Sitting of 20 March 1958

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  WALLASEY CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NIGERIA

    British Civil Servants
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that the salaries and prospects for British civil servants in Nigeria are inadequate; and what steps he is taking to increase them.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): Yes, Sir, I am much concerned with this question and for that reason, as the House already knows, I recently arranged for Sir John Martin to visit Nigeria and to report on the situation there. I am now considering his recommendations, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State realise that civil servants throughout the Colonies and all well-wishers of the Colonial Service will welcome the declaration that he has just made? Does he realise that the present policy is diminishing prematurely the administrative staffs in the Colonies, where they are wanted?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is not the policy which is diminishing the numbers. I agree that administrative staff are greatly required. I am very conscious of the matter and anxious about it.

    Per Capita Income
    Mr. E. L. Mallalieuasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the average per capita income per annum in Nigeria.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. John Profumo): The estimated average per capita income in Nigeria in 1956—the latest year for which figures are available—is £22.
    Mr. Mallalieu: Is the hon. Gentleman able to say how the Northern Region compares with other regions in this respect?
    Mr. Profumo: Not without notice.

    Kano Meeting (Prosecution)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what charges eleven members of the Northern Elements Progressive Union in Kano, Nigeria, were found guilty; and how many other members of this political party are now in jail.
    Mr. Profumo: The hon. Member may have in mind an incident last January when eleven people, whose political affiliations are unknown, were convicted of holding a meeting in Kano Emirate without the necessary permit from the Native Authority. They were discharged on appeal. I cannot answer the second part of the Question since the political affiliations of prisoners in Nigeria are not recorded.
    Mr. Sorensen: Can the hon. Gentleman inform the House to what extent now we have any responsibility in matters of this kind, and can he say whether his right hon. Friend is satisfied that freedom of expression exists in Northern Nigeria?
    Mr. Profumo: Oh, yes, in reply to the last part of the supplementary question, my right hon. Friend is perfectly satisfied to that extent.

    Mining Industry and International Tin Council
    Mr. Sydney Irvingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reply was given by the Government of Nigeria to the proposal of the All-Nigeria Trade Union Federation to nationalise the mining industry and to withdraw from the International Tin Council.
    Mr. Profumo: I am asking the Governor-General of the Federation of Nigeria for the information and will write to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Irving: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the hardship caused by this restrictive export agreement and the fact that already there are 5,000 out of work in Nigeria? Does not this call for a different kind of marketing of raw materials, particularly in the Commonwealth?
    Mr. Profumo: I think we had better wait until we hear from the Governor-General, but the agreement was adhered to by Nigeria's representative.

    Oil Concessions
    Mr. Sydney Irvingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent the Federal Government of Nigeria have been concerned with the granting of oil concessions to the Shell-B.P. Petroleum Company; and what conditions, with regard to the sharing of profits, if the oil so far discovered is found to be of commercial value, have been established by the contracting parties.
    Mr. Profumo: The Federal Government of Nigeria are responsible for the granting of these concessions. The conditions on which profits should be shared are in process of negotiation between the Federal Government and the company.
    Mr. Irving: I think that we all welcome the arrival of some of this oil in this country. It is an historic moment and we hope that there will be more to come. Will the hon. Gentleman urge on the oil companies a most generous and wise settlement of this matter, because the oil comes from the poorest Nigerian Region—the Eastern Region—and we hope for a satisfactory solution of the problem?
    Mr. Profumo: I am sure that this is properly a matter for the Nigerian Government.

  WEST INDIES

    Degree in Agriculture
    Sir R. Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what has been the duration of the discussions
    1400
    between the University College of the West Indies and the Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture on the question of providing a first degree in agriculture in the Caribbean; and when it is hoped to conclude these discussions and announce a decision.
    Mr. Profumo: I know my hon. Friend understands that discussion between these two institutions is not a matter that falls within my right hon. Friend's direct responsibility. I believe, however, that the discussions to which he refers started several years ago. On the second part of the Question, I have nothing to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave him on 13th February.
    Sir R. Robinson: In view of the fact that these discussions have been going on for so long, will my hon. Friend use whatever influence he has in the matter in order to expedite the announcement of a decision?
    Mr. Profumo: I do not think that it needs the use of my influence. I know that those concerned understand the position as clearly as the hon. Member does.

    Emigrants to the United Kingdom
    Mr. Liptonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action is taken to inform West Indians proposing to emigrate that it is becoming more difficult to find employment in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Profumo: Information on all aspects of conditions in the United Kingdom, with particular emphasis on employment, is made available to intending emigrants through the reports made to the Government of the West Indies by the British Caribbean Welfare Service, but the Migrant Advisory Bureau in Jamaica, and by radio and Press publicity in the West Indies.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Brixton, for example, 2,482 people are registered as unemployed, including quite a number of West Indians, and that this is a growing problem? Is not it necessary and desirable to give clear warning that jobs and homes are not readily available here?
    Mr. Profumo: The hon. Member used the words "including quite a number of

    1401
    West Indians". I should require to know how many before I could answer his supplementary question. I have no information to suggest that there is any significant recent change in employment conditions for West Indians here.

  BRITISH GUIANA

    Unemployment
    Mr. Slaterasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what schemes are being proceeded with in British Guiana to assist in overcoming unemployment.
    Mr. Profumo: A large part of the Government's development programme is designed to provide and encourage increased opportunities for employment in peasant farming, through land development schemes, and in various other ways. More jobs are also being provided as a result of new investments in mining, new factories and local industries.
    Mr. Slater: Does not the Minister agree that if a positive policy were pursued in regard to the highway system and lines of communication within British Guiana it might provide a means of accommodating much of the unemployment which exists there? Further, does not he agree that greater initiative in regard to further development should be taken in the Mara and Skeldon areas of British Guiana?
    Mr. Profumo: I am satisfied that the Government of British Guiana are aware of the problem and will do everything possible to make new opportunities for employment.
    Mr. Slaterasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the unemployment figures for British Guiana; and how such figures compare with twelve months ago.
    Mr. Profumo: No official unemployment figures are at present available, but a report has just been received of the survey of unemployment and underemployment which has been carried out by an International Labour Organisation expert, and this is now being carefully studied.
    Mr. Slater: In view of the fact that the hon. Member is not in a position to give us the true figures about unemployment in British Guiana, can he give the House the number of young people of
    1402
    school-leaving age, and state what opportunities are likely to be afforded to these young people to take up employment in that country?
    Mr. Profumo: That is a much wider question. I shall do my best to answer it if the hon. Member puts it on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Slaterasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what system is in operation in British Guiana for the registration of unemployed; and what liaison exists between such organisation and industry.
    Mr. Profumo: Registration is voluntary. There are employment exchanges in Georgetown and New Amsterdam under the direction of the Commissioner of Labour. The Commissioner is advised by two committees, the Employment Exchanges Standing Committee and the Juvenile Employment Committee, comprising representatives of employers and trade unions and social organisations.
    Mr. Slater: Does not the hon. Member agree that this matter requires examining most seriously? It is a serious matter for British Guiana. Under the present set-up it is practically impossible to ascertain the unemployment position. If we have not the degree of liaison that we ought to have within these territories, how can we make progress in providing the opportunities which the people ought to have?
    Mr. Profumo: I believe that the I.L.O. expert's examination, to which I have already referred, will be a very valuable contribution to finding out more of the information to which the hon. Member refers. Meanwhile, I am satisfied that the Government are doing everything in their power.
    Mr. Brockway: Can the Minister tell us when the studies of these figures and of this report are likely to be concluded, and when the hon. Member will be able to reach any conclusions about them?
    Mr. Profumo: I am afraid that I cannot give that information now, because the report will primarily be to the Government there, and it is being urgently looked at now. I cannot give any estimate as to when the report will be available. I cannot say anything further, except that we shall try to keep hon. Members in touch.

  JAMAICA

    Industry and Agriculture
    Sir R. Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many limited liability companies have been registered in Jamaica during the past year with a capital of £5,000 and more; how many established companies of similar size have increased their capital during the same period and whether he will continue to support the Government of Jamaica in its plans for industrial and agricultural expansion.
    Mr. Profumo: Sixty-eight companies. A further 37 increased their capital to £5,000 or more during 1957. The answer to the last part of the question is "Yes" so far as our capacity and other commitments allow us to do so.
    Sir R. Robinson: Can my hon. Friend say how much this industrial expansion has been brought about by the Jamaican Pioneer Industries legislation?
    Mr. Profumo: To a considerable degree.

  KENYA

    Instruction in Arabic
    Mr. Marquandasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what provision is made for the teaching of Arabic in secondary schools or colleges in Kenya.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: All classes in the Arab Secondary School at Mombasa are given instruction in Arabic.
    Arabic is not taught as a subject at the Mombasa Institute of Muslim Education, which is a technical training institute, but one period is devoted to Islamic religious teaching each week in addition to daily prayers and Friday worship.

    African Farmers (Land)
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent the Kenya Government now propose to implement the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Land in East Africa that the Highlands in Kenya should no longer be subject to exclusive occupation by white settlers but should be available for African farming under proper safeguards.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Kenya Government's position in this matter remains as stated in my reply to the hon. Member on 14th November, 1957.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Will the Secretary of State tell us what are the objections to the White Highlands being developed?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As I told the hon. Gentleman then, last November, the Royal Commission expressly linked the reservation of African land and the reservation of European land as being two aspects of the same problem of reservation. In its view, therefore, action in one field would not be proper without action in another. That raises a great many very important issues.
    Mr. J. Johnson: Is not it a fact that leading white settlers like Mr. Lipscomb, Mr. Mackenzie and Mr. Michael Blundell are in favour of opportunity being given to a number of African farmers, on the basis of good husbandry and good farming? Would not the right hon. Gentleman listen to those leaders of white opinion in the Colony itself?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have seen with great pleasure the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture and others. I realise that more people are beginning to see that this is an agrarian rather than a political problem.

  TANGANYIKA

    African Labourers (Employment)
    Mr. Pargiterasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proposals are being considered by the Government of Tanganyika to provide alternative employment for the 6,000 to 8,000 African labourers who will no longer be able to work in the copper mines of Northern Rhodesia as a result of restrictions on immigrant employment.
    Mr. Profumo: The Government of Tanganyika expect sufficient employment to be available locally for Africans who might formerly have sought work in the Northern Rhodesia copper mines. Plans have, however, been made to help any who may still wish to migrate for employment by increasing facilities for employment on the Rand.
    Mr. Pargiter: Does the Minister consider that the rate of development in

    1405
    Tanganyika is sufficient to absorb these additional people who will be constantly available?
    Mr. Profumo: Yes, Sir, I think so.

    United Nations Mission (Report)
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will now state what conclusions have been reached regarding the recommendations made in the Report of the United Nations Visiting Mission to Tanganyika.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Report is still under discussion in the Trusteeship Council.
    Mr. Brockway: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when he is likely to be able to announce the conclusions of Her Majesty's Government on this matter, as the Government of Tanganyika have already indicated their attitude?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I agree with the observations of the Government of Tanganyika. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a copy of their observations has been put in the Library. I have not myself control over the timetable of the Trusteeship Council.
    Mr. Brockway: The question is what conclusions have been reached regarding recommendations? Those must be conclusions by Her Majesty's Government and not by the Trusteeship Council. Can the right hon. Gentleman say what are the conclusions of Her Majesty's Government?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be among the first to say that it would be courteous to the Trusteeship Council to wait until it had made its full comments.

    Children (School Attendance)
    Mr. Malcolm MacPhersonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many children of school age in Tanganyika live at such distance from school as to make it impracticable for them to attend without transport.
    Mr. Profumo: This information is not available.
    Mr. MacPherson: Do not a very large number of children live so far away from the schools that it is unreasonable to expect them to go? In view of that
    1406
    fact, and of the comparatively high fees charged, does not the Under-Secretary of State think that he ought to withdraw the strictures which he made on the parents of Tanganyika for not using to the full the school places?
    Mr. Profumo: No, Sir, I do not think so. I thought very carefully before I said what I did on that occasion. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that there is substance in what I said about the difficulty which must exist in territories of this sort with the number of schools in rural areas where the population is very sparsely distributed. The Government are doing all they can to provide the right number of schools in the right places.

  SINGAPORE

    City Council Employee (Dismissal)
    Mr. Peytonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the recent dismissal of Mr. George Skelt from his employment by the Singapore City Council.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am told that on 13th February the Staff Committee of the Singapore City Council held Mr. Skelt to be guilty of contravening the rules of conduct and discipline laid down for City Council employees, and recommended his dismissal from the Council's service. On 28th February the City Council confirmed the recommendation of the Staff Committee. I understand that an appeal to the City Council against this decision has been lodged on behalf of Mr. Skelt by the City Council Senior Officers' Association.
    Mr. Peyton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this case appears to be one of victimisation; that a British subject with a good reputation extending over many years of service is being made the victim of a shabby trick in order to get rid of him as cheaply as possible? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the necessity to give expatriate British subjects the confidence of having the support of Her Majesty's Government in the difficult positions and jobs in which they find themselves?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I fully understand the need to give confidence to expatriates

    1407
    in Singapore and elsewhere. My constitutional position in relation to employees of Government agencies is one which I have tried to explain in this House on previous occasions. As in this case there is an appeal pending, I think it better if I do not make any comments this afternoon.

  NORTHERN RHODESIA AND NYASALAND

    Constitutional Development
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the proposed constitutional changes in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have nothing to add to my reply on 6th March.
    Mr. Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very grave situation throughout the whole of Central Africa, and how important it is that African claims in these two Territories should be met, if there is to be an easing of the situation? Will he reassure the African population at an early date?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot accept that there is a grave situation throughout the whole of Central Africa. I am very well aware of the great importance which some people, understandably, attach to these constitutional developments.

  MALTA

    Discussions
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the conclusions reached in the discussions with the Prime Minister of Malta regarding the integration of the Colony with the United Kingdom, the maintenance of employment, the provision of social services, and the progressive advance of the standard of life.
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement about his discussions with the Prime Minister of Malta.
    Mrs. L. Jegerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the constitutional future of Malta.
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will now make a statement upon his talks with the Prime Minister of Malta.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As my discussions with the Prime Minister of Malta are not concluded, I am not yet able to make a statement.
    Mr. Brockway: While not pressing the Minister to make a statement now, may I ask him whether he is aware that many of us are tremendously conscious of the service which the people of Malta have given to this country? Further, is he aware that our desire is that in these negotiations there shall be generosity—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—yes, generosity—so that, after having been used for military purposes, they shall not be thrown on the scrap heap because of new defence arrangements?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No such ludicrous development was ever contemplated.
    Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he will have the sympathetic support of hon. Members on this side of this side of the House in these difficult negotiations which he is now conducting? Would not the alternative of independence, which is referred to in some quarters, be economic suicide for the people of Malta, and gravely endanger the good will in this country for Malta and the good will in Malta for this country?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: A great many people would agree with my hon. Friend.
    Mrs. L. Jeger: Can the Colonial Secretary at least say that so far as he is concerned the policy of integration which the whole House approves is still the basis of Her Majesty's Government's approach to the government of Malta?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I answered a Question on that a few weeks ago, and I have nothing to add today.
    Mr. Callaghan: Regarding the financial aspects of this matter, will the Colonial Secretary bear in mind that as we are maintaining our Estimates here at their current level, it would ill attune were any drastic cuts suggested in the grants made by the Government to the

    1409
    people of Malta during this financial year?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The important thing is the amount of money which should be available, and I think that other sources than Her Majesty's Government ought to play their part in helping over that.
    Sir G. Nicholson: Can my right hon. Friend say what is the next stage, whether negotiations will be resumed, and so on?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: They have not stopped.

    Dr. Borg Olivier
    Mr. Teelingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the recent visits of the Prime Minister of Malta and of the leader of the Progressive Constitutional Party, Miss Strickland, to this country and of the opportunity that was given both to Ministers and hon. Members of this House to hear their views on Maltese questions, he will now invite the Leader of the official Opposition in Malta Dr. Borg Olivier, to visit this country, or to send a representative.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Prime Minister of Malta is here as leader of a Maltese Government delegation: Miss Strickland came on her own initiative. Whilst, of course, I would be prepared to listen to the views of Dr. Borg Olivier, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to invite him to London.
    Mr. Teeling: Does not my right hon. Friend think that constitutionally this is rather a difficult problem? If the Prime Minister of a Colony comes here, possibly on Government funds—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—why not indeed—he is quite likely to discuss matters also from a party point of view, and if a lady who is very rich is also able to come, is it not hard luck on the real Opposition in Malta, which is not sufficiently well-off to afford to send representatives? In these critical days, might not it be good for us to know what the Opposition has to say?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The subjects of the talks I am having with the Prime Minister of Malta are really only appropriate to negotiations between Governments.

  UGANDA

    Income Tax (Commission's Report)
    Mrs. Whiteasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies who were the members appointed by the representative members on the Uganda Legislative Council to report on Income Tax in East Africa.
    Mr. Profumo: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of the nine members who were appointed by the Representative Members' Organisation to consider, together with representatives of other bodies, the Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Income Tax in East Africa.
    Mrs. White: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the recommendation by the members of the Uganda Legislative Council for substantial cuts in personal Income Tax on higher levels of incomes seems rather shocking, and sets a bad example in a country where there is still so much to be done in the way of development? Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the next step in the matter?
    Mr. Profumo: The next step is that the Commission's Report is still under consideration by all the East African Governments.
    The following are the names:
    Mrs. B. Saben (Chairman), Major A. S. Din, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. L. Gordon, Mr. E. Kapa, Dr. B. N. Kununka, Mr. Y. B. Mungoma, Mr C. J. Obwangor, Mr. Y. Omonya, Mr. J. T. Simpson.

    Buganda (Direct Elections)
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proposals the Governor of Uganda has made to the Buganda Lukiko to secure the fullest possible registration of electors for the direct elections to the Legislative Council; and what efforts have been made to secure direct elections to the Buganda Lukiko.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Following discussions with a delegation from the Lukiko, the Governor of Uganda has replied to the Lukiko resolution of 4th March and has called upon the Lukiko to say categorically whether or not it wishes direct elections to the Legislative Council to be held in Buganda this year.

    1411
    I have arranged for copies of the Governor's reply to be placed in the Library.
    As regards the introduction of direct elections to the Lukiko, a motion proposing this was defeated in the Lukiko last November, when it was decided to postpone consideration of this issue until after the system of direct elections to the Legislative Council had been observed in practice.
    Mr. Stonehouse: While thanking the Secretary of State for that reply, may I ask him if he is aware of the great importance of direct elections taking place in Buganda at the same time as they take place in the rest of Uganda? Is it not important also that direct elections to the Buganda Lukiko should soon take place?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: To the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question my answer would be "Yes". On the second part, I regard the question of elections to the Lukiko as primarily a domestic matter for the people of Buganda.
    Mrs. Whiteasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the present objections of the Buganda Government to the registration of electors for the proposed Legislative Council elections.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Kabaka's Government objected to the appointment by the Protectorate Government of Buganda Chiefs as assistant registration officers, and to their taking an oath not to reveal election secrets which, it was claimed, would be in conflict with their oath of allegiance to the Kabaka. The Protectorate Government made suggestions to overcome these difficulties, but the Lukiko subsequently resolved that preparations for elections be suspended in Buganda pending discussions on certain constitutional issues.
    Mrs. White: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many hon. Members on, I believe, both sides of the House have been disappointed by the objections put up by the Kabaka's Government in this matter, and that we hope that they will very soon come to a decision whereby such registration may proceed?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I share that hope.

  CYPRUS

    Discussions
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent in his discussions about the future of Cyprus consideration has been given to the federation of British, Greek and Turkish sectors of the island under a federal island government, and without change in sovereignty.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In the discussions that I have held and am holding no possible constitutional solution has been excluded.
    Mr. Wall: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the federal scheme obviates much of the danger of the partition scheme and could give the three countries concerned—Britain, Turkey and Greece—some measure of what each of them desires?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sure that all people in the many countries who follow this business with great care will listen to the statement of my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Callaghan: Could not the right hon. Gentleman give us a little more indication than he has given in the first part of his Answer of the people with whom he is now discussing the future of Cyprus? Is he aware that there is a feeling in the island that, because of the fall of the Greek Government, Her Majesty's Government are taking no initiative whatsoever? If he can remove that feeling by indicating what discussions are now going on, and with whom, he may be able to regain a little of the initiative.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I really do not believe that that would help forward the business which we all have at heart.
    Mr. Callaghan: What does the Colonial Secretary want to achieve in this matter? Is not it a common purpose to endeavour to maintain peace in the island? Is not he aware of the outbreaks of violence that have taken place in the last fortnight? Is not he further aware that that is partly due to the feeling that Her Majesty's Government are taking no action because of the fall of the Greek Government? Is it not, therefore, in his own interests as well as in the interests of the British people and of the people

    1413
    of Cyprus, that the right hon. Gentleman should give us a little more information than he has given in the first part of his Answer about the people with whom he is discussing and what he is discussing?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intentions, but if I responded as he wishes I do not believe that the result of his intentions would be fulfilled.
    Mr. F. Noel-Baker: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the Answer, I beg to give notice that, if we cannot get the information in any other way, I will try to raise the matter on the Adjournment before the Easter Recess.

    Future
    Mrs. L. Jegerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the future of Cyprus.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am afraid I have nothing at present to add to the reply given on 5th March by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affiairs.
    Mrs. Jeger: Is it too much to expect the right hon. Gentleman to have something to say about Cyprus very soon? Does he realise that he is putting an intolerable strain on all these people who want law and order kept in Cyprus? Would not it be a good idea if he started talking with representatives of the Cypriot people instead of getting mixed up with all these foreign Governments?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the problem were as simple as that, it would have been solved long ago.
    Mr. C. Davies: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman realises that hon. Members have shown very great restraint about the anxious position in the island. Can he indicate when he may be able to make a more definite statement about the future of these people?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I am anxious to be able to do so, and that I will do so as soon as it is possible to make a worth-while statement.
    Hon. Members: When?

    Jewellery
    Mr. V. Yatesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in view of the cost to the jewellery trade, because of the high deposits required by Her Majesty's Customs, of taking samples overseas for exhibition in Nicosia, what steps he will take to amend the restrictions which at present hamper the export of jewellery to Cyprus.
    Mr. Profumo: I am advised that no deposits are required by the United Kingdom authorities on exports of jewellery to Cyprus. In case the hon. Member has in mind possible import restrictions in Cyprus, I am asking the Governor for information and will write to the hon. Member when I have his reply.
    Mr. Yates: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask if he is aware that my information is that a manufacturer recently was asked for a deposit of £12,000, that he could raise a deposit of only £2,000 and, as a result, he lost many thousands of pounds worth of trade?
    Mr. Profumo: As I am sure the hon. Member knows, there are international regulations about this matter. I think we had better await the reply to the question I have addressed to the Governor of Cyprus. Then we shall know the actual position.

  HONG KONG

    Industries (Assistance)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken by the Government of Hong Kong to encourage new industries which do not require high capital investment, in order to provide employment for the increasing numbers of unemployed workers.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Hong Kong Government give much aid to small-scale industries by providing special accommodation on resettlement estates and by establishing specially designed experimental factories. Furthermore these industries, in common with others, enjoy the benefits of great Government activity in land reclamation, water supply improvement, and overseas trade promotion. The population of Hong Kong is increasing, but I have no evidence that unemployment is.
    Mr. Rankin: While those efforts are welcomed, is not it the case that, as the result of the closing of the dockyard, there has been a considerable increase in the number of unemployed? While there is no registration, is any attempt made to give a dependable estimate of the number of people unemployed in Hong Kong? Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if we are to give these people a sense of belonging to a community, a job and a home are absolutely necessary?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman is not quite right. Of the 390 workers discharged from the dockyard by 15th March, only 15 below retiring age are still without work, and at least 10 of those are under consideration for new jobs.

    Refugees (Sir Alexander Grantham's Speech)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has noted the speech to the Hong Kong Legislative Council on 18th December, 1957, in which the former Governor, Sir Alexander Grantham, regretted the failure of the United Kingdom Government to bear an equitable share of the cost of the refugee problem; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have noted the speech and am glad of this opportunity to pay a tribute to the splendid work done by the Hong Kong Government in resettling refugees. Since 1945 Hong Kong has received from Her Majesty's Government Colonial Development and Welfare allocations exceeding £1 million and an interest-free loan of £3 million towards the cost of rebuilding Kai Tak airport. Bearing this assistance in mind, and the relative needs of Hong Kong compared with those of other territories and the very heavy calls on our resources, Her Majesty's Government did not feel justified in making a specific contribution to the refugee problem.
    Mr. Rankin: Does not the Colonial Secretary regard it as a very serious matter when a Governor of the experience of Sir Alexander Grantham makes a devastating attack on the Government for their irresponsibility in regard to the financial aspect of the refugee problem? Is not it the case that
    1416
    during the period of the problem Hong Kong has spent more than 300 million Hong Kong dollars and this has restricted the general social and economic development of the Colony? Will not the Colonial Secretary see if he can give a little more help than is represented by the £1 million he mentioned?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not recognise in the hon. Member's rather flamboyant language the actual speech made by the retiring Governor.

  ZANZIBAR

    Dock Workers
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what weekly wages are paid to dock workers in Zanzibar; and if he will make a statement on their general conditions of employment.
    Mr. Profumo: Dock workers in Zanzibar are not paid on a weekly basis. Permanently employed stevedores receive minimum monthly salaries of 140s., rising to 170s.; casual labourers are paid 7s. for an eight-hour day from Mondays to Fridays, and 4s. 6d. for a five-hour day on Saturdays. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement on general conditions of employment of unskilled workers.
    Mr. Rankin: Are not those very low figures indeed for unskilled labourers? As a result, is there not a great deal of discontent? As a matter of fact, I have a cutting here from a Zanzibar newspaper which says that the discontent among dock workers is partly due to low wages, unpalatable food and general frustration because of conditions of labour. Does the Minister agree that those things are true?
    Mr. Profumo: I have not read the article to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I would tell him that the employers have recently offered a higher rate of pay for all labour and an increase in overtime rates with effect from 1st February. This offer is at present under consideration by the dock workers.
    Following is the statement:
    In addition to wages, all dock workers receive a free morning snack and a full meal every six hours. General conditions

    1417
    of employment for permanent labour provide for 14 days annual leave with pay, and a gratuity—calculated at half a month's wages for each completed year of service—on retirement provided an employee has completed 15 years' service. Dock labour normally works from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. with an hour's break for lunch. Work performed in the lunch hour or between 4 p.m. and 7 a.m. and all work done on Sundays qualifies for overtime. The present overtime rate for permanent and casual employees is 10d. an hour. Casual labourers are guaranteed work for at least 20 days a month by employers.

  ADEN

    Situation
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement in respect of the present conditions in Aden and the Protectorate.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The new constitutional proposals in Aden Colony have received general public approval, although some points are still under consideration. The trade unions in Aden are reported to be contemplating a general strike soon; it is believed their contention may be that the immigration policy of the Aden Government is not sufficiently strict.
    As regards Aden Protectorate the Yemenis are still causing provocation on the frontier. They have been firing guns of various calibres across the frontier at subjects of the Protectorate Rulers and at their and our security forces; they have been fomenting dissidence within the Protectorate States. All necessary measures will continue to be taken to protect the Rulers of the frontier States and their people from this continuous aggression.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is any attempt being made, or is an attempt likely to be made in the near future, to secure reconsideration of the cause of the incidents to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We are always anxious, of course, to bring about a calmer situation on every frontier. Our record in this case proves that.

