brevity—is with regard to the Labour Party's policy. The Labour Party's policy, of course, is the municipalisation of all houses privately owned and coming within the Rent Act limits. According to Mr. Greenwood, that would cost£2,500 million. The Labour Party have not quantified it officially as a Party, but that is the estimate of one of their Front Benchers. In addition to that, there would be a vast payment—perhaps not as big as the£2,500 million, but still a vast payment—for maintenance and repairs.
  The result of that policy, apart from the question of municipalisation itself, would, of course, be higher rents—because there would be no Rent Act running against a municipality. It would mean higher rates for owner-occupiers. It would mean higher taxes for the taxpayers, who would have to find these vast sums of money. It would mean higher prices, and the pouring of£2,500 million to£5,000 million into the economy would be bound to cause inflation. If brought into operation, it would almost certainly cause a devaluation of the pound and difficulty for this country in buying its imports abroad. These are the results, the inevitable and indisputable results, of the Labour Party's municipalisation policy. If the noble Lord thinks that that policy is one which has helped
  234
  to create confidence during the last few years, then he is a spirit of the fantastical which even his speech tonight would hardly have made me credit.
  These are the general points and noble Lords will accept my apologies if I have made my answers on the brief side. I always enjoy the arguments I have with the noble Lord and no doubt again we shall be able to develop this one at length. Let me come for a brief moment to the only material point—that is, the Bill at present before us. I have followed the noble Lord into pastures new, but as shortly as I can.
  With regard to this Bill we have always said that it is not a Bill to erode decontrol in any way. Like so many other people, we have said that the Rent Acts have created a problem, but, unlike the noble Lord and his friends, we have solved the problem which they created and from which the noble Lord and his friends shrank. Having done that, we have said that this Bill does not erode the principle of decontrol. But we discovered that there would be a residuum of hard cases, because there are a certain number of people who are old or who are sick or who are not otherwise in a position to make the search necessary to find other property. We have dealt with them on the principle stated in this Bill.
  The noble Lord has done me the honour of not only listening to, but also reading, some of my speeches. I quoted the case of Birmingham, a large city with, as we know, a considerable housing problem. The estimate there is 5 per cent., but, as I pointed out, Birmingham is not a typical case because there are many districts where there would be nothing like that percentage constituting this problem. Therefore, we have to deal with a small problem, but in our way we have tried to seek justice. These people are cases of hardship and we are not in the least afraid of coming forward and saying that we have found these cases and will deal with them. It will be a poor day when the Conservative Party is ashamed of being an emperical Party that deals with problems as they arise, irrespective of the preconceptions or prejudices it holds. It is in that way that we have dealt with this problem, and it is for that reason that

  235
  I ask your Lordships to give a Third Reading to and to pass this Bill.
  On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

  CHEQUERS ESTATE BILL
  6.46 p.m.
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
  Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 21), Bill read 3a, and passed.

  INTEREST ON DAMAGES (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Read 3a (according to Order) and passed.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING (LIABILITY OF SHIPOWNERS AND OTHERS) BILL
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
  PARK LANE IMPROVEMENT BILL
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND MISCELLANEOUS FINANCIAL PROVISIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Returned from the Commons, with one of the Lords Amendments agreed to, with an Amendment, and with the remaining Lords Amendments agreed to: the Commons Amendment to be printed.
  THE SUMMER RECESS
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, if all necessary business has been disposed of, it is hoped that it will be possible to adjourn the House for the Summer Recess on Friday, August 1. I will make a statement early next week about the proposed date of reassembly.
  PIER AND HARBOUR ORDER (SHEERNESS) CONFIRMATION BILL
  Reported, with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.

  MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
  House adjourned at twelve minutes before seven o'clock.