  CAMEROONS

    Medical Services
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many hospitals for mental illness and infectious diseases there are in the South Cameroons; how many training centres exist in that area for medical practitioners, pharmacists, health inspectors and others engaged in medical, health or nursing services; and what steps are being taken to meet more adequately the need for hospital, medical and nursing services in the area.
    Mr. Profumo: I have asked the Governor-General of the Federation of Nigeria about this and will write to the hon. Member when I receive a reply.
    Mr. Sorensen: Has any attempt been made to draw the attention of the authorities there to the quite inadequate medical and similar facilities with a view to meeting these needs?
    Mr. Profumo: The medical facilities which exist there are being improved as time goes on. A grant of £139,000 from C.D. and W. funds towards the cost of development of medical and health services in the Southern Cameroons during the period 1955–60 was approved during 1955–56.

    Constitutional Development
    Colonel Beamishasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what plans have been made for constitutional progress in the British Cameroons, in view of the connection between this problem and the forthcoming independence of the Federation of Nigeria; how far it is the intention to consult public opinion; and how and when this will be done.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: An Order in Council which is being laid before Parliament today, provides for the considerable constitutional advances in the Southern Cameroons which were agreed at last year's Nigeria Conference. The Northern Cameroons continues to develop as part of the Northern Region, which is seeking Regional self-government in March next.
    I informed last year's Conference that before Nigeria becomes independent, the peoples of the British Cameroons would have to say freely what their wishes were

    1419
    as to their own future, and that Her Majesty's Government would of course pay the very greatest regard to their views whatever form they might take. The timing and method of ascertaining the wishes of the people will be considered in the light of the advance of Nigeria towards independence and our responsibilities to the United Nations under the Trusteeship Agreement.

    Development Corporation
    Colonel Beamishasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangements are being made for the future financing of the Cameroons Development Corporation.
    Mr. Profumo: Proposals have been made by the Colonial Development Corporation for its participation in the Cameroons Development Corporation. These proposals are at present under consideration locally.
    Colonel Beamish: Can my hon. Friend say how long it is likely to be before the House can be given more information in view of the fact that the financing is likely to be on a large scale by the Corporation, which has done excellent work since the war?
    Mr. Profumo: I agree with the last observation made by my hon. and gallant Friend, but I am afraid I cannot answer the first part of his supplementary question, except to say that all speed is being used.
    Mr. J. Johnson: Will the Order in Council mentioned a moment ago be debatable in this House? Will it be subject to the affirmative or the negative Resolution procedure.
    Mr. Profumo: It will not be debatable in this House.

  FIJI

    Constitutional Reform
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proposals he has in mind for constitutional reform in Fiji.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: None, Sir, but I know that the Government of Fiji have the question of constitutional reform under review.
    Mr. Johnson: Will the Minister confirm that for the first time the Indian immigrant population now outnumbers the indigenous Polynesian population, and that the Indian population is wealthy—they are the middle men—and with their money they wish to buy land; but obviously the land is in the hands of the Fijian people and that is causing considerable tension? Will he consider appointing a Commission to look at the matter before it blows up, as it might, into a situation like that in Kenya or Cyprus? Can that be looked at before it gets too late?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I see no reason to do that. The question of constitutional political change was not an issue in the elections to the Legislative Council in August, 1956. It would be giving a misleading impression to suggest that there are widespread demands or desires for significant political change.
    Mr. Johnson: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the matter before it is too late, because in two years or five years it might blow up into a situation such as we have seen in other Colonies?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am certainly looking at the situation all the time.

  NORTHERN RHODESIA

    Constitution
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he proposes to make a statement regarding constitutional advance in Northern Rhodesia.
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what decision he has reached about the future composition of the Executive Council in Northern Rhodesia.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As regards a statement, I have nothing to add to the reply I gave on 6th March to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). As regards Executive Council, the answer is "None, Sir." Although I have had some discussion about the Northern Rhodesian constitution with the Governor and with some others concerned, I am not in a position to reach decisions about the future composition of Executive Council, or any other aspect of the constitution,

    1421
    until I have received the firm recommendations of the Northern Rhodesian Government.
    Mr. Johnson: While accepting that reply, may I ask the Colonial Secretary to bear in mind that the African people are in a difficult mood, following on the objectionable action of the Federal Government in the last Constitutional Amendment Bill? Will he also bear in mind that any liberal action he may take, such as, for example, parity between the white-elected and the African-elected members, would be helpful to the Congress leaders in steadying their followers in this matter?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If I do not follow up the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I must not be taken to agree with the words he has used in regard to the Federal Government.
    Mr. Wall: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask if he will think of the difficulty facing a single African representative, and, Possibly, consider withdrawing the European representative of African interests so that there might be two African representatives?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: From my experience elsewhere, I am very well aware of the difficulties in which a single representative, bound by a solemn oath, might find himself in the various Commonwealth Territories.
    Mr. Callaghan: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the special position of strain created in this Territory by the decision of the Government to over-rule the recommendation of the African Affairs Board, and that it is therefore doubly incumbent on him to consult African opinion on this before reaching a conclusion, and can he assure the House that he will do so?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I had two interviews last week—one, very long—with Mr. Sokota, who came over for that express purpose.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Taxi Cabs, London (Fares)
    Sir W. Anstruther-Grayasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now considered the
    1422
    report of the accountant investigating operating costs of London taxi-cabs; and whether he is in a position to announce a reduction in the present 6d. surcharge as a result of the fall in fuel prices.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I authorised the surcharge last September, as an interim measure, to cover a number of items of increased costs of operation which have occurred since the present scale of fares was fixed in 1951. The recent falls in the prices of fuel offset only a very small part of these increases. The accountant's interim report shows that a little more time is needed before the full effect of the increased costs can be judged. I have, therefore, decided to postpone a full revision of the scale of fares, and that the surcharge should be retained meanwhile.
    Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him to take note that not only has the price of fuel fallen, but also that of tyres, and that it is very desirable to get this surcharge reduced as soon as possible?
    Mr. Butler: Naturally, everyone would wish to see a surcharge reduced, if it could be done. All I am asking my hon. and gallant Friend is to await a little further experience, so that I get the full view of what the position actually is. I will, in the meantime, undertake to take into account what he has said.

    Summer Time
    Mr. Hunterasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in order to give the benefit of an hour's extra daylight in the evening, if he will take measures for extending summer time this year until the end of October.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: No, Sir.
    Mr. Hunter: Is the Home Secretary aware that his reply will give great dissatisfaction to many who think that one hour of extra daylight in October would be of great benefit to health and a boon to many people?

    NUCLEAR WEAPONS (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister to what extent the speech of the Minister of Defence at the meeting

    1423
    of the National Union of Conservative Associations on the question of the use of the hydrogen bomb represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): The speech was entirely in accord with the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the rôle of nuclear weapons.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence said that the official Labour Party is 99·9 per cent. sound on defence? Does that mean that he agrees 99·9 per cent. with the official defence policy of the Labour Party, and what is the ·1 per cent. that the mystery is about?
    The Prime Minister: I should not like to be drawn in great detail into these mathematical calculations. If my right hon. Friend was over-optimistic, I must, of course, ask him to make a new calculation more in relation to the objective consideration of the facts.

    GOVERNMENT POLICY (MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS)
    Mr. Lewisasked the Prime Minister, in view of the confusion arising from the varying interpretation of Government policy by Ministers, if he will ensure that Ministerial statements conform in every case to the announced policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    The Prime Minister: It is through the statements of Ministers that Government policy is announced.
    Mr. Lewis: Almost every week, and almost every day, there are different statements from different Ministers, each contradicting the other, on various aspects of Government policy, particularly in regard to the Rent Act. Does not the Prime Minister think it far better to have all these Ministers at least declaring the policy of the Government with one voice?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the policy of the Government as expressed by the Ministers is consistent and clear. I do not feel quite the same with regard to the policy of the Opposition.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is quite incorrect in what he has just said; that the official
    1424
    Labour Party policy on defence, declared at the last conference of the party at Brighton, remains official policy?
    The Prime Minister: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but I think that he should not reopen these old wounds.

    AIRCRAFT (NUCLEAR WEAPONS)
    Mr. Lewisasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a United States bomber accidentally jettisoned an unarmed nuclear weapon in Georgia on 11th March causing injury and destruction; and what discussions he has recently had with the appropriate authorities to prevent such an occurrence in Great Britain.
    The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave on Tuesday.
    Mrs. Castleasked the Prime Minister what information he has received from the United States Government of the contents of the sealed orders carried by the United States bombers now patrolling over Britain with hydrogen bombs aboard.
    The Prime Minister: As was stated in the Defence White Paper, operational plans are co-ordinated between Bomber Command and the United States Air Force.
    Mrs. Castle: Does not the Prime Minister's reply mean that he has admitted that planes are patrolling overhead at this moment with sealed orders, to be operated instantly in the event of war? If that is so, is not it a contradiction of the pledge he gave to this House on Tuesday that there is no permanent standing patrol taking place by bombers with H-bombs at this moment for deterrent purposes?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Lady's premise was right, her conclusion might also be right, but her premise is wrong. I know of no such orders. It is perfectly clear that the operational use of bomber bases, British bases, is governed by the Governmental agreement first entered into by Mr. Attlee's Government—as he then was—and then confirmed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) at a later stage.

    PRIME MINISTER (VISIT TO THE UNITED STATES)
    Mr. Beswickasked the Prime Minister if his meeting with the President of the United States of America is planned to take place before or after the Summit Conference.
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister why his visit to the United States of America is not to take place before June.
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Prime Minister if he will state the agenda for his forthcoming talks next June with President Eisenhower; and what advisers he intends to take with him.
    The Prime Minister: The De Pauw University ceremonies which I am to attend take place in June. I am using the opportunity of my visit to the United States to have some talks with the President and the Secretary of State; and the subjects discussed will depend on the circumstances at the time. I have not yet decided who shall accompany me. Whether my visit would precede or follow a Summit Conference depends on when a Summit Conference will take place.
    Mr. Beswick: is the Minister aware that this visit is being construed as an exercise in feet dragging—[Interruption.]—and when he sees the President, will he say that this stink of defeat, this defeatism which the American correspondents say they can sense in this country, is really exasperation, indignation and impatience at the way in which we are being held back in our attempt to get a political settlement at the summit?
    The Prime Minister: No. This invitation was extended to me several months ago for a purely personal reason, and, perhaps, a sentimental reason as far as I am concerned, as my grandfather was the first medical student at this university. I said that I would accept, if it were possible—as I think that it may be, perhaps—to get leave for a day or two to do this. It would be quite natural that, in passing back through Washington, I should have discussions with the President and with the Secretary of State. What will be the precise
    1426
    situation at that moment I cannot tell, but any moment such as this is a useful opportunity for personal contacts.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us if the subject of his lecture will be "British By-elections and Their Significance"?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will consult him beforehand, because he could give me some very good jokes.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the replies he has given indicate that he is treating this matter too lightly—[Laughter.]—and the laughter of his supporters supports this view? Will he frankly answer the question whether his visit, his long-delayed visit, is in relation to the Summit Conference and whether it is to be in the nature of a prologue, an epilogue or a post mortem?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I try to get some help on the question of jocosity from the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), and I will take, if I can, lessons in solemnity from the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Prime Minister a question about the position with regard to the summit talks, rather than an announcement on the address which I understand he is to give at an American university? Can he say what the position now is? Most of us, I think, are getting a little tired of the continual exchange of letters on both sides putting forward proposals which we know the other side cannot possibly accept. We want to see some progress made towards the summit. Can the Prime Minister say whether it is the view of the Government that there is no prospect of summit talks unless, first of all, the Russians agree to the precise form of the talks between the Foreign Secretaries which has been put forward by the United States; or will not he consider that there may be a case for summit talks even in the absence of prior negotiations, so long as there have been preparatory talks about the agenda, the place and the time?
    The Prime Minister: Without making any reflections on the precise implications of the right hon. Gentleman's phrases, which I would rather answer after I have seen them on the Order Paper—I shall be very happy to answer a

    1427
    Question carefully after seeing it—I would say frankly and broadly that my position remains as I have stated it many times in this House and the country. I want these summit talks to take place. I want them urgently, but I want them to take place—and I think this is the position of our allies—in conditions which give us a good hope of some result, even of a comparatively unambitious result, in some part of the field. If we could get that, I think it would be a great advance upon which hopes could be built for a further advance, but I would be very unhappy if we were to have summit talks in conditions which would make it almost certain that they would be merely debates, and that we would come away with nothing done, so that the hopes raised so high were dashed very low.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Is not there great danger at present that if the Western Powers stand on the line hitherto adopted, there will be no prospect of judging even whether the talks have any prospect of success? Is not it possible, in view of the nature of the Russian constitution, that talks at the summit might in fact be far more successful than talks between the Foreign Ministers?
    The Prime Minister: All these matters, of course, are under consideration between the Western allies at the moment. I have stated my position clearly, and I hope that it may be that greater progress will be made in reaching the goal which we all want to attain.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Are we to understand from that reply that there are talks at present taking place between the Western Powers with a view to a further approach or proposal being made to the Soviet Union?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. The Western Powers are very closely in touch with each other as to how best to handle these matters with a view to reaching the purpose which we hope to achieve in conditions likely to make it effective.

    ECONOMIC POLICY (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
    Mr. Jayasked the Prime Minister whether the speech of the Lord Privy Seal at the Central Council of the National
    1428
    Union of Conservative and Unionist Associations on 14th March regarding economic policy represents the policy of the Government.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend was describing in the course of a speech on civil liberty, the Government's record in sweeping away the war-time emergency powers bequeathed to us by the Socialist Government, and their intention to proceed with the process.
    Mr. Jay: Was the Lord Privy Seal correctly or incorrectly reported in The Times as having said that the Government proposed before the end of this Parliament to remove all the economic controls which remain, and does that mean, for instance, that exchange control and import quotas for dollar goods are to be removed?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think the right hon. Gentleman has drawn the wrong deduction. What I think my right hon. Friend said was that we will proceed with this process, and that those temporary powers which are necessary as a permanent feature of our government will be enshrined in permanent legislation, instead of relying upon temporary powers taken under war-time Acts. That process, I think, is already operating in regard to the Bill dealing with land powers, and the same will apply to economic controls.
    Mr. Jay: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Lord Privy Seal did not say, as reported in The Times, that all the economic controls that remain will be removed?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. He said that the economic controls which—and this was the whole context of the speech—depend on temporary powers taken during the war ought to be removed, as I understood his argument. It is perfectly clear in the context of the speech, and I have the whole speech here if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to read it again. It is quite clear, and it is also, in fact, what we are doing.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Are we to take it, from what the Prime Minister has said, that while the war-time Statutes will be repealed, they will be substituted by new Statutes which will enable the Government to make regulations for economic

    1429
    purposes; or is it proposed to leave a Government without any power to make regulations for economic purposes, which might be very damaging to the public interest?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, that will be seen as the Bills proceed, but we have a very good example in what we have done. We have got rid of a great number of these controls, and I think that everyone—except the most extreme authoritarians—is glad about it. In the Land Powers (Defence) Bill now before Parliament there is a very good example. Those powers relating to land which depend on Defence Regulations, and which are thought to be absolutely vital for a Government to have, will be enshrined in permanent legislation.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Can we have a definite assurance from the Prime Minister that the foreign exchange control and the power to restrict imports of dollar goods will remain?
    The Prime Minister: When it comes to dealing with these matters, they will be dealt with in a manner analogous to that of the land control.
    Mr. H. Morrison: The Prime Minister has not answered my question. It was whether, when this war-time legislation is repealed—if and when that is done—there will be brought in at the same time legislation that will enable the Government to make regulations for necessary economic purposes in the public interest? Can he tell us whether that is the intention?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, although there might be—one has to face the realities of life—a difference of opinion as to what is necessary.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the country would greatly welcome the abolition of exchange control as being one of the best means of ensuring that Socialism cannot be resurrected?

    SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that the majority of Members now returned for Scottish constituencies are opposed to
    1430
    Her Majesty's Government, what proposals he has for making the Scottish Grand Committee more representative of opinion in Scotland.
    The Prime Minister: The Standing Orders governing the constitution and procedure of the Scottish Grand Committee were revised in December last year. I have no proposals for a change.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Government now have a minority of Scottish hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies, and that he is pushing through the Scottish Grand Committee legislation which is opposed by both the local authorities and the elected representatives? Is he also aware that even the Lord Privy Seal has come to the conclusion that if this is democracy, it would have been better if the right hon. Gentleman's grandfather had stayed in Scotland?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think there is anything very new in this situation. In any case, I think the House on the whole would feel that it was wrong to reopen the long discussions and the agreed arrangements made with regard to the Scottish Grand Committee.

    PRIME MINISTER OF THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND (VISIT)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Prime Minister if he will make a comprehensive statement on his conversations this month with the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland and on the results achieved.
    The Prime Minister: Mr. de Valera is on a private visit to this country. He paid me a courtesy visit. There have, however, been no consultations such as would call for a comprehensive statement such as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests.
    Mr. Hughes: Were not the conversations directed towards holding a three-party conference with a view to resolving some of the differences between Northern and Southern Ireland; and, if not, would not that have been a useful and fruitful subject to discuss? Why did not the Prime Minister initiate such a conference?
    The Prime Minister: The Prime Minister of Republic of Ireland was on a private visit to this country, and he asked —and I was very glad that he did so—whether he could make a courtesy call on me. We had a short conversation; but, if it were that these matters were to be raised, I must make it perfectly clear that this Government, at any rate, stand in the same position as my predecessor announced when he said:
    "In the Ireland Act, 1949, the Parliament at Westminster declared Northern Ireland to be an integral part of the United Kingdom. This is a declaration which all parties in this House are pledged to support."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December, 1956; Vol. 562, c 1266.]

    QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
    Mr. Lipton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like your guidance in the following matter. Yesterday, I handed in the following Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I must safeguard my position. If the hon. Gentleman is trying to raise, as a point of order, a Question which has been disallowed at the Table, he may not do so.
    Mr. Lipton: I handed in this Question yesterday, and it now appears in the Order Book of the House. It was addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for answer next Tuesday, and asks for what reasons he still considers it necessary to maintain the Bank Rate at its present level.
    I should not like it to be assumed that I had any prior knowledge that the Bank Rate was to come down today. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you may be good enough to direct that, if I now withdraw the Question, no judicial inquiry into the circumstances will be necessary.
    Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman is quite free from any suspicion.

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, 24TH MARCH—Third Reading of the National Health Service Contributions Bill.
Consideration of the Draft National Health Service (Superannuation) (Amendment) Regulations.
TUESDAY, 25TH MARCH—Consideration of a Motion for an Address relating to the Gift of a Mace to the West Indies.
Completion of the Report stage and Third Reading of the Maintenance Orders Bill.
Committee and, if agreeable to the House, the Third Reading of the Life Peerages Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY, 26TH MARCH—Report and Third Reading of the Land Drainage (Scotland) Bill, which it is hoped to obtain by 7 o'clock.
Second Reading of the Public Records Bill [Lords].
Consideration of the Draft Central Banks (Income Tax Schedule C Exemption) Order.
THURSDAY, 27TH MARCH—Committee stage of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Bill.
FRIDAY, 28TH MARCH—Consideration Of Private Members' Motions.
The House may wish to know that the Ballot for Notices of Motions on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates will take place in the House after Questions on Thursday, 27th March.
Mr. A. Henderson: The Leader of the House will be aware that there is a Motion on the Order Paper relating to disarmament, which has been signed by more than 210 Members on both sides of the House.
[That this House, appreciating the deep concern of the people of this nation over the hydrogen bomb, urges the necessity to

1433
concentrate on the fundamental issue which is the design and the provision of an authority to be set up by the United Nations, responsible for the abolition under effective control of all nuclear and conventional weapons of mass destruction and for the effective reduction of conventional forces and armaments.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman favourably consider finding time for the Motion to be debated?
Mr. Butler: I am aware of the number of Members supporting this Motion, which I have here with me. I will certainly be ready to hear any representations, but I cannot give any undertaking about Government time.
Mr. Peyton: Has my right hon. Friend considered the Motion relating to the difficulties facing the shipping industry as a consequence of flags of convenience, which stands on the Order Paper in the names of very nearly 100 of my right hon. and hon. Friends? Will he consider giving time for discussion of this most urgent and difficult problem?
[That this House, while recognising the value of the recent increase in the investment allowance given by Her Majesty's Government to the United Kingdom shipping industry, nevertheless records its extreme concern at the difficulties caused to the industry by the virtual freedom from taxation enjoyed by ships flying certain flags of convenience, and, in view of the unique position of British shipping as the lifeline of an island nation, calls for further measures to strengthen its competitive power.]
Mr. Butler: I thought that this matter was to be raised in private Members' time. Unfortunately, it was not reached. At present, I can see no hope of giving Government time. We must have discussions and see what we can do about it.
Mr. W. R. Williams: May I ask the Leader of the House, once again, when lie proposes to allocate time for consideration of the Motion on the Order Paper relating to unestablished service reckoning for pension in the Civil Service? It has now been signed by 233 Members of the House.
[That this House takes note of the recent Report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service (Command Paper
1434
No. 9613) and the observations of the Commission in Chapter XV, paragraph 743, on the subject of the reckoning of unestablished service for superannuation purposes in the Civil Service, to the effect that there is no question of merit or principle outstanding, that it is in fact now common ground that it is right that unestablished service should reckon in full, that Parliament conceded that as regards service after July, 1949, by the Superannuation Act, 1949, that the Royal Commission were of opinion that the Superannuation Act, 1946, afforded a precedent for retrospection and supported the argument that if a certain treatment is right at one point in time it is also right at others, and that in the view of the Royal Commission the sole consideration was that of cost; and this House is of opinion that all unestablished service prior to July, 1949, of civil servants subsequently appointed to established posts should be reckonable in full for superannuation purposes (instead of one-half only) on the grounds put forward by the Right honourable Gentleman, the Member for Monmouth, in his speech to Standing Committee B on the Superannuation Bill, 1949 (HANSARD, 10th May, 1949, Cols. 155–158), and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take the necessary action.]
I understand that there is a great deal of sympathy with this very important subject by hon. Members on the benches behind the right hon. Gentleman. Surely this wide expression of opinion merits some consideration of the matter in the House, or, alternatively, action by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What does the Leader of the House propose to do?
Mr. Butler: The only hope I can see for having this discussed—it is a subject of great complexity—would be if it were chosen by the Opposition in their time.
Dame Irene Ward: Referring again to the Motion about, shipping, does not my right hon. Friend think that it would be a good idea if we eliminated the subject of land drainage in Scotland and discussed shipping?
Mr. Butler: We must proceed with the Government legislation and then find what opportunities we can for other Motions.
Mr. Grey: Has the Leader of the House further considered the request made to him last week about a possible debate on the North-East Development Area? I am sure he will remember that there is a Motion on the Order Paper, signed by Members on both sides, and will appreciate that it is extremely important that a debate should take place. Will he undertake further to consider the matter and have an early debate, so that we might have the whole position clarified?
[That, in the opinion of this House, to deschedule the whole or part of the North East Development Area would be prejudicial to the continuing diversification of industry in that area; and that so long as a large proportion of the working population are employed in a small number of basic industries, employment in the area will remain dangerously vulnerable.]
Mr. Butler: As I said last week, I do not think that we could confine such a debate to one area, however important that may be. It would have to be a more general subject relating to the economic situation generally if we were to have any hope of time. I cannot give any undertaking today. although I do not underestimate the hon. Gentleman's anxiety.
Mr. Short: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the position has changed since last week? Is he not aware that the situation in the North-East is deteriorating rapidly all the time and that, for instance, only this week 300 men have been paid off in a Sunderland shipyard? When will the Government give the House an opportunity to discuss the alarming statement made by the President of the Board of Trade?
Mr. Butler: I am aware of the situation and of events in that particular shipyard, but I cannot at the moment give any specific time.
Mr. Shinwell: Is there not something to be said for setting aside some of the less important items of Government legislation in favour of having debates on important topics, for example, the subject of disarmament, the very important economic problem of the shipping industry of the country, or unemployment? Are these not matters about which the public wishes to know something? In
1436
view of the fact that a very large number of Members on both sides are interested in these topics, could not the Government find time for a discussion?
Mr. Butler: This is a time of year when, following the business of Supply, we deal with the Committee stage of Bills introduced earlier in the Session. It is known to any Government that this is the time of year when we are liable to have a good deal of Government business. I welcome general debates in the House; I think that it inures to the dignity of the House if we have general debates. Therefore, if they can be chosen in the time available on the business of Supply, so much the better.
Mr. Randall: Reverting to the Motion concerning unestablished service reckoning for pension in the Civil Service, does the Leader of the House recall his undertaking to the House last week that he would discuss this matter with his right hon. Friends? Has that discussion taken place? If so, what is the result? Will he not agree, having regard to the very large number of Members who have signed the Motion, that the Government should find time to discuss the matter?
Mr. Butler: The discussion has certainly taken place and has revealed to me some of the complexities of the subject, of which I was not fully aware. That does not mean that I think it any the less important, but it has not, so far, brought a debate any nearer.

AGRICULTURE (PRICE REVIEW)
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Hare): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I would like to make a statement about the guarantees to agriculture for the coming year.
The Government have now determined these in the light of the Annual Review of the economic condition and prospect of the industry and of the long-term assurances provided for in the Agriculture Act, 1957. The details are set out in a White Paper which will be available in the Vote Office when I sit down.
The industry's position has been improving. Net output in 1957–58 is forecast at 63 per cent. above pre-war. This

1437
compares with a revised figure of 61 per cent. for last year. It is another record that reflects the strength of our agriculture. I am sure that the House will wish to give credit to all sections of the industry. At the same time, I must remind the House of the warnings that have already been given by my predecessor and myself about the upward trends in the output of milk, pigs and eggs.
The actual net income of the industry shows a satisfactory level and a rising trend. It is forecast at £360 million in 1957–58. This compares with a revised figure of £314 million for 1956–57. When adjusted for normal weather conditions, the figures are £361½ million for 1957–58 as compared with £333½ million for 1956–57. So, on both the accepted bases—the actual basis and the normal weather basis—the net income is far higher than ever recorded before.
Costs have gone up by about £11 million in a full year on review commodities. This is the lowest annual increase for some time. Efficiency continues to improve. Together with the increases in the price guarantees and production grants determined by the Government over the last three years, this has more than offset the effects of cost increases.
We have taken full account of the needs of the national economy and of our international trading position, especially in relation to the Commonwealth. The fight against inflation continues. The protection afforded to the farmer by the guarantees has involved an increasing Exchequer burden from £206 million in 1955–56 to an estimated £290 million in 1957–58. The long-term assurances will go on protecting him against sharp fluctuations. The value of them at a time of falling world food prices is obvious. We have considered the guidance that needs to be given to production of the various commodities; and given most careful thought to the position of the small farmer.
Our conclusion, on reviewing all the factors, is that it would be fair and reasonable to reduce the total of the guarantees. The maximum assured by the Agriculture Act, 1957, at this review is £1,257 million. We are satisfied that a reduction can be made without detriment to the industry's underlying strength and should enable the industry
1438
to maintain the improvement already achieved. The guarantees are to be reduced by about £19 million. This is about £2 million above the assured minimum.
The determinations now made are for livestock products for the year April, 1958, to March, 1959, and for crops of the 1958 harvest. The general production policy continues to be to foster economic production. The most important aims of the determinations for individual commodities are to discourage the highest cost production in the case of milk, pigs and eggs. The guaranteed price for milk is to be reduced by 1d. a gallon, that for pigs by 2s. a score, and that for hen eggs by lid, a dozen. On milk, we have limited the necessary reduction out of regard for the small farmer. On pigs, we are increasing the existing rates of the quality premium for bacon pigs by 6d. a score.
The guarantee for wheat is to be reduced by 6d. a cwt. The guaranteed price for fat cattle is to be increased by 1s. a cwt., to be used for further encouragement of quality production. The nitrogen subsidy is to be increased by £1½ million. The guaranteed prices for fat sheep, wool, barley, oats, rye, potatoes and sugar beet remain unchanged, except for a small increase in the support price for potatoes to compensate for an increase in the size of the riddle for guarantee purposes. The support price system for potatoes has been under consideration. This is to remain unchanged for the 1958 crops, but arrangements for altering the system for the 1959 crop will be announced by 1st July, 1958.
Possible revision of the Marginal Production Schemes will be discussed with the Farmers' Unions. The Government intend also to initiate discussions about proposals which they are preparing for additional provisions designed to give further assistance to the small full-time farmer.
The determinations now made meet the requirements of national policies and will enable the industry to maintain a fair and reasonable level of remuneration.
Mr. T. Williams: I should like to ask, for the benefit of right hon. and hon. Members of the House, three questions

1439
—and not for propaganda. First, will the Minister say whether this is an agreed settlement or not?
Mr. Hare: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we do not negotiate with the Farmers' Unions. We have discussions with them. It is the duty of the Government of the day to make the decisions on the Price Review. Having cleared that point, may I say that the Farmers' Unions do not agree with our recommendations.
Mr. Williams: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that his prophecy that the net profit of the industry will go from £314 million last year to £360 million in the current year, based on a net output of 63 per cent. above pre-war, is a rather optimistic statement? Further, is the House correct in understanding from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that the farming community is asked to bear the £11 million increased costs of production, plus a reduction of £19 million in prices, making a total weight to carry of £30 million in the forthcoming year?
Mr. Hare: May I first answer the question about whether there is reason in my hopes that the farmers will maintain their income over the coming year. I base my hopes on this. It has been accepted that increased efficiency in the commodities which are covered by the Review under the 1947 Act is at least £25 million a year. In addition, experience has shown that increased efficiency for the rest of the industry for crops not covered by the guarantees amounts to another £5 million. That makes a total of £30 million. We are reducing the subsidies and guarantees by £19 million. Taking into consideration further costs that may come into this year—we reckon that they would be in the neighbourhood of £10 million—my addition, therefore, works out as follows: £30 million for increased efficiency and £29 million for extra costs. That looks to me as though the farmers, with any luck, will be able to retain their income this year.
Mr. Williams: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman correctly? Did he say that it is agreed that increased efficiency is worth £25 million? Does he mean to say that the National Farmers' Unions agree?
Mr. Hare: No, Sir. I do not want to mislead the House. That is generally accepted as the figure. I think that I am being very conservative—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—which is a very good thing. I think that £25 million is a very conservative figure for what increased efficiency brings to farming today.
Mr. Whitelaw: Will my right hon. Friend say whether the very satisfactory figures of net income have been agreed with the leaders of the National Farmers' Unions?
Mr. Hare: I would like to assure the House that the income figures that I have given have been accepted by the National Farmers' Unions. I give full marks to the National Farmers' Unions for the vigour with which they prosecuted their case, but I am sorry to say that my arguments were stronger than theirs, I would also like to say that throughout they did their best, in representing the members of the Unions, to get as much as they could. They did it with efficiency and skill, but always with the utmost courtesy.
Mr. Peart: The Minister said that the Government were considering additional provisions for small farmers. May I take it that the Government intend to fulfil their promise to provide special cheap credit facilities for the small farmer?
Mr. Hare: I do not know what pledge the hon. Gentleman is referring to. It is true that some discussion has been going on about further credit schemes for farmers, but, under present financial circumstances, that has been ruled out. However, I think that the scheme that we have in mind for small farmers will be of very great benefit to them. The rough outline is that we shall have certain criteria—on acreage, a certain type of self-employed man with, perhaps under certain conditions, another man working for him, a scheme based on better grass conservation and annual grants injected into the farm to make it a viable unit and able to stand on its own feet.
Mr. Nabarro: May I ask my right hon. Friend two questions about the general level of farm production? Is it not a fact that the declared objective of the present Government was to raise production to 60 per cent. above pre-war by 1957–58 and that that figure has now been

1441
substantially exceeded? Secondly, is not the proper measure of progress in this matter the fact that in 1950–51 farming production was 43 per cent. above pre-war and, in the last seven years, has risen by a record amount to 63 per cent. above pre-war?
Mr. Hare: My hon. Friend, as he very often is, is completely right. It is quite true that the target set to the farming community was to raise production 60 per cent. above the pre-war level. It is of immense credit to the farming industry that it has exceeded its target.
Mr. Willey: Is the Minister aware that when we discussed the 1957 Act we demonstrated how misleading these forecasts could be? Is he further aware that we are rather suspicious that the references to t he small farmer are propaganda to lessen the blow for Torrington? Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that this award will bear most hardly on the small farmer?
Mr. Hare: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that when he was in power—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] It is fair to say to the hon. Member that when his party was in power, it never produced any scheme designed specifically to deal with the small farmer. As for these electioneering moves on the part of the hon. Gentleman and the crocodile tears which he shed yesterday about the escalator going down, I am glad to say that it is, in fact, going up.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I hope that such questions as are asked will relate to the statement. Let us try to keep to that, because there is no debatable Question before the House.
Sir J. Duncan: Is it fair to conclude from the figures given by my right hon. Friend that the burden on the taxpayer for the coming year will be £270 million as compared with £206 million in 1955 and £290 million last year?
Mr. Hare: I cannot assure my hon. Friend what the final bill will be, because that will depend on world prices. What I can say is that whatever happens to world prices, the bill will be £19 million less because of this Review.
Mr. Paget: Is it not a fact that during a period when farmers have achieved their target and increased their efficiency at double the average rate of industry,
1442
they have lost a quarter of their share of the national income? Will the Minister further say whether his congratulations to the farmers on their increase in productivity are not coupled with a sharp warning not to do it again?
Mr. Hare: For the first time, the net real value income of the farming community is back to what it was in 1948 after it had the £40 million capital injected into it. That shows a considerable improvement, as the hon. and learned Member has seen from the income figures. Anybody can use figures. It is possible, for example, to compare farms with companies. They can be compared with companies with £1 million capital and a large income, but that would be a bogus comparison since it would be comparing a large company with the average farming unit of 100 acres, employing two men. We must, therefore, get the right comparison. The normal comparison, I should have thought, would be with something of equivalent size—for example, the small trader or partnership, in comparison with both of which the farmer is, I am glad to say, better off than his counterpart in any other type of business.
Mr. D. Marshall: Can my right hon. Friend say how the present year's under-recoupment compares with under-recoupment during the time of the Socialist Government?
Mr. Hare: The under-recoupment this year, taking into account the extra costs and the £19 million cuts in guarantees, amounts to £29·9 million. It is interesting to note that in 1951, the last year when the party of the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) was in power, costs rose by £75 million, the award was £43 million and the under-recoupment was £32 million. That is interesting in view of the fact that at that time we were in a financial crisis and the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends ran away from it. Here we are under-recouping rather less and sticking to our guns and beating inflation.
Mr. Nabarro: Rub it in.
Mr. T. Williams: I am not nearly as anxious for propaganda as the right hon. Gentleman. Will he tell the House what was the average under-recoupment for the first nine years following the 1947

1443
Act? If he does not have the figures in mind, may I say that the average under-recoupment was £15 million per annum, while this year the under-recoupment is £30 million, with the £11 million increased costs of production and the £19 million cut?
Mr. Hare: I have the figures, but I do not want to bore the House. When this country is facing financial difficulties——
Hon. Members: Answer.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Hare: Certainly, I will answer. As I said, in 1948, £40 million was injected into the industry. In the next year, the under-recoupment was minus £9½ million; in 1950, it was minus £17·6 million and in 1951, it was the figure I quoted of £32 million, about £2½ million more than we are giving today.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we shall have questions directed to the statement for this year. Past history can be referred to later, in a debate.
Mr. Grimond: May I ask an entirely uncontroversial question? The figures given by the right hon. Gentleman for farming incomes during the last two or three years do not correctly portray changes in the value of money. Secondly, when the right hon. Gentleman says that extra costs amounting to £11 million have been recouped by the extra guarantees and subsidies given over the last three years, will he explain that? On his own showing, the farming income in real terms has not increased over the last three years. Therefore, how is it intended to recoup these extra costs?
Mr. Hare: Last year, costs went up by £38 million. There would have had to be an award of £8 million under the 1957 Act; although it was not in being, we respected its provisions. In fact, £6 million more was given over the £8 million required, making £14 million. This year, increase in costs has gone down from £38 million to £11 million. Last year we gave the industry an increase of £6 million and this year we are giving it an increase of £2 million over the minimum which was required of us.
Mr. Watkins: Will the Minister include in his discussions with the small full-time farmers those who are engaged in forestry as well? Further, will he take into consideration the fact that the small full-time farmers do not come into the Farm Improvement Scheme at present?
Mr. Hare: I will certainly consider that. One of the points in connection with the proposals for small full-time farmers is that I want the fullest consultation with the Farmers' Unions and all other sections, and the hon. Member's suggestion might come into that.
Mr. Ramsden: Can my right hon. Friend forecast how much difference, in practice, the reduction in the three individual items is likely to make to the farmers' income in the coming year?
Mr. Hare: I cannot forecast exactly what production will be. Therefore, I cannot answer my hon. Friend. It will depend upon how production goes.
Mr. Hector Hughes: While the farmers may be pleased with the announcement which the right hon. Gentleman has just made, may I ask whether he realises that there is another aspect of his duties which has been steadily neglected by his predecessors? He, of course, is new to the job, but will he remember that he is Minister of Fisheries, also? When wilt the right hon. Gentleman make a similar comprehensive and clear announcement about the fishing industry, which badly needs it?
Mr. Hare: The hon. and learned Member is quite right to remind me of my responsibilities. I am glad to say that he knows that I have started to take quite an interest in that industry. He and I have met in fishing circles on more than one occasion.

THE WEST INDIES (GIFT OF MACE)
Committee to consider of an humble Address to be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented on behalf of this House a Mace to the House of Representatives of The West Indies, and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same, upon Tuesday next.—[Mr. Heath.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL
  Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

  EDUCATION
  4.4 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Stewart: I beg to move,
  That this House notes with concern that the educational policy of Her Majesty's Government, as expressed in its recent actions, is inadequate to the needs of the nation.
  At a former General Election there was once a candidate elected to this honourable House by a majority of one. When asked by pewspaper reporters to comment upon this majority he replied simply that it was adequate. He did not enter into calculations of percentage votes. He did not discuss the comparative fortunes of his party at that and the previous contests. He confined himself to a straightforward comparison of what the needs of the moment required and what, in fact, had been achieved. It is that kind of comparison which I invite the House to make this afternoon.
  We speak in the Motion of the Government's recent actions. It is those which we ask the House to weigh against the educational needs of the country. The period which I have particularly in mind is that from last summer to the present day. At the beginning of that period we noticed the appearance of a disappointing Circular, No. 327, and about the same time the publication of the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates, severely critical of some of the work of the right hon. Gentleman's Department, As the months proceeded we had the appearance of the usual Report of the Ministry of Education.
  Then we had the Second Reading of the Local Government Bill, we had the Parliamentary Secretary's reply to a debate on the supply of teachers, we had Circulars Nos. 331 and 334; and the period culminated in the publication of the Estimates and the Memorandum thereto a few days ago. It is that string of actions, and others in the period, to which subsequent speakers in the debate
  1446
  will no doubt refer, which we have to set against what is required.
  If one were to try to list the educational needs of the nation at the present time, I suppose that everyone would have his own list and everyone his own favourite emphasis, but I believe that I shall carry a great many people with me, both within the House and outside, if I say that the first and most pressing requirement is that the education which is now required to be carried on by statute ought to be carried on in smaller classes and in better conditions. That fact is so obvious and has been so often repeated that it might be necessary to make some apology for saying it yet again were it not for the fact that it is the foundation upon which every kind of educational progress depends.
  None of the arrangements which we are making for further education or for higher education in any form will be of any value unless that basis of education, in the primary and secondary schools, is soundly laid. If we are to have the small classes and the better conditions, it means more new school building, and it means more teachers. More teachers, in turn, mean not only getting new recruits into the profession but encouraging those who are already in to stay there, and not to disappear in the rather alarming numbers in which they have been disappearing recently, and re-attracting into the profession people who have previously practised it but who, at the moment, are pursuing some other occupation.
  If we are to have that effect on the teaching profession we must not only have more school buildings but, in many cases, better buildings. If we want to keep people in the teaching profession it is not useful to allow them to continue their work year after year in squalid conditions. Therefore, the first educational need is a combined need, for new buildings, better buildings and more teachers, all those factors reacting upon each other.
  The second need is that the nation should be concerned that nobody's talent is neglected, that we should not only be concerned with some of the most brilliant and gifted people but that we should realise that we cannot solve this country's economic and social problems unless we harness to that task all the natural ability that we can find. We have to encourage

  1447
  not only the more gifted, but the less gifted, and some of those whose abilities will always be on a limited scale. We shall need them all, and we can get that general harnessing of ability only if, so far as is humanly possible, we see that no unjustifiable factors hamper people's chances of developing their talents. The part of the country in which they were born, for example, ought not to be a factor which lessened people's chances of educational development and intellectual advance, as too often it is at present.
  Third among our educational needs I would put the development of scientific and technical education. I do not wish unduly to exalt certain parts of education against others, but I think it true to say that at the moment our shortcomings in the sphere of technical education are greater than in others, and, therefore, we must include it in our catalogue of the immediate educational needs of the country.
  There are other items which one could add to that list of things, but those three will do to go on with. Against them let us set some of the acts of the Government to which I referred a few minutes ago. Take, for example, Circular 331. The first thing that that circular does is to deal with major building projects of local authorities related to the first need that I mentioned. The circular tells local authorities that they are to defer work designed to improve present conditions in schools. It offers the consoling phrase that the number of authorities affected by this prohibition—for that is what it amounts to—is relatively few.
  Let us investigate why the number is relatively few. For some considerable time now the rule about educational buildings has been that local authorities can carry out new school building only where the increased number of children made it absolutely necessary for them to do so. They could not carry out new building merely to replace old and to improve standards. We were arriving at the point where some of the more vigorous and progressive authorities were coping with the increased number of teachers and were looking forward to starting a substantial remodelling of old and inadequate schools. The reason why relatively few authorities are concerned is that we had just reached that point
  1448
  where the most vigorous authorities were at last looking forward to being able to do something about their old schools, and exactly at that moment the Ministry comes out with a circular telling them that they can do no such thing.
  A great authority like London, for example, quite recently obtained, as it thought, approval to go ahead with substantial projects for remodelling old schools. It now finds that that permission is cancelled by the issue of this circular. I mention that point particularly, because the campaign for the London County Council elections is just beginning to warm up. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman does not know that the Conservative Party, in its triennial search for a plank on which to lose those elections, has on this occasion chosen to say that the Labour Party in control at County Hall is concerning itself only with putting up new schools, and why does it not do more to improve the old schools? I trust that the Minister will point out that any shortcomings in the matter of old schools are the direct result of the policy of his Ministry and that this is another push in that direction.
  This remodelling of old schools, this improving of conditions in which school work is done, is not only desirable on general grounds but would make possible considerable improvement in scientific and technical education. So this part of Circular 331 strikes not only at the first of the things I mentioned, the need for better buildings, but at another of those things, the need for improved facilities for scientific and technical education.
  Circular 331 does not stop when it has discouraged authorities about their major works. It then deals with the minor works, that is to say, building projects any one of which does not cost more than £10,000. As a result of this circular, local authorities find that the programme of minor works which they had drawn up for 1957–58 is affected. They are now told that any part of that programme which they had not started by 31st December last will not start for the rest of this financial year.
  As a result, some counties, Surrey is an example, are badly caught out. Owing to the problem of arranging when building can be started, a substantial part of their minor work programme for 1957–58 was due to be started in the last three

  1449
  months of the financial year, from January until March. Now they find that they are cut off from doing that work altogether. Other authorities who had carried through nearly all, or started nearly all, of their minor work programme before 31st December would normally use the last three months to go ahead a bit faster with other projects. They are now told to mark time for the remaining three months of the financial year.
  What is the nature of these minor works? They are more important than their official title might describe. For example, they may be laboratories and classrooms for scientific work. Here we see another blow to the development of scientific education. I am told that in Essex, as a direct result of this circular, projects, totalling £100,000, for the improvement of scientific education in their schools has been abandoned. It may also mean sanitary improvements, and heaven knows, in some of our schools such improvements are badly needed. Going back to his former incarnation as Minister of Fuel and Power, the Minister may be interested in the fact that minor works may include the substitution of central heating for open fires in a great many schoolrooms.
  The Minister of Education (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I pressed that.
  Mr. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman says that he pressed that, but now he is pressing it back again in the wrong direction.
  It may also mean larger playgrounds. All these projects help to make schools not only more efficient places, but more civilised places and local authorities are discouraged from doing this work by Circular 331. The effect will be to discourage people who may be just returning to part-time teaching and who will find that they are being asked to do their work in overcrowded surroundings. If asked to put up with this kind of thing for a limited time, they may cheerfully accept it. But if it goes on and on it is not only a discomfort, but the implication behind it is that the nation does not really care about what are the conditions in which these people have to do their work. When the Minister finds that the wastage from the teaching profession is substantially higher than it
  1450
  was expected to be, he ought to consider whether this making of schools less efficient and civilised is not doing a very serious injury to the future prospects of education.
  There is one other comment that I will make on that matter. In referring to minor works the circular says that proposals for minor works should be submitted individually for the Minister's prior approval. That refers to special schools and certain others, but there are similar phrases in every paragraph relating to minor works. How does this tie up with the statement that the Local Government Bill will give local authorities so much more liberty? The introduction of the block grant will not make the slightest difference to the power of the Minister to issue this kind of order, with any amount of red tape and restrictions upon local authorities.
  The third thing that Circular 331 does is to tell rural authorities that their schemes of reorganisation will have to be halted. The great majority of our people live in cities—as I do, and always have done. I am not sure whether we always realise the problem hidden behind the official words "rural reorganisation"—the problem of the inadequate village school; inadequate, however devoted its staff may be in trying to give children what should be a secondary education in conditions in which it cannot be done.
  One in ten of our children aged 13 are trying to get what is supposed to be their secondary education in all-age schools. Some years ago the present President of the Board of Trade cheerfully waved rural authorities ahead and told them to get on with rural reorganisation. If it were possible to do that now, why should they now be given the red light rather than the green light?
  Once again, just at the time when it looked as if we might be breaking the back of the problem of the all-age school, a barrier is put in the way of further progress. The right hon. Gentleman nods in agreement; he has been doing so to almost everything that I have said so far. I therefore have good hopes of the Motion being accepted.
  The neglect of rural reorganisation also affects one of the three educational needs of the nation that I have mentioned. It affects the prospect of getting real

  1451
  equality of educational opportunity for all our children. It is profoundly undesirable that, merely because they live in the countryside, children should have less opportunity of developing their talents than if they lived in the towns. It is one of the factors causing inequality of opportunity. It is an evil that we ought to be trying to remove rather than do what the Minister is doing, which is to stop the measures which could, in time, have removed it.
  In Circlar 331 local authorities are flatly told that there are certain important parts of their work which they must not get on with. But in case anything should be omitted we then have Circular 334, which looks round at all the rest of their work, and, although it does not tell them positively that they cannot get on with it, tells them that the Government will be delighted if they get on with it as slowly as possible.
  The bark of Circular 334 is louder than that of Circular 331, but it is at least some consolation to know that its bite is not so sharp. Circular 331 strikes incisively at all authorities Circular 334 is simply an encouragement to the niggardly to go on being niggardly, and it suggests one item of educational advance after another in connection with which they can restrict if they have a mind to, and can quote the Minister's authority for their niggardliness.
  It ranges over so varied a field as provision for recreational, social and physical training, and awards for further education. It suggests that authorities ought to see whether they have been giving awards which are not fully justified. Is it seriously suggested that local authorities are in the habit of giving university awards or awards for higher education which are not fully justified? I put down a Question to the Minister asking for examples of their doing so, and he was not able to provide me with any.
  The circular also covers equipment. I wonder whether the Minister reads at all frequently the reports that he receives from Her Majesty's inspectors of schools. If he does he will find in them such sentences as, "This school runs its handicraft and art classes in an enterprising manner, but it could do them rather better if it had, say, pottery kilns or other items of equipment," or, "This school is
  1452
  scattered over a number of buildings, and telephone communication would be desirable." What is the use of the right hon. Gentleman's inspectors saying things like that when his own circulars tell the schools, in effect, that they are not to get improvements of that kind?
  A circular like Circular 334, with its general exhortations to local authorities to do as little as possible, combines with what is done about rural reorganisation to increase inequality of opportunity. If we issue a general invitation to local authorities to restrict the result we get is a wider difference in standards as between one local authority and another. If we add to that the future effect of the block grant these differences in standards will become ever more and more marked.
  The general effect of the measures that we have so far examined, therefore, work out in an exactly opposite way to the three national needs that I mentioned at the outset. Circulars 331 and 334, together with the Local Government Bill, when it becomes law, will have the effect of exaggerating the inequality of opportunity, discouraging the teaching profession—because of the conditions in which teachers will have to do their work—and hampering, at point after point, all along the line, the development of scientific education.
  A policy of this kind is all the more remarkable when we notice what is happening, in the sphere of private education, in the great public schools. At the time when the Minister is issuing circulars like this, industry is making available to the public schools—the private sector of education—generous funds to improve their scientific equipment and increase the number of pupils to whom they can give a good scientific education. I hold no brief for the public school, but when I hear of any school, private, public or whatever it may be, being given the opportunity to give its pupils a better education, I rejoice—whatever the school and from wherever the funds come. We want more people of good scientific education from every possible source.
  I do not say that it is undesirable that industry should do this; I do say that the fact that industry is doing it underlines the shortcomings of the Minister in his treatment of the nation's schools. If the community as a whole is rich enough to

  1453
  afford that advance in an already privileged sector of education it ought to be wealthy enough to afford a comparative advance in the nation's schools, for which the Minister is responsible and with which the House is chiefly concerned.
  I would add a further word on the question of the supply of teachers. I shall not say much about it, because we had a full debate on a Friday upon the subject not long ago. Since that debate I have studied with care the speech made by the Parliamentary Secretary on that occasion. He described the problem of teacher shortage in the fullest possible detail, and gave us all the reasons that could be put forward for it. He described particular forms in which the shortage occurred. His speech reminded me rather of those doctors described in Hillaire Belloc's poem, who
  "murmured, as they took their Fees 'There is no Cure for this Disease'."
  One suggestion—and one only—for dealing with the situation came from the hon. Member. He said that there would be a meeting of the National Advisory Council on this subject and that at that meeting
  "an increase in the training college plant will be one of the measures considered and discussed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th February, 1958; Vol. 582, c. 794.]
  Unless it is to be not only considered and discussed, but adopted and acted on, we shall not get anywhere in educational advance. I beg the Minister to realise that. I have begged his predecessors to realise it for some time past. Ministers of Education come at two-yearly intervals, unlike Ministers of Defence, who change every twelve months. I have had experience of more than one of his predecessors on this matter.
  May I say one further word on technical education? I know that a number of my hon. Friends will want to develop I hat, and to ask what progress is being made in the plans for technical education described in the White Paper on that subject. We should like to know the latest news about the building programme, and what progress is being made in getting a co-ordinated policy amongst local authorities, to prevent overlapping of work, uneconomical use of staff and to see that students, wherever they live, get the facilities they require.
  I want now to say on that subject only that the Minister should remember
  1454
  that the foundation of all this is laid in the schools. It will really be of no use his carrying out to the letter everything in the White Paper if policy in the schools is still to be governed by Circulars 331 and 334, the Local Government Bill and the general attitude shown during the past eight or nine months, with which I am primarily concerned.
  I have mentioned three needs that the nation has in the educational sphere. I have suggested to the Minister, and, I think, with a considerable measure of agreement from him so far, that the policy of the Government of which he is a member—to put it in the kindest way possible to him—is working in exactly the opposite direction to the way those needs require——
  Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman really must not think that I agreed with him to that extent. What I was agreeing with was the number of educational objectives. I disagreed, however, with the conclusions he drew about the Government.
  Mr. Stewart: Well, on that we shall hear the opinions of many hon. Members and, of course, those of the right hon. Gentleman himself.
  I wanted to refer to two other needs that are coming more and more to the fore at present. Increasingly, the nation is asking itself, "What about our young people of the age when they leave school—the ages between 15 and 18?" It is right that that question should be asked more and more loudly, because, in a few years' time, their numbers will increase very greatly.
  Perhaps I may say, in passing, that I am not in the least associating myself with the suggestion made in some quarters that there is growing up a generation of young delinquents. If people would just look at what proportion of our youthful population ever sees the inside of the juvenile court they would talk with a rather better sense of proportion about that. We are not considering educational advance solely as a way of preventing young people becoming delinquents. We want to do something more positive than that; to make it possible for them to live a really rich, and full and enjoyable life, happy themselves, and of service to their fellow men.

  1455
  That has to be done in a great variety of ways—the development of many forms of further education, recreational activity, and the kind of work covered by the Youth Service. What is the Government's record on the Youth Service? The Select Committee on Estimates, having heard the evidence, said:
  "The impression gained from the inquiry is that the Ministry is little interested in the state of the service and apathetic about its future."
  But it is fair to say that the Ministry's representatives before the Select Committee put up a stout defence to this charge. As the Committee says:
  "…they denied suggestions…that the youth service was a 'Cinderella'"
  for they pointed out that
  "…Nursery schools, for example, had made even less progress."
  That is really a climax of bureaucratic excuse. It does not matter if a particular thing is being neglected, provided one can find another branch of one's work that is being neglected even more severely. The Minister knows very well that the charge of apathy towards the Youth Service has been made out, and, to my mind, it has never really been effectively answered.
  In the sphere of further education, we should notice that the extent to which a local authority makes provision for it is not as strictly defined as is the education that it has to provide for children of the statutory school age. Consequently, the amount of provision so made is considerably affected by the complexion and policy of each local authority, and any step taken that tends to encourage local authorities to be niggardly will affect further education, and the Youth Service, more than it affects the schools, because the extent to which niggardliness can be practised in the school service is limited. It can be practised much more in those parts of education where the exact responsibilities and minimum standards are not so precisely laid down. We have expressed our concern about the effect of the Local Government Bill on this, and, again, we have never had a real answer.
  The one other educational need that I will mention is this. I think that the nation needs to develop a positive and enthusiastic appetite for education, and not to regard it merely as something a fixed amount of which is provided by Statute and there we are—with,
  1456
  perhaps, a few brainy ones getting a bit more—and that is that. We must awaken in our people a, real desire for knowledge, both for its contribution to our economic problems and because it is part of the development of happy and civilised life.
  I believe that the nation was getting to the point where it was beginning to realise that; where the appetite for education was awakening. One of the signs was the increased number of children voluntarily staying at school, with the parents' consent, after the statutory school-leaving age. Some of the parents, as my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen (Dr. King) pointed out in a debate some little time ago, are doing so at great cost to themselves. This matter was considered by the Ministry, and a working party was set up to deal with the scale of maintenance allowances that should be provided.
  The working party approached its duties in a most responsible frame of mind. It said very firmly to itself, "We will not attempt to bribe children into school by suggesting extravagant allowances. We will not proceed in this matter like an Oriental bargainer, and put before the Minister a really high figure, knowing that he will cut it down and we shall then get what we think is reasonable. We will treat this as severely and reasonably as possible. We shall calculate the bare minimum figure that should be paid if real hardship is to be avoided when parents make the wise choice of keeping their children at school."
  On that basis the working party produced a report. What reply did it get? The Minister treated it just as if it had, indeed, behaved like an Oriental bargainer. He slashed its proposals—which were already cut to the bone—by f10, £10 and £15, according to the age of the children concerned. By that action he produced a profound vexation in the working party itself, and disappointment among the more public-spirited authorities—and, I am afraid, gave a "get out" to the less public-spirited.
  Here, again, just at the moment when, throughout the country, we had the sign of a growing appetite for education, we have an action by the Ministry to throw us back. Several times during these months, when we have criticised the action of the Minister, the Parliamentary

  1457
  Secretary has said, in effect, "Wait until the Estimates are published. That will make up for it all." Well, the Estimates are published, and I have no doubt that we shall be told that they show an increase of about £26 million over last year, or rather more than £40 million when one includes local authority expenditure. On the Ministry's own showing, two-fifths of that is due to the rise in prices. The rest is described as due to the growth of the service.
  I am afraid that that does not mean an all-round improvement in standards. The growth of the service is occasioned largely by an increase in the number of children. What matters now is not merely that educational expenditure should increase; as the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor pointed out it has to do that anyhow whatever Government be in power. We have to consider, as the Motion suggests, whether the rate of increase is adequate. In fact, the rate of increase of our education service, when we look at the Estimates over a period of years, is now slowing down. When one makes allowances for the effect if rising prices that fact is even more marked.
  I have listed a number of recent actions of the Government which have shown them to be not conscious of the great variety of the present educational needs of the country. I do not believe that the Minister will be able, looking back over a similar period, to produce any actions of Her Majesty's Government that are a counterpoise to those which I criticise. The most that he will be able to do is to suggest that these actions of his are not perhaps quite as harmful to education as we on this side of the House may fear.
  There will not be, in the record of the Ministry, any awareness of the need for a real, positive and lively advance. The Ministry's attitude has been at the best plodding, and, at the worst, hostile and discouraging. When the Minister comes to his ministerial—not his actual—deathbed, when he, like each of his predecessors, has to move on, I fear that, like another famous man, he will be found murmuring the words, "So much to do; so little done"
  Mr. James Griffiths: I beg to second the Motion.
  1458
  The House has heard an admirable, closely reasoned and convincing speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart).
  4.43 p.m.
  The Minister of Education (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I am sorry that I make my first speech as Minister of Education in a specifically education debate in reply to a critical Motion by the Opposition. I hold that the Motion is totally unjustified, but I must spend a few minutes dealing with it before I come to what I am sure the House would like me to do, which is to make a survey of our educational progress. In the circumstances, this is bound to be somewhat shorter than I should have liked it to be.
  The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) seems to have done his very skilful best with a very bad Motion. All the time he has been labouring under one very great difficulty, which is that the Motion concentrates its criticism on Her Majesty's Government's "recent actions." But what is the most recent important action of the Government in this connection? Yesterday, all the newspapers carried headlines announcing a big increase in next year's Education Estimates.
  Although the hon. Gentleman may try to make these seem very unimportant, it is not fair to do so. In my experience, the educational world, in spite of its idealism, attaches great importance to hard cash. It is greatly encouraged that the Estimates for my Department are up by £26 million and that the educational expenditure of the Government as a whole will rise by no less than £44 million next year. This is the Government's most recent action, and it makes nonsense of the Motion.
  I would remind the House that a very different view is held in educational circles from that which was put forward by the hon. Gentleman about the circulars, and, in particular, Circular 334, which he thought had such a terribly restrictive influence upon education. Let me read a short extract from The Times Educational Supplement which is by no means always friendly to the Government on educational policy. On this issue it said:
  "If … Circular 334 is all that is going to happen to education everyone has cause to rejoice. There have been major savings in

  1459
  many directions; there is to be none in education … it is not in any way surprising that the local authorities should have been urged to walk carefully. There has been no interference with the main structure."
  It goes on to suggest that the Government, far from being berated, ought to be congratulated on their wise forbearance. That puts the matter in a very correct perspective.
  I want to make it clear at the outset that the Government are very proud of their educational record. No Government have ever before been faced with such a gigantic increase in the school population. We are still under very great strain, but we can now say with confidence that we have kept pace and that we are dealing successfully with this tremendous problem. Indeed, even under this strain, we have launched important improvements in the educational service.
  I want to face squarely the problem of rural reorganisation and minor works, which was raised by the hon. Member for Fulham. This is certainly one of the things on which I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I go round the country visiting schools and I have no doubt at all about the importance of minor works. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the programme is badly named, for what is a minor work to Whitehall is often a major improvement to the school concerned.
  I have also seen the very great importance of the programme of rural reorganisation. I think, therefore, that the House would like to know that we are still making very considerable progress with rural reorganisation, in spite of the restrictions we had to impose last autumn. At the present moment for example 224 schools under this programme are either under construction or are approved to start. That means that two-thirds of the whole programme is either completed or is going ahead untouched. The House will be encouraged to realise that only one-third of the programme has had to be postponed.
  Hon. Members might like to see in perspective the effect of these restrictions on our school-building programme. In 1955, capital expenditure on the school-building programme was £40 million. In 1956 the figure went up by £11 million to £51 million. Last year there was an all-time record of £63 million. This
  1460
  year, under the effect of the restrictions, we estimate that the figure will be about £60 million. This is, of course, £3 million less than last year, but it is still £9 million more than the year before and no less than £20 million more than in 1955.
  Perhaps I might be allowed to adapt the metaphor which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister used last week of the brake and the accelerator, when he applied it to the economy as a whole. I would say that our school building programme was, a short time ago, running at a rate of 40 miles an hour. We applied the accelerator and our speed rose to 63 miles an hour. Now, by a moderate use of the brake, our speed is falling back for a time to about 60 miles per hour. Nevertheless, I cannot conceal from the House that I look forward keenly to the time when I can press the accelerator once again and go forward with rural reorganisation and give back freedom in minor works to local authorities.
  Dr. Horace King: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the figures he is quoting so enthusiastically, may I ask whether he does not remember that the programme was moving towards £70 million a year, which was judged necessary in 1950, but his predecessors cut it back? When he presses the accelerator it is against the deceleration his predecessors proposed.
  Mr. Lloyd: I could not accept that. I do not want to spend too much time in controversial debate, but since the Government have been challenged by the Opposition, I think I am entitled to put on record the following facts. Every year since the present Government took office up to the present time the number of teachers has increased by thousands; every year the number of school places has increased by hundreds of thousands; every year expenditure on educational building has increased by millions; and every year the Estimates have increased by tens and scores of millions of pounds.
  As a result of this, if the Opposition really wants comparisons—which it invites by the Motion which has been moved today—they are as follows. Under this Government expenditure on educational building is running 100 per cent. higher than in the last year of the Socialist Government. We have provided

  1461
  twice as many school places as they did, and for every pound they were spending we are spending two. The Government have already been responsible for one of the greatest periods of expansion in British education, and we intend to continue. I say we have today the moral right, as well as the material power, to reject this Motion decisively.
  At this stage, I want to speak to the House seriously about economy in educational expenditure, and I make no apology for doing so. As my argument unfolds, in spite of first appearances, hon. Members will appreciate that I am trying now to leave the realm of party controversy and enter the sphere of objective educational problems. In 1949 the Labour Government faced serious economic difficulties and they produced an economy circular very much like the one I put out last autumn. In fact, if I were in that mood, I could spend an amusing five or ten minutes of Parliamentary time in making the comparisons. If I quoted some of the phrases, it would be very difficult for the House to know out of which circular they came.
  The Socialist Government went further in that circular than injunctions to economy. They imposed a cut of 12½ per cent. in the cost of schools. What could be more unpromising from the point of view of educational enthusiasts than that? Yet that cut began a new system of cost limits allied with radical innovations in design. That new system, admittedly developed far beyond its original intentions and pushed home with great determination by my Conservative predecessors, has produced what I am sure is one of the most brilliant technical and administrative successes in this country since the war.
  A fortnight ago I opened a delightful new junior school in Buckinghamshire. The teachers, the children and the parents were all delighted with it. It is indeed quite a famous school, because it created a stir when it was exhibited in replica last year at the Berlin Trade Fair. It created sensation and interest among German architects and educationists. That school cost £44,000 as compared with £84,000 at present prices for a junior school of the same size built ten years ago. In other words, in real terms, the cost of school building has been reduced by nearly half, yet the new schools are
  1462
  splendid. At present prices this has saved the country £200 million of public money.
  I own to a feeling of exasperation that this magnificent achievement, so well-known and admired among educationists and architects all over the world, is still so little known and appreciated in this country, except by experts. I think the big public ought to know about it, not only because of its massive importance in money terms, but because it has been done by sheer trained brain power. On two separate counts it is something which we as a nation ought to be really proud about. This is what I call constructive economy, and I hope that I shall have the support of the House in pressing ahead with it.
  I should like now to make a brief survey of educational progress. As hon. Members know, the field is vast. I should like, therefore, to approach it in a special way, which I shall explain. I think hon. Members will agree that when parents ponder about the schools their children are going to attend, in addition to the question of general education and character training, they think of those schools in relation to the careers the boys and girls are to follow. I want to ask the House today to think in broader terms about our educational system as a whole. In order to make my conception more precise, I wish to quote a short extract from the new publication called "Technology", which is produced by The Times newspaper. At the end of its leading article in the first issue it says:
  "The national destiny takes various forms. In Tudor times we were drawn across the oceans; in the nineteenth century our best young men were trained to administer the world. Today the path is different, but as plain. Scientific manufacture is our business, the source of our power, and the means of our livelihood. It is the splendid vocation of our times."
  I accept that as a good, broad, rough definition of the career which lies ahead of us as a nation. I like very much the tingle of excitement and encouragement with which it is presented, particularly in the last sentence.
  I must emphasise, perhaps to make quite certain that I am not misunderstood, that while I am concentrating today on this important practical theme I know very well there are other immensely significant sides of education with which I cannot deal in such detail.

  1463
  Of course, I accept unreservedly the point made by the hon. Member this afternoon that science and technology can only develop well with healthy primary and secondary education.
  The primary schools are among the most delightful schools in our country because the children are in a stage of development when they are not only unselfconscious but when their individuality is beginning to unfold. As the hon. Member so rightly said—he will understand that I agree with many parts of his speech—personal attention by the teacher is particularly important at this developing stage.
  As the hon. Member also said, these schools have been under great strain for many years. It is therefore specially pleasing to note that at last the pressure on the teachers is beginning to ease a little. I am very glad, therefore, to tell the House that the number of oversize classes has fallen by about a quarter in the last three years, and the number of much oversize classes—those of over fifty—has fallen by a great deal more than half. This trend is very important, not only for the health of the schools in general, but because it makes it possible for the primary schools to perform better one of their most essential functions—that is to give the children a good grounding in English, which is the language of ordinary life, and also in mathematics, which for my purpose this afternoon is the basic language of science.
  I turn to secondary education. Here, unfortunately, the pressure of sheer numbers is still rising. The number of senior children has increased by half a million in the last five years, and yet, I am glad to say, we have succeeded in providing even more than that number of new places. In the next three years we shall provide another half million places, and as the number of children will not increase by as much we shall be making a further gain.
  In the grammar schools, two great changes are taking place. The first is the swing to science and the second is the trend towards staying longer at school, often long after the compulsory age. Those two changes react on one another, but taken together they are bringing about a very great increase in
  1464
  the output of scientific ability of a high order.
  For example, in 1956, of the boys entering for scholarship level of the G.C.E. examination, 70 per cent. were taking mathematics or science. Indeed, the swing towards science seems to be accelerating, and it is greatly helped by the technical schools, which are really grammar schools in a modern idiom. More than 100 new grammar schools have been built since the war, and 80 more are under construction at present—all, of course, with fine science laboratories. In addition, we are now giving specially favourable consideration to projects for adding laboratories to old schools. Eighty of these projects are in the programme for this year, and another 80 will probably follow next year.
  The hon. Member for Fulham was perhaps a little too pessimistic about this, as he will see from the considerable progress which I have mentioned. I am glad to be able to tell him that we have also given the Essex authority an increased allocation to help it provide additional science laboratories, which was one of the matters which the hon. Member raised. All this is largely for boys and girls staying on for extended science courses.
  Every year the number staying on increases by more than 5 per cent., and that leads to one of the most healthy developments of all, which is the phenomenal increase in the number of pupils in the sixth forms of grammar and technical schools. The figure is now nearly 70,000 pupils in the sixth forms of these schools, which is a 30 per cent. increase in the last four years. That is a picture full of vitality and growth. There is no stink of defeat about this. When I made inquiries about the educational background of the famous Zeta team at Harwell, I was not surprised to learn that the overwhelming contribution came from the grammar schools. Anyone who harms these fine schools will be striking a blow at the future of the country.
  I come now to the secondary modern schools. I must tell the House that getting to know more about these schools as I have visited them while going around the country has been the most stimulating single experience. I have had

  1465
  since coming to the Ministry of Education. They are tremendously important, and three-quarters of all our children go to them. They are the one almost entirely new element in British education as it develops under the 1944 Act.
  Hon. Members will agree that our people do not, on the whole, take too easily to new institutions. I admit therefore that I have been a little surprised, but immensely encouraged, to find how strongly these schools are beginning to take root in the local communities. For example, when I was in Northampton a fortnight ago I noticed the evident pride they have in the secondary modern schools there and the way each was developing special links with particular local industries. Again, when I was in King's Lynn about ten days ago I noticed the same pride and was told how closely the schools were co-operating with the farming courses at the East Anglian technical colleges.
  I emphasise, particularly, that I have been immensely encouraged by meeting some impressive heads in charge of these schools who left me in no doubt about their sense of mission—about what they intend to make of their schools in the life of the local district. Another of the most encouraging features has been the way in which the trend towards staying on at school beyond the compulsory age is spreading to these schools and gathering momentum.
  There has been a most interesting experiment in this respect in seventeen secondary modern schools in Birmingham. Her Majesty's Inspectors carried out an inspection of this work, which is particularly interesting, and I am placing a report in the Library for the benefit of any hon. Member who cares to consult it. Meanwhile, I will read some extracts from the report. They are:
  "The striking increase in the overall demand for courses "—
  that is, extended courses beyond the compulsory age—
  "is, however, abundantly clear and appears likely to become a major development. In almost all schools with courses Heads are expecting substantial increases in numbers next session, and in some cases fifty per cent. of those eligible to leave these schools will probably elect to remain…
  In general, the presence of older boys and girls has had a steadying effect in the schools. A marked improvement in the pupils'
  1466
  demeanour and in their attitude towards work is apparent, and the influence of this is widespread; in some schools levels of achievement are said to have been raised in all streams and and years…
  It is now common practice for the oldest pupils to visit factories, offices and shops as part of their preparation for employment, and in this way the schools have established their own liaison with industry and commerce.x2026; It is because of personal contact with employers that some Heads have felt able to guide pupils into suitable employment and there are those who are approached directly by employers who are anxious to find other pupils like those who have already succeeded in their employ."
  Once again the House will agree that this is a picture of enterprise, vitality and healthy development which makes one realise how much we owe to the teachers, often, as in Birmingham, working under difficult conditions.
  However, I must state one strong impression which I have about all this. There is no doubt in my mind that a new school building is by far the best setting for these developments and that it contributes enormously to the prestige of the school for both the parents and the children.
  If the House will bear with me for a little longer, I want to make a brief survey of the dramatic surge forward in our technical college system, which receives so many of the children from the schools I have been describing. It is easy to criticise the technical college system or the way in which, as I think, the nation has neglected it in the past. However, it has one great merit, which is that it has been always extremely flexible. It provides an enormous variety of courses and gives a large number of late developers a second chance to mount the ladder of success.
  No less than three-quarters of all the professional technologists qualifying at present have risen by means of technical colleges, mostly by part-time study. At the moment, there is great activity in remodelling the courses to meet the present and future needs of industry. Of course, this means working for higher standards at every level all the time and producing a constantly higher proportion of highly skilled people. The courses for young workers are being remodelled into four main classes. The first is for semi-skilled operatives—this, by the way, is a new departure. The second is craft courses of the traditional type for apprentices. The third is higher grade courses

  1467
  for technicians and junior supervisory staff; and fourthly, the well-known courses for professional staff or high grade technicians.
  A great deal has been done by part-time day release combined with evening study, but the complexity of modern industry is leading more and more to the rapid development of full-time and sandwich courses.
  We have great hopes of the sandwich courses which, as I am sure the hon. Member knows, is a course which is taken alternately, first in the college, then in the works, then in the college, and then in the works again. The time spent in the college and the work done there and the time spent in the works are both part of an integrated course of study. We believe that this blend of theory and practical experience will produce people with a high grade of skill and will suit many boys who might not find their full expression in other parts of the educational system.
  At the summit, so to speak, there is the advanced sandwich course leading to the Diploma in Technology, which is to be the equivalent of an honours degree. Again, the great advantage here is that this course, which will be at the highest point of our technical education, can be taken both by the 17- or 18-year old boys from the schools or those who have worked their way up through the technical colleges. These men, with their colleagues from the universities, will, we believe, be the top technological brain power of British industry in the future.
  Now I wish to give a few brief facts on the pace of progress, which, of course, depends on intimate co-operation between industry and the colleges. We have already reached in pure numbers the first stage of the necessary annual intake of technical college teachers, but we are not yet satisfied on quality. We are taking numerous measures to make teaching in technical colleges more attractive. Already, as far as building is concerned, and the hon. Gentleman asked about this, we have approved £60 million worth of building on over 300 major projects of technical college building. Part-time day release by employers is increasing at the rate of 30,000 a year, and is now ten times the pre-war figure, but we want the rate of growth to increase further. The
  1468
  number of sandwich courses has increased five-fold in the last five years and the number of passes in all the technical examinations shows a striking increase year by year.
  It is not often that I feel sorry to come to the end of a speech in this House, but in education there are so many important and indeed vital subjects which one would like to deal with that I have that feeling today. I cannot deal with any more in detail, but there are two which I should like to mention, because I should like to have the benefit of the opinions of hon. Gentlemen later on today about them.
  The first is the teaching of science to girls and the contribution that women can make in the future to the scientific life of the country. I think we ought to ponder that question. Secondly, while I naturally do not accept the specific criticisms which the hon. Gentleman made about the youth service, I do agree on the crucial importance of the age from 15 to 18. There lingers in my memory a sentence which I read from Sir Eric James at a conference of industrialists quite recently, when he said this:
  "We must always remember that the school-leaver of 15 is still a child."
  That, I think, is a simple sentence, a poignant sentence, a true sentence, and I think we all want to think a good deal about the problem of that period of development, which includes the years which may make or break the character of the individual.
  I conclude by saying that since the war this nation has been under heavier test and challenge than ever before in peacetime. Hardly a day goes by without someone in some part of the world writing us down in one way or another. If anyone is feeling a bit dispirited or disheartened, let him visit our schools. There he will find devotion in the teachers, ultra-modern design in the new schools, and a whole young world of energy, experiment, enterprise and expansion. There, above all, he will see the finest children that even our race has ever produced learning better than ever before to bring true renown to the British name.
  5.16 p.m.
  Mr. John McCann: It is a very happy tradition that when a Member makes his initial essay from these

  1469
  benches he receives the indulgence and sympathy of the House and, in return, endeavours to be non-controversial. I feel sure that I shall have both the indulgence and sympathy of the House, and I am confident that I shall not arouse any strong feelings among any hon. Members opposite.
  I have no intention of entering this debate in an academic sense, purely and simply because I have not the qualifications for doing so, and if I appear in certain aspects to be a trifle carping, may I remind hon. Members, that I have only just arrived in this House and until fairly recently have lived with this problem in my division and have seen the effect at divisional education executive level of the circulars which have been mentioned in this debate.
  Perhaps it may be politic at this stage to declare why I have such a fervent interest in this question of education. Many years ago, at the age of 11, I had the opportunity of attending a well-known grammar school. Hon. Members will remember that in the 'thirties, while the scholarship boys' fees were paid, there were certain books, clothing and uniform which had to be provided. At that time, my father had been off work for quite a considerable time, and my mother regretfully came to the conclusion that she could not afford to send me. Consequently, I carried on at the elementary school until the age of 14, and then continued my education either before going to work or at night school after coming home from work. I am just wondering whether my arrival in this House is a recommendation for or an objection to further study among children.
  Somehow, inadvertently, I received this determination that if ever there was anything I could do to ensure that a boy whose abilities entitled him to academic education should never be refused the chance because of family circumstances, I would do it, and the whole of my local government life—and I am now chairman of a divisional education executive—has been bent towards this end. I am glad to say that I have had the pleasure of seeing many boys and girls from ordinary homes making the grade and offering the results of their education to the country. The ideas that I wanted to see realised so many years ago have almost come to pass, although
  1470
  I feel that I would be less than generous if I did not admit that other people have also been working along the same lines.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), in his excellent opening speech, mentioned three things that should be done. One of them was the provision of better facilities for the teaching of our children.
  The divisional executive, of which I am proud to be chairman, has just opened a new secondary modern school. I am one of those who believe completely and utterly in parity of esteem for secondary modern schools. The tragedy is that, side by side with this magnificent new building, we have in the same division schools which should have been—indeed, they were—condemned many years ago. It is, unfortunately, upon these latter buildings that the weight of Circulars 331 and 334 is falling.
  I was very pleased to hear the Minister say, that, in his opinion, the so-called "minor project" was very badly named. I heartily echo his sentiment that what can be a minor project at Ministerial level is a life and death project when it arrives on the floor of the school. If I may, I will draw from my own experience to explain why I say that.
  In my division, we have many schools —some of them, to be quite fair, are Church schools—in which the condition of the sanitary accommodation is such that none of us would tolerate it for one moment in his own home. Recently, we have had outbreak after outbreak of dysentery, and the medical officer and sanitary inspectors, after inspecting the schools, have issued reports saying, in no uncertain manner, that it is purely and simply the condition of the sanitary accommodation which is responsible for the spread of the disease.
  The outside sanitary accommodation is often in the school yard; in winter, it freezes up and becomes completely useless. When a school is equipped with cold water basins, and not enough to go round, the result is that the children have, in effect, no facilities at all for washing their hands or for personal hygiene after using the sanitary accommodation. The educational executive committee has made application for money to put matters right, but, because

  1471
  the letter of Circular 334 is being accepted, no allocation can be made along the lines requested.
  Not unnaturally, parents are becoming very anxious. The last time I was home, a parent made a very significant remark. She asked me to find out what was the dividing line between economy and criminal negligence. She feels that, if we do not do anything about these things and a child dies, the education committee itself will be responsible. That is the tragedy which the economy measures in these circulars evoke at divisional education level.
  In Lancashire, there are thousands of schools such as I have described. They are the remnants of the Industrial Revolution, of development which, paradoxically enough, went far too fast. In Rochdale, the town I have the honour to represent, there is a system for doing minor repairs and decorations. I spent last week in the boys' and girls' technical schools, which have not been decorated for over twenty years. Architects have been let loose on one school and the place is now resplendent in pastel shades. It is astonishing to go into the building and see the result, but the headmistress assured me that, psychologically, the effect upon all the children has been tremendous. The unfortunate thing is that two other schools which were scheduled to have the same treatment have had it stopped because there is no money available as a result of Circular 334.
  The second matter mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham is one in which I, too, take a very great personal interest. In speaking about education, we tend to talk about the development of the bright pupil. We speak of universities, grammar schools, secondary modern schools, and even comprehensive schools. Incidentally, I must say that it is not true that a comprehensive school is a school in which the teachers are understood. Running side by side with the general problem of education, but educationally miles away, is the problem of the educationally subnormal child. Nothing at all, or very little is being done for this class of pupil. The Minister rightly says that our primary schools are the nursery of our education system, but, nevertheless, the fact remains that a cancer is today creeping into the primary schools which will,
  1472
  unless it is checked, ultimately destroy their use and purpose.
  All hon. Members must recognise that many of our classes in primary schools are overcrowded, and it is very difficult for the teachers to give to their children what they need as a basis for their future education. How much more difficult must it be if there are one or two of these unfortunate, educationally subnormal children in the same class. We place a terrific responsibility on the teacher. It is not enough to say that the subnormal children should not be there with the others. If they are not there, where shall they go?
  If a teacher gives individual attention to them, the rest of the class suffers. When the examinations come along, parents have no hesitation in telling teachers that they have not done their job. If, as is usually done, unfortunately, the backward child is pushed farther and farther aside in order to develop the bright pupils, he is pushed into a dark abyss from which, in later years, there is no escape. Educationally subnormal children are not eneducable. They are not mentally handicapped. Surely the purpose of education is to bring a fuller and better life to those who can grasp its principles. Those who are slower to grasp them should not be denied the right to do so.
  Paradoxically, I think, because I have two normal, healthy children, I have taken an interest in the mentally handicapped and educationally subnormal child. I have experienced the joy that such a child feels when he can tell the time or recognise a word. I have sat for hours allowing such children to tell me it is five to four, or ten to five, or that something is "cat" and not "dog". I have seen the eyes and heard the voice of parents when they realise that, instead of being left with a liability, they have a child who is developing into a person who can enjoy to the full the pleasures of life.
  After many years of trying, we have in my division succeeded in getting one school between two divisions. The amount of joy and pleasure which is being brought to the children far transcends any money which has been spent upon it. I try to think of the many avenues of adventure which are open to the child who can read. The books of the great

  1473
  of this world can pour through the windows of his brain.
  The education of the subnormal child is a humanitarian and worthwhile project. I ask the Minister to consider making a survey of the problem to find out exactly how matters are developing. There are suspicions in my division, and I have no doubt, in many other divisions, too, that the nature of the problem is being concealed as a result of a failure to ascertain the facts. For obvious reasons, medical officers may be inclined to say, "Why should we go to the trouble of ascertaining a child's I.Q., when there is nothing we can do about it when we have done it?"
  Some of us feel that the problem is more widespread than is generally imagined. It would be a great thing if the House were to decide to root out all the facts and, having ascertained the true nature of the problem, to do something about it. Not only should we bring joy and happiness to many people who may otherwise he deprived in later life of the benefits which education could offer them, but we should earn the gratitude of all teachers and parents who, faced with almost insuperable difficulties, try to give these children a future.
  5.29 p.m.
  Commander J. W. Maitland (Horn-castle): When I heard the result of the Rochdale by-election, my enthusiasm was remarkable for its absence, but I must frankly say that, having heard the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochdale (Mr. McCann), whom the electors sent to this House, my fears as far as the House is concerned are very much mitigated.
  I have seldom heard a maiden speech made with more sincerity and knowledge. I can tell the hon. Gentleman frankly—and I am sure that everybody will agree with me—that even when he takes part in far more controversial and hard-hitting debates than we are having at present he will find that, if he speaks with knowledge and sincerity, he will always get a hearing. I liked the way in which, as he spoke, the hon. Member approached nearer and nearer to the Front Bench. I like to see a chap who knows where he is going. I am sure that the House will join with me in hoping that we shall hear him on many
  1474
  occasions again. I am sure that we shall listen to him with great interest.
  When I worked in Lancashire a word was used—although it did not come my way much—to describe something that was good. In Lancashire, they said that it was "jannock", and I think that the hon. Gentleman's speech was jannock. He has done one other thing: he has made me forget most of the things that I was going to say myself.
  As the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) knows, I have spoken in almost every education debate during the approximately thirteen years that I have been in the House. This is the first occasion upon which I have ever seen what amounts to a Motion of censure mounted on a debate on education, and mounted with all the panoply of three-line Whips. Frankly, I think that that is a great mistake. I may be wrong, but I believe that education is far better out of the prejudice and over-statement of high-powered party politics. It is an experimental service, and it must be so in many ways. It suffers considerably if prejudice is brought into discussions on educational matters
  I believe that the Motion is entirely wrong and false. People who are not blinded by party political prejudice, and who have a real knowledge and interest in education, do not agree with the Motion. They consider that the Government have a first-class reputation in education. If, as has happened, not only with this Government, but with the Socialist Government, we have had to draw in our horns and to hold our horses, one may be certain that the advance will continue again very soon.
  I want to talk about a matter which is not controversial. A great challenge educationally is being made to this country by the cessation of National Service and all that that means in a young man's life. There are many different opinions about whether National Service is good or bad for young men. Obviously, there are bound to be differences of opinion. But I do not think that anybody can deny that it is a great character-forming opportunity, something which, in many cases, strengthens a man's character and, in some cases, perhaps, makes it deteriorate. I feel that the Government have an obligation now to accept

  1475
  the challenge and meet it by providing improved youth services.
  Recently, I served on an Estimates Sub-committee—which, as the House knows, is an all-party Committee—which examined the youth services. Frankly, I was not happy with what we discovered. One must, of course, realise that the youth services are extremely difficult to administer. They always will be. The youth service is a hybrid service. Part of it is voluntary and part of it is run by State money or local authority money. It differs according to its geographical area and in what it sets out to do. It will always be a great problem. But at this juncture, which is an important one in our history, it is in far too much of a mess.
  I should like to make two quotations from the Youth Employment Service and Youth Service Grants Report. The first quotation is in the general report that we made. We said, in paragraph 26:
  "The impression gained from the enquiry is that the Ministry is little interested in the present state of the Service and apathetic about its future. Your Committee considers that this apathy is having a deeply discouraging effect on the valuable work done for the Service, much of it voluntary and unpaid, and must thereby be reacting unfavourably on the value for money obtained from the Grants"
  I should like also to quote the answer to Question 1232, in which our witness
  says:
  "I think it would be unfair to say that they"—
  that is, the Ministry of Education—
  "did not support the Youth Service, but I do feel that possibly they have been afraid to support it too publicly in case that resulted in consequential demands for mare cash"
  In all honesty, I must say that there was a fairly healthy reaction. If one digs Government Departments in the ribs hard enough, one always gets a reaction, whether one is right or wrong. However, having served on that Estimates Sub-Committee, I must stand by the Report that we made.
  Not only is there at this juncture in our history—the cessation of National Service and all that that means—but there are other elements which need help at this time. One reads about the Teddy boy problem, and there is no doubt that in this period of doubt, when there are so many difficult problems in front of the country to worry about and to solve,
  1476
  young men and women need all the guidance that we can possibly give them. There are all sorts of services which can be brought in to help, such as "Outward Bound". I have a personal knowledge of this organisation. My own boy wanted to go to it, so I sent him. It was very successful, and I was very pleased with the way that everything was done. It is a fine organisation. The Government might take note of what is happening there from the point of view of character training.
  I would like to make one suggestion, because I think that the whole service is in need of a general re-examination and shake-up. It is a rather curious suggestion, perhaps unorthodox. During the whole of our investigation, there was one Minister to whom several of our witnesses referred with great affection. Obviously. he had won their confidence. That Minister was the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Vosper). As the House knows, my right hon. Friend became Minister of Health, but, to our great regret, he became very ill and had temporarily to leave the House. We are all very pleased to know that he is getting well now and will be in full harness in the summer. But I suggest to the Government that during his period of convalescence he should be given a free hand to see whether he can pull this service together and to see what ought to be done to reorganise it.
  When I say that. I am not in any way criticising the present Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister. They have many tasks to keep them busy. I regard this as a matter, however, of great importance. It is a difficult job, a job for one man who thoroughly understands it and who is interested in it. I believe that it could be tackled and that we could make a great service out of it.
  Mrs. Harriet Slater: May I suggest that it is a very big job for one man? Does the hon. and gallant Member not think that it is a job that might be tackled by a commission of inquiry which could consider the whole question of the Youth Service?
  Commander Maitland: Having been through all the business of the investigation which we made, I should have thought not. I would say that it is the

  1477
  duty of the Government. It is fairly and squarely upon the shoulders of the Government, whatever complexion, to ensure that this service is properly run. I did not necessarily mean that one man should do it all himself. He should be given a free hand and allowed to choose his assistants and to get on with the job as he thinks best. That is what I had in mind.
  One of the troubles today, particularly among young people, is their anxiety about the great and almost insoluble problems which face the present generation as, for example, our entry into the nuclear age and all that that means. That is what is unsettling people. Too many, perhaps, are inclined to give all their thoughts to the solution of these difficult problems; and almost everybody has his own solution. It would be far better for us as a nation to concentrate on some of the things that we can do. This problem which I have been discussing is soluble. It needs imagination and hard work. I appeal to the Government to make a great effort to see whether it cannot be tackled and solved in the immediate future.
  5.43 p.m.
  Mr. George Chetwynd: I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends would wish me to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. McCann) on his maiden speech today. We on this side rejoiced when we knew of his great victory at the recent by-election. We have all the more reason for rejoicing now that we have met and heard him in person. All of us who are deeply keen on the subject of education are more than ever pleased that he has thought fit to make his maiden speech on this subject, to which he brought such a deep knowledge and depth of human sympathy that we are sure he will be a tremendous asset to us in this subject in the future.
  The Minister of Education made a most agreeable speech today, but he seemed to be much happier in the second part of it, when dealing with his enthusiasms, than in the first part, when he tried to make what was purely a political, debating speech. The bricks that he had to hand were not very many, as I hope to show.
  I agree with the priorities as laid down by my hon. Friend the Member for
  1478
  Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart). I have no desire to belittle what has been done so far. Indeed, it would have been miraculous if as much as we have done had not been done after a period of war and at a time when so much needed to be done. We can all point to wonderful new schools and say how much we prefer them to whatever has gone before, and the Minister can take great pleasure in going to a primary school and saying how happy everyone is. At the same time, we must remember that there are many more schools which are not in that condition, that well over 40 per cent. of the children are still in overcrowded classes and that the "black list" schools still remain. On that score, the Minister was rather too complacent.
  The right hon. Gentleman, as I expected, took some pride in his recent Estimate and in the achievement that he has been able to get an extra £25 million this year. When it is examined carefully, however, we find that the Estimate is really a slowing-down in the momentum of educational progress. In fact, as the right hon. Gentleman admitted, he is applying the brake and also, I am afraid, he is reversing the direction.
  In actual terms, the Estimate shows an increase on the previous year of £25 million, but this is the lowest annual increase for a number of years. In 1957–58, there was an increase over the previous year of £35 million and in 1956–57 an increase of £45 million. By adapting the present figure to recent prices and the value of the £, we see that we are doing little more than mark time with the education Estimate.
  I have worked out some figures concerning the average amount spent per year by the Government on the education of a child in the primary and secondary maintained and assisted schools. The figures from the Government's own publications show that in 1955–56, the amount spent was £39; in 1956–57, £45; in 1957–58, £49; and in the forthcoming year it is to be £52. If we equate these figures to the falling value of the £, they do not represent very much of an advance. We cannot carry on a revolution in education, as the Minister would lead us to believe, when the fanfares to sound the advance are muted with Circulars 331 and 334. Therefore, at a time when

  1479
  we should be making a great advance, it can hardly be claimed as a great victory by the Minister that he has managed to stabilise our expenditure on education at just over 3 per cent. of the national income.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham spoke about the needs of today. Our complaint is that the Government's policy does not match up to those needs. I should like to make one or two quotations from what has been said by the Minister and his predecessors and also from The Times Educational Supplement.
  In its editorial on 7th February, The Times Educational Supplement said:
  "Education is not welfare, but a weapon of survival."
  That is probably one of the truest statements that The Times Educational Supplement has made.
  The President of the Board of Trade, when Minister of Education, said:
  "Education is the first and fundamental guarantee of prosperity in this scientific and technical century. Here and now we must make a ruthless advance, no doubt at painful cost, if we wish to keep Britain a great Power."
  But as soon as the cost begins to be painful, the Government start to reduce it. Lord Hailsham rang the bell when he said that education must be a first charge on the nation's resources. I could quote more of what he said, but he contradicts himself so often that it is not worth while.
  The Minister himself, speaking at Wigan on 4th December—not so very long ago—said:
  "If we stand back and take a good look at British technical education against an international background, we cannot fail to be impressed by its total inadequacy to equip the nation for its part in a fiercely competitive world."
  Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: That is the reason for the great programme of advance in technical education.
  Mr. Chetwynd: I shall use that to show that when we measure our advance against those of the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R., for example, we are falling far behind.
  Only yesterday, the President of the Board of Trade said:
  "I do not believe that the West can retain the economic championship of the world unless we organise our resources more skilfully than we do now."
  1480
  The burden of our case is that to reorganise our resources more skilfully we must give a greater priority to education than we are doing even at present. Priority, in this case, means more and more money for education. It is no good blinking that fact.
  A short time ago the Yorkshire Post in an interesting article under the heading, "Soviet Education Worries the United States", expressed the fear that the Soviet Union had already outstripped the United States in the education world of dynamic physics and other sciences. The fear was that the Soviets would soon outstrip the United States in the production and distribution of consumer goods. The article reviewed a new book called Soviet Progress versus American Enterprise, in which five experts expressed their warnings and fears about the degree of Soviet advance in this sphere.
  Professor Wiesner, of the Massachusetts Institute or Technology, wrote:
  "When I really feel gloomy I think that five years from now the Soviets will be obviously superior to us in every area. But when I am optimistic I feel that it will take them ten years for them to achieve this position."
  The Americans are very worried about this. I do not believe that they are in advance of us in quality, but they are in advance of us numerically. Therefore, we have every reason to believe that we are being left behind in this race. There is great need for us to catch up both in numbers and in quality.
  In addition to this world position, we should also take into account the change in the climate of opinion about education in this country. There has never before been so favourable an opportunity for educational advance here than exists now. We have only to think of the large number of children who stay on at school after the age of 15, and witness the keenness and anxiety, however misguided it may be, of parents to get their children into what they think is the best school for them. The call is going out all over the country, "For heaven's sake let us do something about education ".
  My quarrel with the Government is that they utter fine, high-sounding phrases and speeches but that their actions belie their words. I will not go into the question of the block grant for local authorities, but in our view that is an instrument of economy. The local

  1481
  authority is free to extend education if it is able to do so and if it wishes to put up the rates. In this respect the Minister of Education is in danger of becoming the handmaiden of the Minister of Housing and Local Government, with all the dreadful consequences that that would involve for him.
  Mr. Raymond Gower: Did not the hon. Member make a mistake or a slip of the tongue? He surely did not mean it when he said that parents are misguided in wanting to send their children to the best available school. Surely that was a slip.
  Mr. Chetwynd: No, because there can be nothing more harmful for the child than that parents should push him into a school for which he is unsuited. It can mean a tremendous amount of misery, which could be avoided.
  Circular 331 is part of the Government's overall plan to stabilise capital investment. It limits projects to accommodate more children and schemes to serve new housing areas and to provide additional accommodation for the teaching of science. It defers for the time being the starting of projects for rural education and certain other works designed to improve existing conditions. It defers projects dealing with teacher training, special schools, and special clinics, and it restricts the school meals service. Plans for minor works costing over £10,000 are severely restricted, and those which are allowed to proceed are spread over fifteen months instead of a year. The effect of all this upon those who have to do the administrative work has been disastrous.
  The Minister quoted The Times Educational Supplement in his support, but he did not quote that same paper when it said, in an article on 1st November:
  "So it has come. The Government who protested a new concern for education show themselves as ready to cut it as the rest."
  It went on to say how pitiful were the savings. The Minister should have noticed that article, instead of the less critical one on Circular 334.
  These cuts are imposing a strain on local authorities who wish to go ahead and who are being frustrated by the stops and starts and jerks imposed upon their progress by the Government. No one would say that Durham County Council
  1482
  is not one of the best authorities in the country. It is one of the most progressive. That authority has been told that the total amount that it can spend on minor works has been limited to £175,000 compared with the £300,000 agreed upon for 1957–58. The total amount which the council says is necessary to create additional accommodation is just over £200,000, of which much is in respect of projects in the 1957–58 programme. The local education authority, therefore, has decided, under protest, to limit the cost of additional accommodation to £150,000.
  Certain projects have had to be deleted and to the great disappointment of the authority, its officers, the divisional executives, the governors and managers, many schools which had already had to defer improvements have been told that for at least a further year, and it may be longer, they must continue to operate under the severe handicaps which are now inflicted upon them. The remaining £25,000 which they are allowed is to be spent on additional sanitary facilities and on projects from the 1957–58 programme upon which work had already been started.
  Even in this case, accepting the situation as it does under protest, the authority has had to establish priorities and has had reluctantly to agree that, first of all, consideration must be restricted to proposals in the 1957–58 list. That puts further and further back the improvements which it hoped to make during this coming year.
  Secondly, it has agreed that proposals for staff only are to be deferred. Therefore, we are now hoping to attract teachers to teach in schools where provision for extra facilities and amenities for staff has to be further postponed.
  Thirdly, and this is disastrous, particularly in the rural areas, the authority has had to agree that proposals for the provision of hot water be deferred. An ordinary elementary requirement of that kind has had to be put back. Fourthly, no consideration whatsoever can be given to requests for additional lighting or heating, extensions to the tar-paved areas in playgrounds, the development of playing fields, the provision of sewerage facilities, the provision of staff rooms, cycle racks, and all the other things that go to make a decent school.

  1483
  All those improvements go by the board. The value of the projects which have been deferred is no less than £300,000. Therefore, as a result of Government policy, this one council alone can spend only £175,000 in fifteen months to do work for which it wanted £500,000 in twelve months. We must ask ourselves how such an authority can be expected to cope in the future when all the time it is fighting against this dreadful back-log. It is less than three years since previous restrictions were lifted and the council had hoped in that time to have brought conditions closer to the standards which the Ministry would desire.
  Will the Minister give an assurance that the maximum period within which the sums available can be spent will be one year, or are the authorities still to work without knowing what they are to do in one, two or three years' time? This really is a gloomy picture. The Director of Education for Durham was instructed to send a strong protest to the Minister, and my colleagues from the North most strongly endorse that protest.
  I want now to refer to the effects of the Minister's circulars on my own constituency. I am told that under the terms of the circulars it is not possible to proceed with reorganisation of the all-age schools. There are five of them all built more than seventy or eighty years ago. The one in which my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen (Dr. King) received his education is still in use. Nevertheless, so long as we have children in brand new schools and others condemned to use old schools, we cannot say that we have equality of educational opportunity.
  I want to make a special plea for the Stockton-on-Tees Grammar School. It is an antiquated building and has a very good staff and very good children and it serves a useful purpose. However, owing to the restrictions, for the next two or three years many children who are capable of benefiting from a secondary-grammar education will not be able to have it because of the lack of space. My local education authority and the county have asked the Government to give special consideration to an application to transfer Stockton-on-Tees Grammar School from its present site.
  1484
  With the crying need for scientists, particularly on Tees-side, it is all the more tragedy that the Government have not acceded to that request.
  On 5th April, the Parliamentary Secretary stated that he hoped to eliminate all junior classes of more than 40 pupils by 1961. Does he stand by that statement? I believe that there is not the ghost of a chance of achieving that, but if he has a wonderful plan so much the better.
  The Times Educational Supplement has a report from the North Riding Education Committee stating that it has set up a special sub-committee to consider the effect of the estimates and the cuts. It gives reasons why it is clear that, except by cutting into ordinary items of maintenance, there is no scope for making reductions in its estimates. That authority, I understand, has made a 25 per cent. cut in science apparatus, a 20 per cent. cut in books and stationery, has had to defer getting new furniture which is badly needed, and to give up painting of both the outside and inside of some schools.
  Another local authority close to mine, Darlington, has told the Minister of its dissatisfaction with the reduction in the amount which it may spend on minor improvements in 1958–59. That has been reduced to £18,000 from an estimated requirement of £31,415. In the education committee's view, that means that essential work will have to be postponed and that it will be able to undertake little more than half of the work recommended, so that its policy of bringing older schools to a standard comparable with the newer ones will have to be deferred.
  I now turn to Circular 334. Our educational programmes have been badly mutilated by previous circulars, but now we have the refinements of torture added with a few more lacerations. The circular is the most depressing document which one can read. It says that expenditure which can be deferred should be deferred and that that should make reductions in estimates possible. In the sectors of further education for which the White Paper does not cater, the possibility of making further economies should be explored. Economies in recreation and physical training must be observed. Local education authorities are told that

  1485
  capital expenditure from revenue on projects which they could not otherwise finance must be postponed rather than be financed by borrowing. Worst of all, about the renewal and replacement of furniture and equipment, it says that expenditure of that kind should be reduced to the minimum. Anything which is not absolutely urgent has to be postponed.
  There has been a natural reaction against the document. I do not have time to give the views of the Workers' Education Association, but I hope that some of my hon. Friends will. The Association protested vigorously against this general attack on education. The General Council of the T.U.C. has expressed its alarm. It has deplored the circular and has declared that it has revealed an attitude on the part of the Government towards education which must cause anxiety to all who place a high value on education or who are concerned with the future prosperity of the nation.
  The "Joint Four" has expressed its opposition and The Times Educational Supplement has more or less said that the damage which the circular may do can frustrate the Government's policy towards universities. It says that the expansion of the universities will be useful only if the people going to universities are properly prepared, and it points out that if petty economies interfere with sixth form work and the provision of proper laboratory equipment the Government's policy, on which they are spending millions of pounds, will be botched for the sake of saving a few hundreds.
  A convincing case against the Government over their recent action has been made and has fully justified our criticism. We still have a long way to go to implement the 1944 Act. Many children are still deprived of the opportunity of educational fulfilment and of serving the nation. We ought to be as concerned with quality as with quantity. We ought to be thinking not only about providing classrooms, but about what goe3 on inside the classrooms. The Government must meet this demand.
  My regret is that the Government are not showing enough drive, enough urgency. We have to work up a campaign to show that somebody is doing
  1486
  something about education. The tragedy is that the children now at school, in the bad schools, in the over-crowded schools, subject to all these fits and starts, will never be able to regain what they lose now. It is not as in other things, a case of being able to make up lost ground later on. What is lost in these important years can never be regained.
  The shadow of economy hanging over our educational system is to be deplored. I call upon the Minister to avoid a policy of expediency and to give priority to educational needs instead of merely paying lipservice to education and hoping that the local authorities will get the blame. I also ask him to double, if possible, the amount of money which he is prepared to spend on education.
  6.8 p.m.
  Mr. Hubert Ashton: The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) has referred to many admirable education projects in his own county and constituency which have suffered because of the lack of money. There is no disagreement about that on either side of the House. However, I could not help feeling that he had overlooked some of the difficulties which we have had to face as a debtor instead of a creditor nation since the war. He did not pay sufficient tribute to what has been achieved since then.
  It is as well to remember that an additional sum of £25 million is worth while. As my right hon. Friend so rightly said, the amount of money from both the Exchequer and rates devoted to education has increased materially and rose by £45 million last year, so that it is estimated that in 1958–59 we will spend approximately £600 million on education.
  I should be the last to say that that is sufficient, but we must bear in mind that everybody else is making demands upon the pool of available resources. The Opposition may call for additional food subsidies, more help for agriculture, education, housing or pensions, and all these things, in total, must involve a very large sum.
  There is one other point which, I think, the Minister might have mentioned, namely, the extremely interesting statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 20th February. It will be in the minds of most hon. Members. He said that there was to be a university

  1487
  building programme of £60 million over four years, from 1960 to 1963, and that. on top of it, and concurrently with it. university grants in the next quinquennial period would rise from £30 million to £39 million, which is three or four times what they were ten years ago.
  Mr. Arthur Skeffington: Will the hon. Member also remind the House that on the same day the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that every one of the universities was dissatisfied with the allocation it had received.
  Mr. Ashton: I dare say that is true; we all want more money for these things. Everybody wants a little more for his home and his children. That is natural and human. But somebody must make a decision about the distribution of what is available, and I think that the Government have done that extremely well.
  The Minister referred to the circular issued in 1949. I remember it very well. I was then Vice-Chairman of the Essex County Council. It was a question not merely of a cut of 12½ per cent., but of two cuts of 12½ per cent.x2014;a total of 25 per cent., and a lot of very extravagant building was going on at the time. Then we had the devaluation of the £, and various economies were introduced in the interests of the nation. I do not think that at that time the same political opposition was put up as has been put up in recent months, when we are once again experiencing a certain amount of financial difficulty.
  The Minister was absolutely right when he referred to the great saving in the cost of school places: in primary schools, from £195 to £150; in secondary schools, from £324 to £260. I do not think that anyone can say that the buildings put up today are shoddy. They are nothing other than extraordinarily good school buildings. I am sorry that the Minister is not here now. We look forward to seeing him tomorrow, when he will formally open the two-hundredth post-war school built in Essex.
  Essex was referred to in connection with Circular 331. I was glad to hear the Minister recognise, as his predecessor did, the special problems of our county. Our school population has expanded well beyond the average over the country in
  1488
  the last ten years. As the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees said, in reference to Circular 331, three years ago there was no money for these minor projects involving expenditures of up to £10,000 each. I entirely agree with what has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House, that although these may be minor projects in some ways, they are major ones in the rural areas. That is something which this Government have introduced and, unfortunately, have had to slow up for the time being. Despite that fact, £425,000 is being allocated for this purpose in respect of my county during the fifteen months from 1st January of this year to 31st March, 1959.
  In the present estimates for my county for 1958–59 the ordinary revenue expenditure is up by £2½ million, and we have a capital programme of over £3 million. I would be the last to say that that is exactly what we want but, as I have said, we must remember all the other demands that are being made. Is there to be a temporary here and there cut, or do we want to risk another devaluation of the £?
  We have had a very objective debate. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland). It is a pity that both here and in local authorities there is such a lot of politics about education. The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), who put his case with great force and clarity, as he always does, referred to the London County Council elections. At the beginning of this week I received an undated communication from the Mid-Essex Branch of the National Union of Teachers. It was in the form of a questionnaire of six questions, and was addressed to all candidates at local government elections, managers and governors of schools, and local organisations interested in education. The questions are of a kind which we all receive at Election time. They are asked for political reasons, and they are sometimes not very easy to answer.
  I will quote the last one, which asked, under the heading of "Expenditure on Education":
  "If you affirm the need of the reforms mentioned above, can we assume that you are opposed to the operation of economies in education either by:

  (a) Block Grant, or

  (b) Ministry Circulars?"

  1489
  Attached to this circular letter there is a pamphlet headed, "Against Block Grants", which has been prepared by the Association of Education Committees.
  One of the statements in that pamphlet, which is included in order to help answer the questions, is:
  "Will development cost the L.E.A.s more under the block grant?"
  and the pamphlet goes on to say:
  "Yes. The effect of the change will be to make each new project cost the L.E.A. two and a half times as much as under percentage grants."
  A new project is a new school and this is quite misleading.
  I do not know what kinds of reply will be sent to this document, but I cannot help feeling that tremendous political pressure has been brought in connection with the subject of the expense of education. It has been built up against a background of quite understandable disappointment in many respects, but it is very largely quite unjustified, having regard to the events of today and what hon. Members opposite had to do in similar circumstances some years ago. Anybody can see that very great progress has been made in education ever since the end of the war. It has been made by both parties and by all the 146 local education authorities—and yet it has not been sufficient.
  I have mentioned that there is £600 million of public money being spent on education and that, in addition, very considerable sums of private money are being spent upon it, by parents, and from trusts, and also by church schools. Reference has been made to the fact that some of these church schools in rural areas are not in very good condition. That is quite true. On the other hand, we must bear in mind that there are no less than 8,000 Church of England schools. These were some of the forerunners in education. In no less than half these aided schools status is being maintained and denominational teaching is permitted. That is a source of pride to many of us. In my own village we are building a new church school.
  Twelve years have passed since, in 1946, we began to implement the Butler Act of 1944. I want to ask some questions of my hon. Friend as to the deductions we can draw from the experience that we have had over this long period,
  1490
  during which we have spent considerable sums of money. He was good enough, recently, to visit one of our new towns—Harlow—where we had the chance of experimenting with bilateral schools. It is obvious that the tripartite system will have to be continued, and I agree with the comments that have been made about it; much more respect is being shown for the secondary modern school. I do not get so many parents coming to me now and telling me how desperately upset they are that their children have not been able to obtain grammar school places. All these developments are very much to the good. Indeed, there are many lessons to be learned from this.
  The hon. Member for Fulham referred to the independent public schools, for which he said he did not hold much of a brief. Let us consider the comprehensive schools. I believe that now there are more than 40 actually in operation and another 10, shall we say, being built. I wonder what conclusions we can draw from this. I do not wish to be didactic or narrow-minded about education. We are all agreed that it is an important thing and that we should consider what sort of lessons we can learn, since local education authorities have tremendous responsibility vested in them. Can any guidance be given about what they should do, when they should go forward, or when to draw back? I hope that we shall get some guidance from my hon. Friend.
  Sir E. Boyle: I shall gladly say something in reply on that point, but I hope that my hon. Friend is not suggesting that this kind of experiment goes on only in the secondary schools. I was very interested recently in an experiment going on in a primary school.
  Mr. Ashton: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. He travels the country widely and is in close touch with, and takes a great interest in, these matters. I hope that he will advise us on the widest possible basis.
  Reference was made to the bulge moving from the primary to the secondary schools and, as was indicated by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horncastle it will be moving from the secondary schools to the period of further education at a time when there may not be any National Service. I will not go into the advantages

  1491
  or otherwise for the country which may result from that. Many opinions may be held on that subject, but I think that the period in the life of children from 15 years to 18 years will prove during the years ahead to be a time which we must consider most carefully.
  Neither the Minister nor the Parliamentary Secretary has yet entered the state of holy matrimony. I hope that they will do so before long.
  It has been said that our young people include a lot of Teddy boys. These things can be immensely exaggerated and I think that they are. But in the minds of many people there are anxieties and fears about incidents which occur in which knives are used by young people and fatal accidents happen. I am not sure whether we are tackling this problem in the right way; whether part of the blame should not attach to parents for some of the things that occur. We give children an apprenticeship in carpentry and music and other things and I wonder whether some attention might be paid to teaching them about the important questions connected with parenthood. I note that my right hon. Friend has re-entered the Chamber. I would mention to him that I was referring to the important points of parenthood—although he, being a bachelor, would not know very much about that.
  So often our modern young people enter into a married state untrained and inexperienced, and if we could help them in some way, especially now, when so many marry at a comparatively early age, we might prevent some of the things which happen, like children being beaten, and boxed about the ears. and perhaps injured for life. These things would not be eliminated entirely, but they might be prevented to a great extent.
  The Motion refers to expenditure on education as inadequate and the hon. Member for Fulham described that as a broad term. I believe that the country as a whole and the Conservative party has done an extremely good job for education. We want more money, when we can get it, to devote to education. I think that priority No. 1 is to get going once again with the reorganisation of rural schools. I hope that we shall continue the good-tempered and objective debate we have had up to now on this important
  1492
  subject of the education of our young people who may live their adult lives in a very different world, where all the modern inventions, pray God, will be used for the benefit of mankind and not merely for its destruction.
  6.25 p.m.
  Dr. Horace King: I was interested in the complaint of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Ashton) about political pressure being exerted against the block grant. It is a matter of common knowledge that the whole Labour Party is opposed to the block grant. But the National Union of Teachers is a non-political organisation——
  Mr. Ashton: I agree. That was stated at the top of the pamphlet to which I referred, and I am sorry that I omitted to mention it.
  Dr. King: The pamphlet quoted by the hon. Gentleman is one of the many examples of the fact that the National Union of Teachers, as an educational body, like every other educational body in the country, sees a menace to the future of local government and of education contained in the block grant proposals. The hon. Gentleman must not imagine that everyone is a party politician who opposes, on educational grounds, something done by the Government which he believes to be contrary to the good of education.
  I believe there is more discussion in the country now about education than ever before. More people are realising the simple truth that we cannot get by with a 3 per cent. education rate and a 6 per cent. Bank Rate—I would have said a 7 per cent. Bank Rate but for the comment made today at Question Time by my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton). We should have a better chance of survival if we reverse those figures and have a 6 per cent. education rate and a 3 per cent. Bank Rate. At the same time resistance to expenditure on education is growing up among groups of ratepayers, especially those organised into ratepayers' associations. My complaint is that this Government is fumbling instead of leading the country in a crusade on behalf of education. By the block grant it places education in the hands of those who are resisting further expenditure, because whatever else one

  1493
  may say about the Government's block grant proposals, they will deliberately add to the rate portion of the education burden; and I consider that rates are the least equitable and most burdensome form of taxation. However, I do not wish to discuss that in this debate.
  I believe that the best local authorities in the country, Tory and Socialist, are miles ahead of the Government. By way of illustration I would recall that it was in 1955 that the Government discovered that we lagged behind in technical education. If we went to the Lancashire Education Committee we could get from it the very day on which this discovery was made by the Government. In that year the Lancashire Education Committee, a very progressive body, put to the Minister a programme proposing a vast expansion of technical education in that county. The Ministry slashed that programme by half, and then a fortnight later wrote to the Lancashire Education Committee asking it to double its first programme. The Ministry is now urging local authorities to release teachers for short courses as part of the drive for further technical and specialist teachers and promises that the salaries and fees of seconded teachers will be recognised for grant purposes. But the block grant proposals make such inducements meaningless. It is no use local authorities accepting the promise that this will be recognised for grant purposes because the new Bill is taking from the Government and the Minister all power to give such percentage grants to enlightened local authorities.
  I thought that someone in this education debate should defend the teaching profession from recent attacks which have been made in the Sunday Dispatch and the Daily Express. The Sunday Dispatch linked the increase of juvenile delinquency with a recent decline in the percentage of men teachers. If the two sets of figures are put side by side, and if there really were any connection between them, one could say that the increased number of 18-year-old criminals in the country in 1958 compared with 1938 was due to the fact that they were in school five years ago at a time when we had a bigger percentage of men teachers than ever before or since. It is hardly necessary to say that no such link exists. The increase and decline in the percentage of men teachers is
  1494
  explained by the sudden intake after the war of 30,000 emergency trained teachers, mostly men, and the fall-off in the earlier recruitment of married women teachers.
  To calm the fears of anyone who has been alarmed by the sensational articles let me state that practically all the boys in our secondary schools are taught by men teachers. The Daily Express, on the views of a few disgruntled headmasters and a couple of mispronounced words, recently proceeded to denigrate the great work that is being done in the nation's primary schools and secondary schools. I assume that the Daily Express itself would object, at any rate the Press as a whole would object, if we judged the Press by the headlines that I culled from the very same issues as contained the attack on the teachers. They are:
  "What a new nose can do for a girl"
  "Danny did what the midwife told him."
  "Me go to his room in a see-through nightie? Never!"
  The fine quality of the work of our teachers is shown by the figures which the Minister has given this afternoon and to which I would add some others. The number of G.C.E. passes between 1951 and 1956 is up by 50 per cent. The number of advanced level passes school certificates is up by 40 per cent., and the number of ordinary national certificate passes is up by 200 per cent. Most of these children and possibly 90 per cent. of all our young men and young women who are at present in the universities and training colleges, began in primary schools and were taught in the nation's overcrowded infant classes by women teachers.
  There is nothing so terribly wrong with the schools or with the teachers whose products can attain the sublime level of Zeta. On the lower level, I take a lowlier example which came to my notice today. The Annfield Plain secondary modern school entered 20 girls for the school certificate last year, and 18 of them passed in five subjects or more. By all means let us investigate the causes of the increase in juvenile delinquency. The Minister of Education ought to be anxious about this, and he and the Home Secretary ought to be starting a really serious inquiry about delinquency, for it means that the work we are attempting to do in our schools with the delinquent child has failed.

  1495
  The headlines which I quoted just now illustrate what our schools are fighting against. Education means home, means school, and means the world into which we plunge our children after school hours and after school years. The teacher cannot take the place of the bad parent. The bad parent is the enemy of the best school. This week we have had the extreme case of Mrs. Winkler—who is to bear her child and then give it over to whoever will take it. We have also had striking cases of truancy. I suggest to the Minister that he can at least stiffen the penalties now imposed upon parents who wilfully keep their children away from school. There is a link between bad school attendance and juvenile delinquency which the Minister can get from any police court record.
  The world into which we are plunging our children is one of over-paying youngsters who have just left school, of over-sensationalising news, of over-painting violence on the TV., of glamorising a handful of Teddy boys who do not represent modern British youth—I was glad to hear the Minister praise our young folk—of failing to punish them adequately, and of supplying them in the shops with flick knives with which one of them in the North last year committed a murder.
  All this kind of thing ought to be troubling the Minister of Education. This new and revolutionary system of secondary education for all our children has to fight a hard battle against on the one hand the indifference, neglect or even the opposition of a handful of bad parents, and on the other hand a cheap and screaming commercial culture which pays a crooner more in a month than Elgar earned all his life for all his symphonies; which reports Parliament hardly ever, except in its off moments, and in which every school lesson and every value that we seek to commend to our children in school time is either denied, derided or cheapened.
  As I was preparing this speech I came across a report by Dr. Rudolf, the psychiatrist, who is troubled at the effect of introducing even the B.B.C. television programme to children and the B.B.C. is much less dangerous to children than is the I.T.V. In a paper, he reported that introducing television into Yatton Hall
  1496
  Hospital for Mentally Defective Children increased the misbehaviour among those children by about 50 per cent. in twelve months. Educationists in Canada are also talking about the adverse influence that television is having on the posture and health of their children.
  There is a tremendous investment in State education which needs the enthusiastic support of all people of good will and real backing from the Press. Our children deserve better newspapers. One can say with Milton:
  "The hungry look up, and are not fed."
  Why do not newspapers feature the good parent and the good child, and some of the great work that we are doing in our schools, instead of splashing from one end of the country to the other the misdeeds of a handful of unfortunate children?
  I think with the Minister that Britain has much to be proud of in post war years. We have built 3,780 new schools and we have provided places for 2 million British children in new classrooms. As the Minister says, the teacher force is rapidly expanding year by year. This debate is an opportunity for expressing our legitimate pride in the achievements of the British people in the very difficult post war years on the one hand, but also on the other for recognising that we are still far short of what we have to do if we are to carry out the 1944 Act.
  Let me give some U.N.E.S.C.O. figures. They show that while we spent 24·3 dollars per head of our population on education, America spent 56·3, more than double, and the Soviet Union 79·2. We as a small country have much greater need to educate the native ability of our people than have those two giant countries. We have not yet started coping with the problem of youth education. We cannot achieve parity in secondary education whatever structure, tripartite, bilateral or comprehensive, we give to secondary education, so long as most children have only four years in secondary schools, or, if their birthdays are wrong only three and one third years, and so long as non-graduates have only half the period of university or college education that graduate teachers have.
  Experts told us way back in 1950 that our building programme ought to be running, and should have been running now for years, at £70 million in 1950 money,

  1497
  which would be many more millions in present day money. That was why I interrupted the Minister in his very skilful re-presentation of the building figures to point out that what the Government did was to check the building programme.
  It was steadily accelerating. The figures from the Minister's own report show that in 1950 the new building programme was worth about £70 million—I am missing out the decimals—in 1951.
  £59 million; in 1952, £40 million; in 1953, £49 million; in 1955, the first expansion, £76 million; in 1956, £83 million; and now it has been frozen at about £55 million. The Minister corn-pared recent figures with the decelerated figures that a previous Conservative Minister of Education imposed at that time on a rapidly expanding programme.
  Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I do not think the hon. Member is being quite fair, because of the 3,700-odd schools built since the war 3,000 have been built in the time of the present Government.
  Dr. King: With all respect to the Minister, that is far too easy to answer. He is taking to his credit the schools which came off the stocks from the vast building programme of his predecessor. I am sorry to have to make debating points, but it is just the same as when, in his speech, he took credit for the vast technical achievement of improving and cutting down the cost per place of school buildings which the country owes to the initiative of the late George Tomlinson, who set up the very able working party in 1949. School-building programmes are now frozen at between £50 million and
  £60 million. Local authorities, under the usurious rates of interest, will however be paying for those £50 million or £60 million programmes what they would have been paying under the old rate of interest for a £70 or £80 million programme. The Minister ought to be one of those leading the fight against high Bank Rate because the high rate of interest is the enemy of educational progress just as it is the enemy of public housing.
  Incidentally, I think both sides of the House ought now seriously to consider the grievous financial burden imposed by the high Bank Rate, the credit squeeze and inflated costs on the Catholic community, which undertook certain responsibilities in 1944 but whose responsibilities
  1498
  have swollen colossally in the ten years since. What Britain wants at the moment is the voice of Hailsham in that inspired period of his a very short one—when he forgot to be a politician and was Minister of Education. Instead, we get Circular 334. What a pitiful little circular. Like Peer Gynt, it is not even wicked. Even the clerks at the Ministry must have been ashamed to post it. Most local authorities have ignored it.
  The North Riding local authority classically stated the case against it. To paraphrase what it said, "Most of our increased educational expenditure is inevitable ";—it gives the causes, which every hon. Member knows—" we do not spend ratepayers' money for fun." As one who sits on an education committee, I know that to be true. "If we make any cut at all in response to the Minister's mean circular, the only way we can get anything like a reasonable cut is by reducing the maintenance charges. Cutting into the maintenance charges is false economy because, if we stop painting schools and doing necessary repairs, we shall pay in the years ahead three or four times over."
  The circular says—I paraphrase again —" Put up the price of evening classes. Stop re-organising rural education, but re-organise evening classes. See that no child under the age of five sneaks into State schools surreptitiously. Stop saving the ratepayer money by meeting some capital expenditure out of revenue." Hampshire County Council hoped to economise by avoiding some of the iniquitous burden of interest and paying for some capital projects out of revenue. "Instead", says the circular, "squander money on heavy loan charges, or, better still, don't build the school."
  Local education authorities ask for bread from this Minister and, like his predecessor, he gives them a stone. In the meantime some dozens of rural secondary schools have been cut out of the present programme, a Hampshire project among them. To my mind, this Minister will be responsible for cutting out of this year's programme the Stockbridge secondary modern school in Hampshire, as the first Tory Minister after the war was responsible for cutting out the Fordingbridge secondary school in 1950. Permission to build new schools is being refused while builders are out

  1499
  of work. There is also a cut-back, almost an abolition, of the work the Minister has seen with great joy in the improvements which a minor works programme can make to slum schools. In every corner of the country I have seen old schools transformed out of recognition by minor works programmes. Now local authorities are told to cut out minor works programmes unless they provide extra teaching space.
  I urge the Minister to increase the size of grants to university students. In 1949 the grant for a provincial university was £215. It is now £245. The National Union of Students has stated a claim for £355. A few examples may be worth all the argument in the world. In a town I know, the health committee put a university student who had a T.B. infection on to the free milk list. Free milk is given on a kind of National Assistance scale. When the health committee totted up the student's incidental expenses it found that he was left at the end of the week with a few shillings and qualified for free milk.
  will not name the local authorities to which I refer, but I can give the Minister chapter and verse for each case. One local authority assesses parental income not only on the parent's income, but on any capital the parent has. Parents under that authority have to realise part of their capital to meet the cost if they want to send their children to university. This is counter to Ministerial policy and also to the policy of most L.E.As. Another has carried out Circular 334 by restricting awards to non-degree courses. A graduate with second-class honours was recently refused an award to take a post-graduate social science diploma. In another local authority, a father with less than £14 a week is keeping his son at college to take a course as a veterinary surgeon. That boy had a scholarship level and two advanced level passes in the General Certificate of Education, yet he is refused any financial help from the local authority.
  In another city, a 27-year old medical student qualified to go to medical school by studying at his own expense at a technical college. He applied to the local authority for some kind of financial assistance. His father's income was £12 a week, but the local authority will not help him. These real cases illustrate
  1500
  hardship even under full grants on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the determination of some youngsters and parents to get a university career even if the local authority will not help. But costs are mounting. Costs of lodging, books and food become astronomical.
  Hon. Members who were lobbied by students a few weeks ago know that their claim for an increase is more than just. Even if a generous local authority is interpreting the Ministerial scales, as Hampshire has in the past, in the most favourable way possible, the students suffer. Others have stressed the claim for the abolition of the means test, or its modification. I support that, but I would press particularly the serious need for help for children getting university awards when their fathers and mothers are at the bottom of the income scale.
  About the worst thing done by the last Minister of Education but three was when she lowered the point at which university grants were not entirely free and parents had to make a contribution. She reduced the limit from £500 to £450. Whatever the grant and whatever the parent's income, the long road from sixth form to university represents a sacrifice for the parents and the child. I think the time has come seriously to improve what is being done in that regard.
  Industry is setting a good example. I should like to see industry represented on every education committee in the country. I would not have said that twenty years ago, but today enlightened industry is almost giving a lead to the Government in educational matters. We have had these industrial university scholarships worth £450 awarded without a means test. We have had industry giving science laboratories to private schools—and I share the joy of my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) at that gift. We have the Manchester offer of half a dozen part-time science teachers as a contribution to the science teacher shortage.
  We have the grand educational work being done among apprentices in the best industries. For example, in my own town, there is the keen co-operation of the building and engineering trades in the building up of the Southampton Technical College. But I do not believe that it is right that the best industrialists should be ahead of the Government. Our

  1501
  general case, so ably put by my hon. Friend at the beginning of the debate, is that we have achieved a great deal since the war, but that this is not the time for pulling in. Our criticism of the Government is that, at a time when expansion should be becoming more and more rapid, and when there should be great leadership from the Ministry, we are not getting it.
  6.51 p.m.
  Mr. J. C. Jennings: The Motion before the House asks us to note
  "with concern that the educational policy of Her Majesty's Government, as expressed in its recent actions, is inadequate to the needs of the nation."
  It is very mild and moderate in its terms, as was the speech of the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), although it was very straight and very clear. This is the type of Motion that could be moved by any Opposition against any Government at any time on educational policy. We who are interested in education and try to imagine that we are educationists, know that whatever is spent on education will never satisfy us. We would, therefore, be prepared to move a Motion like this against any Government.
  The hon. Member for Fulham mentioned five objectives, with which I think both sides of the House would wholeheartedly agree. One was the necessity for more buildings and more teachers. Another was that nobody's talents should be neglected in the schools. Another, that there should be adequate development of scientific and technical education. We also said that we must develop in the country an enthusiastic appetite for education, and a real desire for knowledge. The other objective was the urgent necessity for the development of our youth service.
  I am glad that, so far, the debate has, in the main, been bipartisan, and, therefore, while claiming for this Government credit for the development in education since 1951, I should also be careful to give credit to the previous Administrations for the carry-over. I also want hon. Members opposite to give us credit for our development, and not to be too carping in their outlook. This is a quid pro quo.
  It is true, of course, that when we came into power in 1951 we took over from the previous Government the completed
  1502
  buildings, and those go down in our record, but that is all in the course of events. The thing that in the post-war years—and particularly since 1951—goes to the credit of the Conservative Government's education policy has been an ever-extending service, if we look at the Estimates issued yesterday we see that the money spent has consistently and progressively increased, even bearing in mind the change in the value of money. It is for that reason that I say that the Conservative record is one of which I, as a practising educationist until two and a half years ago, am not ashamed, and, indeed, of which I am particularly proud.
  Why is that? Let us look at it generally. First of all, in the post-war years, and particularly since 1951, our education system has met the threat of the bulge. That, in itself, is a major triumph. Today there are a million more children in our schools than there were in 1951. Again, we have made remarkable progress in the provision of teachers. In January, 1951, we had 216,000 of them, but it is estimated that in 1959 we shall have 266,000 actually teaching in the schools. Since 1951 there has been an average increase of 3 per cent. in the numbers.
  The hon. Member for Fulham mentioned more and better buildings. Here, again, the story is one of steady progress. Since 1951, one new primary school has been built, on average, every day, and, again since 1951, five new secondary modern schools have been built each fortnight. There is another comparison, and I do not wish to make this an odious party comparison. In 1951, the Socialists provided only two new places for every three new pupils, but, in 1957 and 1958, we, as a retrogressive Tory Government, have provided eleven new places for every three new pupils. All these facts can be verified from official returns.
  I deplore the circular that stopped the rural reorganisation, the conversion of all-age schools to secondary moderns, and the like, but it is the fact that when we came into power in 1951, 16–9 per cent. of the school population was being educated in all-age schools. In 1956—and that is the latest year for which I have the returns, although my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary may have those for a later date—the figure was down to 9.7 per cent. Therefore, there has been some steady progress in that direction.
  Mr. M. Philips Price: But is it not a fact that in 1951 there were building restrictions, and that today there is none?
  Mr. Jennings: The hon. Member has played right into my hands, as I hope to prove in the next few minutes. Building restrictions were brought in by the Labour Government in 1947 and 1949. They were not our fault. What I am saying now, as my right hon. Friend has already pointed out, is that, in spite of the restrictions, two-thirds of the rural reorganisation work has been completed, or is in progress. Incidentally, in passing, I ask my right hon. Friend to look urgently, as an educationalist, at this question of rural reorganisation and the minor works programme. I was glad to hear him say that, in his estimation, £10,000 worth of work, considered in official circles as minor work, could be a major transformation in a village school.
  I said that I did not want to be a party critic, and this debate has gone along on quite happy lines. On the other hand, beneath the velvet glove even of the hon. Member for Itchen (Dr. King) there has been hidden the sting all the while, particularly in regard to his criticisms of Circulars 331 and 334. I have a fairly long memory in education, and I was at the receiving end of circulars between 1945 and 1951 when the Socialists were in power. I was headmaster of a school, and I saw the effect of circulars like 331 and 334. No party and no Government, neither the Socialist Government nor the present Government, have any monopoly in the sending out of economy circulars. I have a list of them here, and I want to quote from four of them.
  Here we have Circular 155. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) smiles at me, and we are good friends. I think he was in the House at the time that Circular 155 was sent out in December, 1947. This is what it says:
  "Even in 1949 it will be essential to avoid new building wherever possible."
  Here is Circular 209, of October, 1949:
  "For projects to be started in 1950, the objective must be to achieve a 12½ per cent. reduction on cost in 1949 … For the 1951 programme, a reduction of 14 per cent… will not be sufficient."
  Two cuts in successive years of 12½ per cent., making, as one hon. Member has said, a cut of 25 per cent. Hon. Members
  1504
  opposite clothe themselves in white, put haloes round their heads, grow wings and then look with horror at my right hon. Friend the Minister on the Front Bench.
  Mr. George Thomas: I am very sorry to interrupt the spate of the hon. Gentleman's oratory, but is he aware that the first economy circular to which he referred was sent out two years after the war? We are now thirteen years away from the war, and it is quite unfair to compare the two periods.
  Mr. Jennings: The hon. Gentleman has made my point. The point I am trying to make is that, in certain exigencies and certain circumstances, it is necessary for any Government to bring out circulars of this description and to call a halt. The hon. Gentleman will notice that I did not condemn the Labour Government for bringing them out. I am not saying that it was wrong. It may have been very necessary.
  The hon. Gentleman complains of my quoting from a period two years after the war, but I also quoted 1949. Let us come a little nearer. Let us come to 1950, which is only eight years ago. Here we have again the rural reorganisation scheme to which reference has been made:
  "The value of improvements to old schools started during the financial year 1951–52 must still be restricted to about three-fifths of the figure for the calendar year 1949."
  These are examples of economies by the very people who, in their Motion today, are condemning a Government who have a splendid record of progression, but who have had, for the moment, to call a halt to, or a slight deceleration of, the programme. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may laugh, but the Socialists have wielded the axe on many occasions. In 1947 there was an almost complete embargo on the building of nursery schools. In 1947 they banned further major improvements of slum schools. In 1949 they stopped all new buildings for the school meals service in existing schools, and in 1950–51 they raised the price of the school meals from 5d., first to 6d. and then to 7d. In 1949, again, there was a 12½ per cent. reduction in the proposed pattern of spending and an overall reduction of educational expenditure in that year of 3 per cent. That is the party which claims the monopoly in defending education.
  7.5 p.m.
  Mr. R. Moss: I am very glad to have listened to the impartial speech of the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings), in which he attempted to commend to the House the progress that had been made in education since the end of the war under both Governments, which is the view, I believe, held by the right hon. Gentleman himself, and certainly is the one held by me.
  I cannot understand why the hon. Member for Burton says that the threat of the bulge has been met. It was not met in the primary schools, and I would also point out to the Minister himself that the children who have passed through the primary schools with the bulge are now passing through the secondary schools with the bulge and will enter into employment with the bulge. It is the same children who will suffer this disadvantage through the whole system of education. That is really the problem, and the hon. Member for Burton is quite wrong in saying that the country has succeeded in meeting the problem of the bulge. It is only true to some extent.
  The hon. Member for Burton also falls into the facile error that so often happens in this House of comparing two periods of time, one immediately following the Second World War and the other a period following, shall we say, the aftermath of the Korean War, which began in June, 1950. If he will consult the Report of the Cohen Committee, he will find there a description of the economic difficulties which came inevitably after the Second World War, which should warn him against ever again making that comparison between like and unlike which, at best, can only be a party debating point.
  The Minister of Education is quite entitled to tell the House and the country that we shall be spending in 1958–59 over £600 million on our education service.
  Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Nearly £700 million.
  Mr. Moss: That makes it even better. I have no intention of denying the fact of educational advance. I hope I am right in the next figures that I shall quote.
  There has been an increase in educational expenditure of over three-quarters
  1506
  since 1952–53, and an increase of over two and a half times since 1946–47. While it is true that this is only a nominal increase, nevertheless, there has undoubtedly been a real advance—an advance in real terms in our education service since the end of the war.
  The problem on which I want to touch this evening is whether that advance meets the challenge of the times, and whether it is good enough. I was interested, therefore, in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), in which he indicated what he called certain outstanding needs in education today. I would say to him and to the Minister that the extent to which overcrowded classes exist, the extent to which obsolete schools continue, the extent to which inequality of opportunity exists as between district and district, all show our failure to meet the challenge of our time. I should like to say a few words about what I consider that challenge to be, and conclude by saying something about a matter to which the Minister himself referred, namely, the important period between the ages of 15 and 18. I shall indicate, if I may, some of the problems which I feel are likely to arise in the next few years, to meet which plans should be made now.
  I was rather sorry that the Minister did not recall in his speech that education is concerned with more than mere technical efficiency. That was due to lack of time; I know that he believes that our education system exists to teach values and to develop character as well as to produce technical efficiency. This country has witnessed the growth of what we call political democracy, which, in the history books, is timed between 1832 and 1928. For some time now, political democracy and the philosophy of freedom in the world have been under challenge. Our education system must be good enough to fortify the beliefs which the individual should hold in a democratic society.
  Britain, particularly during the twentieth century, has suffered from relative economic decline, and this decline has been accelerated by the impact of two world wars. The Cohen Report, in paragraph 50, describes some of the difficulties which inevitably followed the Second World War, and to this quotation

  1507
  I should like to call the attention of the hon. Member for Burton:
  "This was the period in which—because of the successive demands of post-war replacement of rundown capital equipment, of the very big increase in exports needed and, after 1950, of the rearmament programme, the amount of goods available for personal consumption rose little."
  It would be possible to attack the Labour Government because personal consumption rose little. The truth is that the Labour Government concentrated upon essential tasks of capital replacement instead of allowing personal consumption to rise.
  Mr. Jennings: Will the hon. Gentleman not admit that the building of new schools is capital replacement also?
  Mr. Moss: Yes, I will admit that. Indeed, that task, together with many others, was begun during that period after the war. Some of my hon. Friends think now, looking back, that the post-war Government perhaps attempted too much. At any rate, a beginning was made.
  In these circumstances, in a period of relative economic decline, it is absolutely vital that this country should enhance native skills by deliberate design, by planned educational advance. In other words, we must make the very best use of our human resources because, in the years to come, they will not be too plentiful. A country which is starved of capital for home and overseas development must make the best of its human resources, particularly of its children and young persons.
  There has been a change in the composition of our society. Between 1871 and 1947, the number of people over sixty-five years of age increased fourfold, and the proportion rose from 4½6 to 10½4 per cent. I have with me the Report of the Carr Committee, called "Training for Skill", and I cannot do better than take a short quotation from it. On page 3, we are told that
  "… the population will, on average, be getting older, so that, in twenty-five years' time, there will be about 9,500,000 people of pensionable age compared with about 7,000,000 today."
  This is part of the challenge to our system of education. It makes it clearer that we must develop the skill of our working population and young people
  1508
  ever more urgently. Indeed, the Report says so. On page 2, when speaking of the bulge, which will soon be moving into the 15 to 18 age group, reaching a peak in 1962, the Report says:
  "They represent an additional supply of potential skill which we must not allow to be wasted."
  On page 3, the Report says:
  "We cannot have skilled workers tomorrow unless we are prepared to train them today."
  This is part of the context in which the education service must be developed.
  There is often talk of the increased pace of technological change, which some scientists call the telescoping of time. I can use simpler language, because this was admitted in the White Paper on Technical Education, paragraph 4, where it is said:
  "The pace of change is quickening and, with it, both the need and the demand for technical education."
  There is the development of nuclear power which has produced in the world a state of suspended destruction, and which, in my opinion, will cause the struggle between the Communist world and the West to deviate, so to speak, increasingly into the economic sphere. The more efficient is our production, the more skilful are our workers, the better able shall we be to lend economic aid in the uncommitted parts of the world which are known as the under-developed territories.
  The final ingredient of the challenge stems from the fact that Britain is sandwiched between the gigantic bulks of the United States and the U.S.S.R. We cannot hope to match either of those countries in quantity, but we can in quality. It is fairly obvious that we are already doing so in quality in certain respects. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King), speaking about the production of scientists, technologists and engineering graduates in the Soviet Union, began to refer to their quality. It is, of course, a fact that many of the products of the Soviet system of education are as good as, if not better, than our own. But in other respects they are not. The Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy in 1956 said that Russia
  "is well ahead of any other country both in terms of absolute numbers and in proportion to the population."

  1509
  I need not stress the point too much. It is stated in a book on technological education published by the Conservative Political Centre that even little Switzerland is doing better than Britain. We should produce more and more top-flight scientists and technologists so that we do not need the numbers because we have the quality. I think the Minister agrees with my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham that we cannot do this unless we pay regard to the education system.
  That is what worries me. Our children have been passing through almost indescribable conditions. I have one child who is passing through with the bulge and a boy who is passing through in a later age group. The conditions are infinitely better for him than they were for his sister. I think it will be difficult to overcome the disadvantage of having been forced to allow a generation of children to pass through school under these conditions. The Minister has admitted that it was not possible to teach them as they ought to have been taught or to ground them in English and mathematics. That is a disadvantage which will remain, although we shall do our best to put it right later.
  I noticed that Mr. E. L. Britton of the National Union of Teachers in November, 1957, said:
  "If this country is to have the mathematicians and scientists, without which it cannot hold its place in the world today, the job has got to be started in the infant and primary schools"
  I need not labour that point, because I believe the right hon. Gentleman accepts it.
  The Minister did not mention the wastage taking place from grammar schools which was mentioned in a report by the King George Jubilee Trust. It was there alleged that 4,000 boys and girls a year were leaving grammar schools who could have taken sixth form science. Does the right hon. Gentleman know what the figure is now, or can he say whether it has been reduced? Has he made any attempt to find out why these children are leaving the grammar schools too early, and has he taken any steps to remedy the problem? Like the hon. Member for Burton, I have first-hand experience of this matter, and I can tell the right hon. Gentleman some of the reasons why girls leave school before they
  1510
  ought; but, of course, he should have found out all this for himself.
  Can the Minister tell us when he hopes to achieve parity of status among secondary schools? This has been mentioned already by an hon. Member opposite. Unless we achieve parity of status among secondary schools, in my opinion the only alternative is the comprehensive system. If we achieve parity of status and make it possible for children to receive the education which benefits them most, to whatever school they go, then we shall be arriving at a solution of the problem in a typically British way.
  I have spoken far too long, but I should like to say a word or two about the 15 to 18 age group. As it will probably be a very long time before I speak again in the House, I hope hon. Members will bear with me for a few moments longer. The Minister will be aware that in 1962 929,000 pupils will reach the age of 15, which is an increase of 52 per cent. over 1956. He will be aware that in 1971 there will be still 25 per cent. more than in 1956. The Carr Committee Report thinks that staying longer at school will only slightly affect this problem. Fifteen-year old children will reach their peak in 1962. 16-year old children in 1963 and 17 and 18-year old children in the two following years, when there will be double the number that existed in 1956.
  Anxiety has already been expressed about the problems that will be created. To my knowledge, in Wolverhampton, Cardiff, Portsmouth and Northampton the problem already exists. It is not merely being anticipated. Surely this is the opportunity to lay plans: I think the right hon. Gentleman will have to consult the Minister of Labour on this subject, because apprenticeship schemes and so on are involved. Unless something is done to anticipate this problem, a very serious situation will arise.
  At the same time, we hope that National Service will be progressively abandoned. Between 200.000 and 250,000 men will be released from it. The right hon. Gentleman has to consider the secondary schools, where more and more intelligent boys will be receiving their education, and they will have to be given their chance to take the G.C.E. The grammar schools will not be able to receive them as their numbers Increase

  1511
  and as they pass through the secondary schools. The right hon. Gentleman ought to look at the problem of free apprenticeship courses and perhaps encourage their development in secondary-modern schools.
  Another matter that I should like to mention to the right hon. Gentleman is the opportunity he will have, because of this development, of getting firms to take on increasing numbers of apprentices so that they can release trained men to teach in the technical colleges. While the Report of the Carr Committee does not come to any startling conclusions, it does provide us with some wonderful information. We can, by studying it carefully and by laying plans now, anticipate a great many of these difficulties.
  Finally, educational advance has taken place in this country since the end of the war. Whatever happens in the next Election, I hope that it will go on.
  7.29 p.m.
  Mr. Raymond Gower: It will be agreed in all parts of the House that the right and duty of the Opposition to examine every aspect of Government policy should not, and cannot, be questioned. It will be conceded on this side that it was proper and reasonable for the Opposition to examine the vital subject of education today. I sincerely hope, however, that at the end of the day, having heard my right hon. Friend the Minister and having heard the truly impressive record of the Government which has been revealed by different speakers on this side of the House, hon. Members opposite will say that their reasonable fears have largely been removed and that it will not be necessary for them to press their Motion to a vote tonight.
  I would go further than some of my hon. Friends. I suggest that in all the circumstances, the record of the present Government and their predecessors of this party in education is a truly remarkable one. When we consider the many highlights in that record—and there are many of them —some of which have been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings), it is difficult to resist the conclusion that that record shines with particular lustre compared with the record of the critics among the party opposite.
  1512
  In the first place, it cannot be denied by any test that since 1951 more of our resources have been devoted to education than ever before and certainly more than during the lifetime of the Socialist Government. I understood my right hon. Friend to say in a short intervention that the figure this year will be nearly £700 million, which stands in marked contrast to the £300 million spent by the central Government and local education authorities during the peak year of the party opposite.
  During the time of the present Government, annual education expenditure from central and local funds has been at an average rate of £435 million a year, as against an average of £255 million when the party opposite was in office. Even if we make a generous allowance for the changed value of money, this substantial increase must be conceded by any reasonable-minded person. [An HON. MEMBER: "There are more children."] I will come to that in a moment.
  More school places have been provided by successive Conservative Governments than by their predecessors. I understand that up to 1st October last year, no fewer than 260,000 new school places were completed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Burton pointed out, that compares with an average of 155,000 by the Socialist Government.
  By way of comment upon the speech of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Moss), I should like to indicate that the Government have already adapted their policy to meet the need of the secondary "bulge", if I may so describe it. It can be noted that of the new places provided in the most recent year, something like 150,000 were for secondary schools. On an average, therefore, 65 per cent. more secondary places and 85 per cent. more places of all kinds have been provided by Governments of this party since 1951 than were provided during the years 1945 to 1951. This explains why——
  Mr. Moss: I agree that secondary school places are being provided in an effort to meet the problem presented by the "bulge", but, nevertheless, there is a worsening of conditions in secondary schools. Apart from the general position, various places, such as the City of Birmingham, for example, have problems which are peculiarly difficult. The hon.

  1513
  Member should not go further than say that an effort is being made to deal with the secondary school problem when grave conditions nevertheless exist for the children who are passing through.
  Mr. Gower: While not entirely dissenting from what the hon. Member says, I was about to say that the figures which I cited explained why such a great deal of success has been achieved in negotiating the primary "bulge". There are already signs that equivalent success may well be achieved in negotiating the "bulge" in the secondary schools.
  Mr. Moss: Is the hon. Member saying that there has been equivalent success to that obtained in primary education?
  Mr. Gower: I would not hazard an exact estimate, but I was suggesting that there are already signs that considerable success—I hope, equal success—will be achieved in negotiating the secondary "bulge".
  The next achievement of which I would remind the House is the reduction in the cost of new school building, which has taken place chiefly under my right hon. Friend and his immediate predecessors.
  Mr. M. Stewart: Does not the hon. Member think that as this programme was started by the late George Tomlinson it is ungenerous that speakers from the Government side are never prepared to give him the credit for it?
  Mr. Gower: I would say in response to that intervention that many of the things which have been mentioned by hon. Members opposite existed only on paper during their term of office. They are all too ready to claim credit for all those things.
  Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I said specifically in my speech that this development had begun during the term of the previous Government although I did not mention the name of that much-loved Member of the House, George Tomlinson.
  Mr. Gower: Hon. Members will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Ashton) also paid tribute to what was achieved during the lifetime of the Socialist Government and mentioned the name of the late George Tomlinson. The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) was not in his place at the time.
  1514
  We cannot over-emphasise this remarkable achievement in the reduction of building costs. Although by 1956 building costs were already something like 50 per cent. above the 1949 level, the cost of a school in 1956 was about 20 per cent. less than in 1949. When these two comparisons are combined, it will be conceded that this has been a wonderful achievement. Is this not something upon which all of us, irrespective of party, can take pride and regard as an omen of what may be achieved in this direction in the future?
  At the same time, this has not been achieved at the expense of the style or quality of buildings. Last September, my right hon. Friend was able to say quite truthfully, in a speech at Acton:
  "Our educational prestige among other nations has never stood so high. Our new school buildings have caught the imagination of the world for their beauty, fitness and economy."
  That is another quotation which can be repeated by us all. Is that really the sort of material on which the Opposition bases its Motion today? Are these the kind of statistics and circumstances on which the party opposite finds it possible to attack the record of the Government?
  Although, doubtless, there is still room for improvement, there has also been a considerable increase in the expenditure on the salaries of teachers. The record 15 per cent. increase—£35 million a year—following the introduction of the new Burnham scale is a measure of that increase. In addition, under the present Administration, the increase in the number of full-time teachers has continued at the rate of 3 per cent. per annum, from 216,000 in 1951 to an estimated 254,000 last year.
  Despite what has been said from the benches opposite, it must be stressed that, whereas there has been this huge bulge in the school population, the pupil-teacher ratio has been kept fairly stable. The percentage is 26·6 for the last year for which I have figures. as compared with 26·7 in January, 1951. That, too, is a remarkable achievement.
  After six and a half years of Conservative Government, pupils are remaining at many of the schools to a later age than previously, and we can be very pleased that the number of 17-year-olds has been rising at the rate of about 5 per cent. per annum. For the first time since

  1515
  the war, we have also embarked upon a special programme for rural development. I was pleased to note that despite the temporary halt, or slowing down, my right hon. Friend was able to show that 234 proposals have already been completed or are under way. I appreciate that the financial measures which were taken some time ago led to a small reduction, but I would hope that my right hon. Friend will be able at least to say that this will be possibly the first priority when progress is resumed.
  Another landmark of Conservative achievement has been the five-year programme for technical education. Let us not forget that the £97 million which my right hon. Friend mentioned are being spent without any cuts at all. There is evidence of this achievement in South Wales, and in my own city of Cardiff, in the enhanced status of the Cardiff College of Technology and, at a different level, in the extension of the Llandaff Technical College. Finally, we can take pride in the decision of the Government to embark upon an extended plan for university education. All these things are signs of progress.
  The hon. Member for Itchen (Dr. King) referred to comprehensive schools. No doubt they have enabled some authorities to do away with the 11-plus examination. I recognise that this is a controversial matter about which different persons on both sides of the House and in all parties have different views. I deplore only the fact that in some parts of the country this subject has been made a party political issue by some people. I deeply regret that.
  It is perfectly obvious that there may well be certain parts of the country and certain kinds of districts where the comprehensive school system may be the most advantageous and beneficial. It must be equally obvious that there may be other areas where the grammar school plus the secondary modern school system may be preferable. I have had contact with several masters in grammar schools who have expressed to me the deepest apprehension at statements by local authorities, or members of local authorities or of parties contesting seats on local authorities, that they intend to do away with certain grammar schools. Some of my friends who are grammar school masters have told me that if that
  1516
  happens they will be inclined to throw in the sponge, because they feel that to bring to an end the old grammar schools, with their splendid traditions built over many years, would be extremely unfortunate.
  Mr. G. Thomas: I am sure that the hon. Member is quite aware that there is no suggestion in Cardiff of ending any grammar school.
  Mr. Gower: As far as I know, I have not referred to any particular city but, as the hon. Member has mentioned the matter, I can say that as a former student at Cardiff High School I should fight to the last ditch to preserve that school. I know that every other old boy of that splendid and remarkable school would do the same.
  I sincerely hope that no education authority would feel obliged to take action which would imperil the existence of a school with such traditions. On the other hand, I appreciate that it is more difficult in a municipal area, or a city or a county borough than it is in a county area to introduce a system which gets rid of the 11-plus examination and of the secondary modern school without removing the grammar school.
  I hope, for that reason, that whoever may be Minister of Education in the future will consider the possibility of having some different system for such areas where it is felt that it is not easy to introduce a comprehensive school without endangering the separate existence of the grammar school. The grammar school should not be destroyed in such cases. A comprehensive school should be set up side by side with the grammar school and then parents would be able to make a choice.
  Some parents would say that they were disinclined to submit their children to the 11-plus examination, whereas others would say that they were perfectly prepared for their children to sit it. If such an arrangement were made, it might be possible for those children whose parents would not wish them to take the 11-plus examination to go straight to a comprehensive school, whereas those who took the examination and passed would go either to the existing grammar school or the secondary modern school. In the county areas, or in areas which are not adequately serviced already by grammar

  1517
  schools or other schools at that level, that problem would not arise, and it would be for the local authority to decide which it thought the most suitable form of new school for the area.
  To summarise some of the highlights of this very splendid record of the Conservative Party in Government—more national resources have been devoted to education, more new school places have been created, there has been a remarkable success in negotiating the primary school bulge, and there are good prospects of meeting the challenge of the secondary school bulge. There is a reduction in the cost of new schools, there has been the maintenance of the standards of these schools, greater expenditure on teachers' salaries, an increase in the number of full-time teachers, more older pupils remaining at school, development in the rural areas, a five-year programme of technical education, and an expansion of the university programme.
  Surely, these things, which are just the headlines, are not the sort of things upon which a Motion of the kind which the Opposition has on the Order Paper can be properly hung. I hope that, having considered the whole of the debate, the party opposite will not feel obliged to divide the House.
  7.47 p.m.
  Mr. J. Idwal Jones: I will try to confine my remarks to as short a time as possible because I know that many hon. Members want to take part in the debate. I was specially interested in the picture which the Minister gave us of the primary schools, the technical schools and the secondary modern schools. A revolution has bee n taking place within our schools during the past twenty-five years. That revolution can be summed up by saying that the schools have moved more and more in the direction of becoming communities. When I was a pupil, a school was a conglomeration of class-rooms. Now a school is a community with each child living its life in the community.
  If time allowed, I should have liked to speak of secondary education, but other hon. Members want to take part in the debate, and so I will say only that whatever is the solution to this problem, we must consider parity for our secondary schools to be of first consideration, and
  1518
  we should not regard a secondary modern school as merely a pink edition of the grammar school. In the long run, a secondary modern school may be more expensive than a grammar school and we must remember that 70 to 75 per cent. of the nation's pupils are educated in secondary modern schools. Although we must look after the highlights, we must also look after the ordinary children as much if not more than the children who can look after themselves.
  The striking thing about the revolution in education which has taken place is that it has happened in spite of the frustrations emanating from the Ministry of Education. Those frustrations are not new. They are an old habit, a bad habit, and a bad habit which has gone a long way to becoming tradition. The time has arrived to break that tradition of frustrating the educational system all along the line. What has happened and what is happening is that policies are decided, programmes are adopted, authorities are asked to draw plans to implement the programmes, and just as the programmes are coming to fruition, suddenly, like a bolt from the blue, there comes a circular from the Ministry of Education to throw a spanner into the machinery.
  Right from the First World War, with the exception of short periods when we had progressive Governments, the story has been one of programmes made and programmes scrapped, enthusiasms quickened and hopes dashed, plans drawn and plans withdrawn. The Ministry of Education is the cemetery of educational hopes and its pigeon-holes are packed with withdrawn projects and broken promises. That is the tradition and it is time that we broke it.
  Circular 334 is the latest in a long series. It is in the tradition and that is why I challenge it tonight. It is a circular about educational expenditure and, of course, it is concerned with economy. The word "cuts" is omitted and the more respectable words "postponement" and "deferment" are introduced. What the Minister seems to forget is that whether it is a cut or a postponement from the Ministry's point of view, it is a cut from the child's point of view. The children are what matters in education, and by these cuts the children are being deprived of something to which they are entitled.

  1519
  I have some experience of this. What happens is that a scheme is postponed and during the year or two of postponement new priorities suddenly appear, so that the original scheme is pigeon-holed and generation after generation of children is denied that to which it is entitled. I can give examples of that. I know of plans for a secondary modern school which were drawn up in 1937. Everything was ready. However, at the last moment it was postponed. The result is that it has not been built and it never will be built.
  Another example from my experience concerns a school field. We wanted a field which was adjacent to my school and the plans and maps, and so on, were approved by the local education authority. Then, in 1952, a circular was issued which resulted in the whole project being scrapped and we had to do without a school field. We had a similar experience with a canteen. The gas mains were laid and all the equipment was delivered—I had to count and check it. At the last moment, there was a circular from the Ministry and the building of the canteen had to be postponed for many years. Throughout that period the children were denied that to which they were entitled, and, what is more, it was to them a loss which could not be regained.
  The Parliamentary Secretary will forgive me if I say that in consequence I have been safely inoculated against the deadly disease of economy in education. Circular 334 is in that tradition and breathes the same deadening atmosphere. I do not propose to deal with all of its paragraphs, but I want to refer to that dealing with further education. Here the attention of local authorities is drawn to Circular 307 issued in 1956. It is always dangerous to prophesy on the Floor of the House, but when we discussed Circular 307, I ventured to prophesy that it would deal a mortal blow to further education, especially in the principality. I regret to say that that prophecy was well on the way to becoming fact inside twelve months.
  Fortunately, only twelve authorities in Wales increased fees, as requested by Circular 307. The other authorities did not, but in those areas whose authorities had obeyed Circular 307 directives, the enrolment in the first following year fell
  1520
  from 69,000 to 63,000, a fall of 6,000 enrolments in one year. Now we have Circular 334 continuing the same principle and trying to persuade authorities to get further contributions from students in continuation classes. If it is the policy of the Government to destroy this form of further education, why do they not say so openly, rather than continue to wage this war of attrition with the obsolete and discredited method of fees?
  I want to refer to paragraph 8 dealing with "Recreation and Social and Physical Training". We are told that expenditure on these things has increased by one third between 1955–56 and 1957–58. Is that extraordinary or alarming? Here is an aspect of education which, until recently. has been neglected down the years. Is not this expenditure a genuine attempt to make good that neglect? Public schools have always had their playing fields. Eton had its playing fields 150 years ago, and were it not so, some would have us believe, the Battle of Waterloo would not have been won in 1815.
  What is the position of the secondary modern schools today with regard to playing fields? I tabled a Question to a Minister some time ago about the position of the secondary modern schools in North Wales. I wanted to form an assessment of the parity between grammar schools and secondary modern schools. I asked a Question with regard to secondary modern school playing fields in the six North Wales counties, and the answer I received was that the information available in the right hon. Gentleman's Department did not enable him to answer that part of the Question. In other words, the Ministry of Education was not in a position to tell me the situation with regard to playing fields for the secondary schools of North Wales. In view of that lack of knowledge I should like to know what right the Minister has to suggest that local authorities should cut down on the physical and recreational part of their educational budgets. I am sorry that I hurried through my observations, but I ask the Minister once again to look very carefully at these circulars.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. Denzil Freeth: I do not want to follow the argument of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Idwal Jones) about playing fields—we know

  1521
  that it is a very difficult problem in many parts of the country—but I should like to follow him in his remarks upon the parity of status or esteem between the various secondary schools to which our children go. An enormous amount of harm is done by people putting out the idea that if a person's child does not pass the 11-plus examination and go to a grammar school its whole educational life is blighted. That harm is added to, in some cases, by parents who seem to imagine that their social status also suffers by the failure of their children to pass that examination.
  Examinations come before most of us at some time in our lives, and there is nothing specially terrifying about them. But some people have to fail examinations, especially if they are competitive. We could do much more—especially through the Ministry of Education—to put across the idea that the 11-plus examination is meant to decide the type of education from which each child will benefit most. If we can put that idea across we shall have solved a great many of the difficulties, perplexities and disappointments of parents.
  We can also help to solve them— and I am glad to see that my right hon. Friend is doing it—by doing everything possible to encourage children at secondary modern schools to take the General Certificate of Education. The more successes in the General Certificate that can be achieved by pupils at secondary modern schools, the higher the standing of those schools and the more parents will feel happy to have their children go to them.
  In these days, it is not fashionable to congratulate the Government, but I wish to congratulate them on the steps they have taken, especially since the last Election, to encourage children to stay at school longer. The hon. Member for lichen (Dr. King) talked of the high wages paid to very young boys and girls on leaving school today, and of the enormous temptation it must be to any family which is not very well-off to see the high wages that are being paid to the school leavers of fifteen and sixteen years of age. The Government deserve some measure of congratulation for prolonging the period during which family allowances are paid to children who are having full-time education and for putting up the Income
  1522
  Tax allowance in respect of children undergoing full-time education. We are also grateful for the steps which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipctenham (Sir D. Eccles) took when he was Minister of Education to get local authorities to increase their maintenance allowances. This is most important since, as more than one hon. Member has reminded the House, about three-quarters of our children are educated at secondary modern schools.
  I now turn to the terms of the Motion, and to the problem of the successive educational circulars which have been sent out demanding economies. The hon. Member for Wrexham was very poetic when he spoke of programmes being made and programmes being scrapped-except, he hastened to add, under progressive Governments. I am happy to realise that he does not include either of the Labour post-war Governments under that head, because nothing is more certain than that the record of those Labour Governments in introducing economy circulars has beaten anything that my right hon. Friends at the Ministry of Education have produced since 1951.
  It is no argument to say that there had been a war two years before. The 1947 cuts were not produced because of that. When the plans were made the Government knew that the war had just ended. That economy circular was produced because we had tried convertibility and failed. Most of the American and Canadian loans went down the drain because of the convertibility crisis. Again, in 1949, the cuts were not made because there had been a war four years before; they were made in the light of the economic crisis of that time, which culminated in devaluation. Equally, in 1950 and 1951, economic circumstances caused plans which had been made after the war to be scrapped, cut, deferred or postponed—whatever one likes to call it.
  When the economic situation turns sour upon them any Government will always have to make economies. I do not blame the Labour Governments for having made them; I do blame hon. Members opposite, however, for not now being willing to recognise what they did when they were in power.
  Mr. W. E. Wheeldon: Does not the hon. Member

  1523
  agree that in those five years many problems, in terms of men, money and materials, arose from the war, and that the present Government have not had to face those problems?
  Mr. Freeth: That is quite true. Problems peculiar to that period did exist—but those problems were quite obvious, in terms of the resettlement of manpower, when the plans which were cut in 1947 were made in 1946, and when the plans which were cut in 1950 were drawn up. in 1948 and 1949
  The hon. Member for Itchen said that the Tories had been wicked in cutting the school building programme when they came into power in 1951. We did delay starting any new schools, and how wise my right hon. Friend the Member for Moss Side (Dame Florence Horsbrugh)—the then Minister of Education—was in doing so. If we look at the figures of starts and completions during the period of the Labour Governments, it becomes painfully obvious that the whole process had got out of gear. Far too many schools were being started for the amount of labour, material or money then available. The consequence was that during the year ending October, 1950, the Labour Government started 233,000 school places and completed 129,000. If we take the average of their last five years of office, we find that in each year they started 188,000 school places and completed only 121,000.
  What on earth is the use of a school which is started and not completed to the children who ought to be educated in it? No one but a Socialist has ever discovered that. If hon. Members opposite will consider the figures in respect of the years when the Tory Government have been in power, they will not only see that the number of completions has increased substantially, but also that there is a very much better balance between the number of schools started and the number finished in any one year.
  I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Moss) concede that under the Conservative Governments definite educational advances have been made in real terms. Even if we allow for the maximum amount of increases in terms of wages, building costs, and prices, it is fairly obvious that the estimated expenditure of £382 million borne
  1524
  by the Exchequer for 1958–59 is about 25 per cent. higher, in real terms, than was the amount spent by the Central Government in 1948–49, for example. I regard the matter of school places as of primary importance. It is essential to have the teachers, and we are all pleased that the number is increasing by between 5,000 and 7,000 a year net. But equally, we must have the clasrooms in which to put the children.
  As more than one hon. Member has said, we have achieved almost astonishing success in the battle of the bulge in the primary schools. A similar battle in the secondary schools will prove more difficult to win. Not only have we got the children coming in, but we have those who are staying on longer. Bound up with that is the whole problem of the movement of population and so on which we have experienced since the war. Whether or not we are successful in winning that battle, one thing is certain. We must go on finding new school places—even when the blacklisted schools have been swept away—at a fairly substantial level to provide the children with the kind of classrooms which they have the right to expect.
  It is an achievement of the Ministry of Education that the number of classes in the junior schools of 40 children or over has gone down from just over 40,000 classes in 1954 to 32,000 classes in January, 1957. The number of classes of over 40 children in the senior schools is still, so far as I know, over 4,000. Surely that is something which we cannot regard with equanimity.
  May I relate this to the problem of rural reorganisation? I apologise to the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) for not being present when he made his speech. I was detained in a Select Committee; I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman dealt with this problem. I believe that the Minister did. I understand that about two-thirds of the rural reorganisation programme initiated by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade when he was the Minister of Education has been completed. The remainder should be started as soon as it is possible to do so. It is absolutely essential to get rid of the all-age rural schools, and after that to make a start on those very old schools, many of which are church schools, aided

  1525
  or maintained. In the country villages, even in Hampshire, which is not very far from London, there are schools where conditions are disgraceful, with no sanitation and so on. The hon. Member for Itchen is a member of my local education authority and would be the first to admit the truth of that.
  But let us remember that any Government faced with economic difficulties must inevitably defer plans made and projects dear to us all. Hon. Members opposite when they were in power had their own share of economic difficulties and had to defer plans which they had made and projects which they held dear. They cannot now say that we are wicked and heartless because we too have to defer some projects and plans dear to our hearts. At any rate, we have done much more for the children of this country than ever did hon. Members opposite.
  8.14 p.m.
  Mr. Sydney Irving: Hon. Members opposite have taken some pride in what has been done for education by their Government and we do not deny them the right to be proud. But surely this is an occasion when we should took at what is yet to be done and consider what progress is likely to be made An the future. I should have thought that twelve or thirteen years after the war we are entitled to expect a much accelerated rate of progress rather than the rate that we have had since 1945 and 1946.
  The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) said that we are setting aside a bigger proportion of our real resources than ever before. I wish to deal later with that point. It is a tragedy at this time that we should be debating not the possibility of a rapid expansion in our education service, but the possibility that there may be a slowing down of the rate of expansion; a limitation of the opportunity of the Minister to maintain standards; and that if expansion is to he undertaken by progressive authorities the cost will be met by passing the burden on to the rates and spreading it in an inequitable way.
  We are entitled to say that since the war a new threat has appeared in the world and to our own country and society. Many nations, driven by a new awakening of nationalism and other
  1526
  forces, have developed a thirst for education the like of which has never been seen in the world before. This is very encouraging, but at one and the same time it creates for us both a threat and a challenge—a threat to our own economic existence. We have had many threats before, but most of them have been of a military nature. We have met them, often gloriously and have muddled through. I believe that this new threat cannot be met in that way.
  I believe that the challenge will come in the acceptance of the obligation that I think, our tradition places upon us of trying to give a lead to the world in using the power that education and science have given to humanity in a wise way. I believe the threat to be even greater than I have indicated. It is, indeed, a test of democracy itself and if we in a democracy cannot develop sufficient social cohesion and a dynamic sense of purpose to match other countries, particularly totalitarian countries, we shall not survive in the fierce competition which we shall have to face. Education is the only insurance against that threat.
  I believe that every person in the country, even if only instinctively, feels that we have an obligation to give a lead to the world. Yet we often seem to be poised uncertainly; unsure of our new rôle in the world; without a clear sense of direction and lacking the confidence and unity to take a leap forward. At this time, which should be a moment of great decision for our country in matters of education, we are having a debate about the slowing down of our expansion instead of increasing it. We seem to have a topsy turvy sense of values.
  Reference has been made to £613 million a year as a huge sum of money to spend on education. We shudder to think where the money is to come from, but if we compare it with expenditure on other things in 1957 we realise that £979 million was spent on drink alone and £1,000 million on smoking and £500 million on gambling. Surely the figure of £613 million dwindles in significance when compared with them. Surely no hon. Member could seriously suggest that we could not afford this sum for education or that we cannot afford a vast jump forward in educational expenditure especially at a time when many other European countries are spending a bigger

  1527
  proportion of their incomes on education than we are.
  An interesting survey has been recently published which I do not think many hon. Members have yet had the opportunity of reading. It has been produced by John Vaizey, of St. Catherine's College, Oxford. I do not know whether the Minister has yet seen it, but it is an academic and reputable survey of the costs of education from 1920 to 1955. The conclusions are summarised, both by John Vaizey and Professor Titmuss, in an introduction as "a melancholy conclusion".
  John Vaizey says that if we take the real expenditure on secondary education, making allowances for such essential considerations as increased population, and so on, the cost per child-year is not greater than it was in 1938 and that even in the primary school, where we had included in the calculation the very high figure of capital expenditure on buildings, we have an addition of only one-eighth to one-quarter. If, in fact, we take away social expenditure such as school meals, milk, and the health services from the total expenditure we have for the year 1955—incidentally, although this is the figure for 1955 it does not invalidate any of the conclusions which it draws—and get down to education proper, not that I deny the value of those other things, we were spending a smaller proportion of our national income in 1955 than in any year between 1931 and 1935, which were years of world economic crisis.
  The other figures which he showed controvert the figures which have been offered to us by Government supporters and by people through the country. It gives us some light on the effort that we had been making. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Denzil Freeth) talked about equality of opportunity. This writer took the expenditure between the grammar school and other types of school and shows that the grammar school child had 70 per cent. more spent upon him in a year, taking all the expenditure, than is spent on the secondary modern child and that the total expenditure throughout the length of school life was double—a very revolutionary figure which has a considerable importance in the discussion on the equality of opportunity.
  Mr. R. P. Hornby: Is not a good deal of that extra expenditure accounted for by laboratory facilities which are necessary in grammar schools and other expensive equipment which is not needed to the same extent in the secondary modern schools?
  Mr. Irving: There are circumstances when grammar schools require more expensive equipment. But buildings are very much better and the staff is very much higher qualified academically, and in every way the opportunity for the grammar school child is much better and higher. If we look at the latest U.N.E.S.C.O. figures we shall find that we are lagging behind Canada, Denmark, West Germany, Iceland, New Zealand and Sweden in the proportion of our national income that we devote to education. John Vaizey was right: this "is a melancholy conclusion "in which the nation ought not to take much pride in this day and age.
  Sir E. Boyle: I will read the hook which the hon. Member has mentioned, but I would point out to him that comparison with other countries can be very misleading when we do not take all the facts into consideration.
  Mr. Irving: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, but some of the comparisons are so greatly to our disfavour that even when we cut them down considerably the point is still well made that we are lagging behind a number of other countries.
  One of the disasters likely to flow from Government action in recent times is the abrogation of the power of the Minister of Education to maintain standards, in view of the Local Government Bill. Above all, I would point out the diminishing status of the Ministry of Education. I regard it as one of the merits of the 1944 Act that it raised the status of the President of the Board of Education and made him a Minister. He even got into the Cabinet, but we are now seeing the reversal of that process, which cannot but be detrimental to education.
  Now I turn to the subject in which I am most interested, that of backward children. This type of child has suffered most severely since the war because of the inadequate staffing ratio. Although I take great pride in the achievement of the teachers it is a fact that about a quarter of our children leaving school

  1529
  have 'only the most superficial grasp of the three R's. The three R's are not the only things that have to be given to a child as education. There are many other things of a spiritual kind. There was a letter quoted in the Journal of Education from a boy of 12. He said:
  "I shall be a man when I am 21 and I shall work at B-owns, Limited, in the ironmongery dept. I hope to be married. On Sunday mornings I shall read the papers and then go out for a pint and then come home for dinner. I hope to have roast chicken once a month. Also, I hope to have a house of my own, a car. a T.V. set, some hens which lay 40 eggs a week, and two pigs."
  These are all laudable aims, but we must give our children greater inspiration than this.
  If we are to have a sound democracy we must have as much care given to the people who are below the average of intelligence as to those who are above. It has been well said by Whitehead that it is the responsibility of education to give to children a glimpse of greatness. For those who are below the average, this stimulation is even more important than for those who are above the average. I am worried even more about special schools and the children who are lacking in innate ability. I have acknowledged what the Government have done in this way previously and I am very grateful for what has been done for educationally subnormal children.
  We have a waiting list of 7,210 as compared with 6,612 last year. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. McCann), who made a brilliant maiden speech, spoke in eloquent and sympathetic terms about this problem. He said that the Minister's figures were a gross underestimate. I certainly agree with him. The small provision for these children governs in some way the numbers notified. The true estimate of the position would at least double those figures.
  There is a need for special treatment throughout the whole field in addition to the handicapped child who gets special education under the 1944 Act. Research in education has revolutionised the whole approach to this problem in the last few years by discovering that there are as many children whose attainment is above their intelligence as there are below it. While I do not discount the value of intelligence tests, we have got rid of this particular straitjacket as 'it means that remedial treatment and teaching is now
  1530
  appropriate for every child below the average for its age in attainment. Therefore, I would like to see a great advance in this matter.
  Some authorities, like Manchester, have area remedial centres. Others have opportunity classes. A number of them are making special provisions for extra classes in the schools. I believe that this approach is essential if we are to lift the level of literacy and of understanding of children. We cannot do this without more highly-trained and specially-trained teachers. These children are, or could be, the weak link in our democracy. We
  ignore them at our peril. I therefore plead that as an act of faith, whatever other priorities may seem important to us, we should place education at the highest level and should seek to double our education expenditure in the near future.
  If we set this as our target the threat which faces us here and abroad will be surmounted and we shall go on as a democracy in health and soundness.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. R. P. Hornby: One of the most cheering aspects of this debate has been the note of urgency struck by the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Sydney Irving), who urged the maximum possible development in education. That note has been common ground in every speech, and I welcome it very much.
  I regret a little the terms of the Opposition Motion, for, in a sense, it is a Motion which because of that sense of urgency among all who are interested in education we all accept. Yet at the same time we all recognise that economic realities press on us in education as in other services, and this does not divide us half as much as the Motion might lead one to expect. I would also have preferred it if the Motion had given credit for the achievements which have taken place since the war, for I doubt whether hon. Members opposite could succeed in this problem any better than the Government themselves are doing.
  I should like to refer to what has been done, not by cataloguing all the educational achievements but by commenting on one or two things which have been mentioned in the speeches of the hon. Member for Dartford and of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Moss).

  1531
  I will deal first with the question of the bulge which the hon. Member for Meriden mentioned. I accept his point that the generation that constitutes the bulge is to some extent unlucky in that it has had overcrowded classes in the primary schools, and will experience the same difficulty in the secondary schools. There is also a problem in the 15 to 18 age group. Perhaps, looking back, we might have done a service by delaying the school entry age. However, we cannot consider that now, for it would be turning the clock back.
  We might be able to help as this group goes through the secondary stage by urging authorities to be as flexible as possible in the age of entry and in the age of movement from the primary to the secondary schools. There is perhaps room for a little more flexibility there, particularly in the case of those who are a little backward, by holding them back a little longer in the primary schools before letting them go on to the secondary modern schools. I think that suggestion is worth considering.
  Next I should like to deal with the secondary modern schools. Several speakers have referred to the need for parity of status, and I agree with this. It is part and parcel of the intention of the 1944 Act. One of the most cheering features of this debate is the fact that we have heard hardly a mention of the 11-plus examination. It is a cheering fact because the wide variety of methods employed in the process of selection and the increasing acceptance of those various methods by parents has made a great difference to the whole of the secondary
  system. Partly because there is less resentment over the 11-plus examination, we are getting a totally different atmosphere in secondary modern schools. That is important.
  Buildings also play an immense part in this respect, as does the success achieved by these schools. Last year 8 per cent. of the total number of entrants in the G.C.E. examination came from secondary modern schools. The more that can be done to develop the top end of those schools, the better. A great deal of our success in technical education may well be found in secondary modern schools, where I believe great developments may be expected.
  1532
  I am glad that at no time in the debate has there been any suggestion of postponing the three-year training course for teachers. I am glad also that there has been throughout the economy proposals recognition of the vital importance of the technical education programme. I should like to make a plea that top priority should be given to all-age schools when we can turn on the tap a little more. I hope very much that the all-age schools come high on the list, for I think that the all-age school is probably the most important of all the problems facing us in education.
  Now, briefly, I would say why I regret the Opposition's Motion. I do not think the Opposition could have done anything other than what the Government have done. I do not want to compare the record of the Labour Government between 1945 and 1951 and that of the Conservative Government between 1951 and now, for the comparison has already been made. But I think we have heard too often before the cry that such and such an action or economy move heralds the end of the Government's interest in education, or the failure to appreciate the urgency of what must be done. We heard it on the question of the school meals and again on the question of school milk. We heard it when the Health Service charges were raised.
  In all these things any Ministry and every Ministry has to have a sense of priority. The latest example of an economy move is Circular 334, but what are local education authorities being asked to scrutinise carefully? Granted, they are being asked to scrutinise expenditure on things with which every local authority would like to press ahead, but is the admission of children under 5 more or less important than trying to go ahead with the maintenance of a reasonable size standard for classes? It is suggested that the local education
  authorities should scrutinise their expenditure on non-vocational courses in further education for the sake of possible economies while the country is in its present economic situation.
  All these provisons are important and we should like to go ahead with them as soon as we can, but I ask hon. and right hon. Member opposite, before pressing a Motion of this sort, to consider what their own priorities in such a situation would

  1533
  have been. It is because I do not believe they have answered that question satisfactorily that I cannot but think that this Motion does not really deserve to be pressed.
  Very briefly, I would list one or two things which I hope will be emphasised. I have already mentioned all-age schools. We have, too, a problem in our technical education expansion, the problem of the recruitment of teachers, particularly of science and mathematics, which are the basis of much of that programme. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education can exercise any influence at the Treasury, but I would suggest to him that possibly one source of recruitment is the married women who were formerly teachers. I wonder if my hon. Friend can persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be rather more lenient in taxing married women. There is a potential source of trained teachers amongst them, and those women would be tempted back into the teaching profession if it were made a little more worth their while.
  I hope we shall continue to publicise as much as we can the achievements of the secondary modern schools, for I believe that great things lie ahead for them. I hope we shall continue to think of salaries and that a substantial differential may be given to head teachers, for that would assist recruitment to the profession by helping to provide a ladder for advancement. Moreover, I believe that where there is a good head teacher there is a good school. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) made some remarks about the Youth Service with which I wholly agree. This is a direction in which a very little expenditure can sometimes produce great results. As conscription comes to an end and as the large group of boys and girls leaves the schools, this is a service which will need very careful and sympathetic attention.
  The more that we can cultivate a genuine and widespread enthusiasm for education throughout the country, the better it will pay us, to put it at its lowest, quite apart from the satisfaction which it will bring. I welcome parent-teacher associations where they exist, because they do a very good job. I also think that the Local Government Bill will serve us well in this direction, because it
  1534
  will concentrate at the local level much more than at the Whitehall level decisions on educational policy. It can have a very valuable effect in creating a fervent desire for education among large sections of the population.
  Some hon. Members opposite who are much older than I am can tell us a great deal about the fervour which inspired the early days of the Workers' Educational Association. I have read about this and about some of their remarkable achievements. If we could bring that spirit into education today it would be a good thing. If we can create enthusiasm among parents and among people at school about further education, we shall achieve a great deal and we shall find that education will go ahead very fast and very far in this country.
  8.42 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Skeffington: As I have only a short time in which to speak, I hope that the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. Hornby) will forgive me if I do not reply directly to some of the points he made. Perhaps I shall pick up one or two of them in my very abbreviated remarks.
  It is, I am sure, a very good thing that the House has had the opportunity of reviewing the present conditions of education. It is trite but nevertheless true to say that, assuming that our society survives the perils of this the nuclear age, its future and its happiness will depend on the proportion of our resources which the nation devotes to education. The great division between the two sides of the House is really on the question whether, even in existing circumstances, we are devoting a sufficient proportion of the national income to it.
  It sometimes comes as a shock to realise that even today, and despite the fact that we have raised the school-leaving age since 1946, the proportion of the national income which we are spending on education locally and nationally is only 3.2 per cent. as against the expenditure before the war of 2.9 per cent. Although there has been an increase, it has been a very modest one indeed, and it is still too small a proportion of our national wealth. When we compare it with what is being spent on such things as defence, there is room for argument whether the heads of our national expenditure should not be

  1535
  reconsidered. We have had justification today for the economy circulars from the Ministry fo Education, but it is extraordinary that we have never had that kind of circular about defence. I am not a pacifist, but I wish that we could import a little more of the generosity with which we always regard armaments into our debates on education.
  I want, next, very briefly to raise a local matter. A number of parents in my constituency are concerned about the changes which Middlesex County Council are proposing for the Southall Technical School. This institution, like many technical colleges, has an excellent record. I do not want to pass judgment on the proposals. Indeed, I believe that in any event the school will have to move from its present site. I have a letter here which states that parents are afraid that
  "in this industrial corner of Middlesex something of great value is likely to be destroyed."
  In my opinion, that will not necessarily happen, but I hope the Minister will consider this to be a suitable case for inquiry. If parents' fears are not well founded, then the inquiry will help to clear up the matter. If there is something in their complaint, then those in charge can reconsider the matter.
  A question which has often seemed to me to be important is that of the Ministry's statistics. I do not overrate my influence in this matter; indeed, I have been asking Questions about this for a year and the position has remained precisely the same. I understand that there is one statistician compiling the whole of the figures for the Ministry, although he has assistants. On 5th December, 1957, I asked the Minister for the figures in respect of enrolments for science and engineering courses in 1956–57. I was told that the figures were not available. I do not blame the Department. I do blame the right hon. Gentleman, for I should have thought the fault is that the returns are asked for from local authorities too late. In December, 1957, we could not be told what were the enrolments in science in September 1956. That does not seem good enough. If we are trying to gauge progress in something which everyone says is absolutely essential to our welfare, I am sure that a better system could be devised to give an up to date picture. Surely this would be essen-
  1536
  tial from the point of view of the Ministry itself.
  Turning to the wider aspects of scientific and technical education, it is now a commonplace that we not only have to do more but have to spend more if we are to get through this technological age with success. Many of us cannot share the comparative complacency of some hon. Members opposite about our chances. It seems to us that we are falling behind in this race. We have but 9 per cent. of our working population who are trained scientists and technologists. The figure in the United States is 2 per cent., and it has been estimated, I do not know with what accuracy, that in the Soviet Union the number is 10 per cent. I am very glad that recently the Government have announced that they propose to extend the numbers at universities to 125,000 from 106,000 which was originally proposed by the Lord President in November, 1955. By that means they hope to be able to double the number of science graduates by 1970 to 20,000.
  I should very much like to know how the number of 125,000 was reached. I should like to know, also, whether the Government are satisfied that the money is going to be there. I know that this is not primarily the responsibility of the Parliamentary Secretary, but no doubt he has knowledge and information on it. In February I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer which universities had expressed dissatisfaction with the amount of grant last May. The Chancellor replied that so far the annual reports published showed that most of the universities were dissatisfied. We want to be certain that the money is going to be there, otherwise the educational pyramid we are building will be a failure.
  I should like to know how it is proposed to increase the number of students taking science and technology at the universities. According to my information, in 1955–56 43 per cent. of undergraduates were reading arts, 20 per cent. pure science, 13 per cent. technology and 19 per cent. medicine and dentistry. There is an overwhelming balance on the arts and history side. If we are to achieve even the limited number of science graduates suggested by the Government, let alone the numbers some of us think are necessary, it seems there

  1537
  must be a great expansion on the science side.
  It is a shock to realise that in 1946, so far as I have been able to estimate, there were only 142,000 qualified scientists and engineers in Britain. That is an extremely small proportion of the working population. Many of us react almost violently to the complacency of some hon. Members opposite when we look at the comparable figures for higher education in the United States. Making all allowances for the difference in the size of the population we find that whereas in our country those at school from 15 upwards number but 360,000 in the United States the proportion is more than 1,500,000. In the universities, where we have 75,000 students at present, the comparable figure in the United States is half a million. At the universities for higher degrees, the numbers are about 10,000 in this country, as against 65,000 in the United States. Those are disturbing figures.
  We have not heard today whether the position in regard to early leavers has improved since 1953; whether the estimate made by Sir Alexander Todd that there will be a 10 per cent. deficiency in science teachers by 1961 even if we continue to have classes of the present size, is still true; and whether anything is being done about it. I hope that our fears may possibly be a little allayed by the reply we get from the Government spokesman.
  I would make two references to the Minister's speech. We certainly meet whilst the shadow is over education. He rather tried to suggest, by quoting the Times Educational Supplement, that too heavy weather was being made of this. To be fair however, in connection with Circular 334, he should also have quoted The Schoolmaster. That is the organ of the teachers, of a non-political trade union. A fortnight ago it had this to say of Circular 334:
  "The Ministry's new directive to local education authorities to slash educational expenditure is a miserable example of coming events casting their shadow before them: block grants are not with us yet, but their baleful influence as a drag on educational advance is already making itself felt in the schools.
  'Pinch, scrape and make do,' is the message of this circular. The Ministry have stated that it contains no new policy, only a reminder to press on with the old. Perhaps torture should be regarded in the same light: not as
  1538
  a new policy but merely as an extension of the art of persuasion."
  It is only fair that the impression given by the Minister should be counterbalanced by that article in the official organ of the National Union of Teachers.
  The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the reduction of large classes, but he gave no figures. I may be wrong—I have already complained about the inadequacy of the statistics—but the last report of the Minister of Education that I read showed that in secondary schools—and one well understands this —the number of classes with more than 30 pupils had increased by 3,000 to 38,000. I had Table No. 95 of the Annual Abstract of Statistics before me when the Minister was speaking, and from that, unless one excluded classes of 51 pupils—of which there should not be one in existence—I could not see where there had been any significant decrease, certainly not in the secondary schools.
  I well understand this. I would not blame the Ministry if it was not the case, but the Minister seemed to claim that it was the case. Indeed, the Election manifestoes of the party opposite said in 1955,
  "Now is the time to go ahead and reduce the size of classes."
  In 1951 there were 29,971 classes in secondary modern schools with over 31 pupils, and, according to the table for 1955, the last statistics I have, there were then actually 31,000. It may be that the Minister was referring to a very small group of classes and not to those with over 31 pupils in the secondary modern schools. If so, it should be made clear.
  With one thing I am sure all my hon. Friends would agree. The quality in our schools today is absolutely first-class. Allied to that, we have magnificent teachers, and devoted people serving on local education authorities who get on with the job, however difficult may be the circumstances, I suggest that it is to them that the credit goes, and not to the Government. I therefore hope that the Motion will be supported.
  8.54 p.m.
  Sir Hugh Linstead: I have promised myself that I will speak for only five minutes, and in that time there are only two things that I can say. First. I express my regret at the terms of the

  1539
  Motion. I have been in the House long enough to have seen the Education Act in its formation, to have assisted in its passing and to have watched it working out. It seems to me most regrettable that, at this stage in the Act's history, we should find the House dividing on a Motion like this.
  If we examine it, we find that all it really means is, "We cannot find anything very far wrong with the educational policy of Her Majesty's Government in recent years, but there are a few things that the Government have had to do in an attempt to save the £ "—and that has been used to give the impression that the whole policy is inadequate.
  I think that is what the Motion means, and I feel that it is one of the saddest and most unfortunate Motions for educational purposes to put on the Order Paper. The result of the Motion appearing has been that the economy circulars of Conservative Governments have been quoted, and this has led, quite naturally, to hon. Friends of mine quoting Socialist circulars about economy. I suspect that the real situation is that no Government can ever look five or ten years ahead in regard to expenditure or the prosperity of the country.
  What they do in the educational field is to spend up to the hilt, and that means that occasionally both Socialist and Conservative Governments overspend in particular emergencies and have to pull back. On the whole, I should have thought that it was a wiser policy and more in the interests of education in the long term than one of perpetual caution. I should have thought that if we could have equated these two lots of circulars one with the other, we might have called it quits, and then have got on with the business of discussing education in a much better atmosphere.
  The one practical point to which I shall have time to refer concerns the provisions for those who leave school during the next few years. It has been mentioned in the debate already, and I think it deserves to be underlined. We are going to have the bulge which is now in the secondary schools passing out into employment just at the time when National Service is coming to an end. I think that these teen-agers will require from whoever is Minister of Education
  1540
  at that time considerable thought about and considerable interest in their future.
  If one looks at the last Annual Report of the Ministry, one sees the sums of money which are made available for youth and adult welfare, and these, it seems to me, are extremely small and capable of substantial increase with no serious effect on the expenditure of the Department as a whole, while at the same time being something which can be relied upon to fill a very real need indeed.
  According to the 1956 Report, the grants to national voluntary youth organisations were only £164,000. Capital grants were only £151,000, and payments made towards village halls, community centres and playing fields in 1956 only £419,000. It seems to me that a very small investment by the Minister in these aspects of education will produce very large dividends in the form of morale and helping the rather large surplus ex-school population which we are going to have in the next few years.
  Personally, I find these last seven years or so in education of immense achievement. I feel that in the debate today we have hardly had a properly balanced picture of what has been happening. If one goes into the secondary schools, the technical schools, the universities, the places where this money is being spent, we find a completely different picture from that which has been presented, certainly from the other side of the House, during this debate. Of course, there are many things to be done, but the last seven years in education have been remarkable ones, and I think that they are likely to be outstanding in the history of education in this country.
  9.0 p.m.
  Miss Alice Bacon: The debate has been notable for two or three reasons. First, it has been notable for the excellent maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. McCann). We were delighted to hear him express his great knowledge and sincerity. We now know that not only have we gained a seat at Rochdale, but have also gained a very valuable Member for this side of the House.
  The debate has been notable also because it has been the occasion for the Minister to make his first speech from the Dispatch Box as Minister of Education.

  1541
  He succeeds a Minister who has been sent by the Prime Minister to a much less intellectually arduous job, that of Chairman of the Conservative Party. It was said by one education journal, perhaps rather uncharitably, when the present Minister was appointed, that he owed his appointment
  "less to any special interest in the work of the Ministry than to Mr. Macmillan's characteristic desire to bury another of Sir Anthony Eden's hatchets."
  However, I am pleased to note that he is, at any rate, getting acquainted with schools, although I gathered from his speech today that he had seen more of the brand new, up-to-date schools than he had seen of the older schools in some parts of the country.
  Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I make a special effort always to go to old schools at the same time as I go to the new ones.
  Miss Bacon: I am very pleased to hear that from the right hon. Gentleman. In his speech, he described only the new ones.
  Like all education debates, this debate has elicited many contributions from hon. Members who have been able to quote actual cases from their own areas. These are, I think, always more telling than the overall figures which are given by the Minister, for they show that, whatever has been done already, there are still a great many things in our education system which are a disgrace to twentieth century Britain. A great deal of the debate has been devoted to the two recent Circulars 331 and 334. These circulars have hit rural reorganisation. They have hit improvements to existing buildings; they have hit village halls, community centres, and playing fields. I should like, first, to discuss the situation in our rural areas.
  During the last two days, we have had an agriculture debate in the House, and we have heard from hon. Members on both sides about the drift from our countryside. There are many reasons for this, but one of them, I believe, is that country people feel that they do not, in the country, have an opportunity for the education of their children which is equal to that enjoyed by townspeople.
  What is the position in the countryside today? Recently. a group of teachers conducted an examination into conditions
  1542
  at 134 rural schools in three widely separated areas. They found that the schools were in a state little different from when they were built. One in three has inferior sanitary arrangements; and when I say that, I really do mean inferior sanitary arrangements. Seven out of eight have water supply which could have been used. Some are using water from wells or springs which dry up in the summer. Only two in seven have any hot water supply.
  We can all give actual examples, and many have been given today. I will give two or three others to add to those given by my hon. Friends. In Wiltshire, a secondary modern school was to be built to serve nine villages. Because of the circular issued by the Ministry, it has now been indefinitely postponed. In one of the schools in that area, one teacher teaches all the boys and girls from 10 to 15 for all subjects except woodwork. Water has been in the village for six years, but there still is not a tap in that particular school.
  I am told that, in Devonshire, there are two or three dozen schools with no proper sanitary arrangements at all. But perhaps the worst county of all is Norfolk. Here, we are told, there are 250 schools which have no flush lavatories and which are waiting for sanitary improvements. One hundred and sixty-four schools in Norfolk are still without a piped water supply and 45 are without electricity. The Norfolk County Council had planned to build three new secondary schools to replace some of these existing village schools. But, because of the circulars that have just been issued, those three schools have been cut down to one. I am told by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk. North (Mr. Gooch), who also happens to be the Vice-Chairman of the Norfolk County Education Committee, that he wrote to the right hon. Gentleman asking him to meet a deputation about the Norfolk schools, but he was told by the right hon. Gentleman that no useful purpose would be served by such a meeting.
  It is incredible that in this age of the Sputnik and Zeta we are educating some of our children in eighteenth century conditions. For years we have talked about secondary education for all, but now we have seen that it is not to become reality. Secondary education has been postponed

  1543
  in the country districts, but we sometimes forget that there are many unreorganised schools in the big cities where there has never been a start in reorganisation since the war. Indeed, in Leeds, which I know best, 22 per cent. of the 13-year-old children are still in all-age schools. The whole of the south side of the city is completely unreorganised and I understand that the position is as bad as in Sheffield and other cities.
  We sometimes hear a great deal about the inequalities between the children who go to the State schools and those who go to independent schools. I believe that we have as much inequality within the State system as between the State system and the independent system. There is all the difference in the world between the opportunities for the child who goes to the slum and unreorganised school and the child who, in our State system of education, goes to a wonderful, new up-to-date school on a housing estate. Many of our old buildings are structurally good and can be made up-to-date under the minor works programme, but this, as we know and as we have been saying today, has been hit. As my hon. Friends have said, what is considered to be a minor works programme at the Ministry of Education is a major event in the life of one particular school. I was pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he had had second thoughts about Essex, which will now be able to build its laboratories. It is not the slightest use spending about £80 million extra on technical and higher technological education if, at the same time, we prevent the building of science laboratories, where the preparatory work is done. This is like putting an elaborate roof on a building before we have actually dug the foundations.
  All this has not been enough for the Government in recent years. We have had Circular 334, which is, in effect, the 1958 version of Circular 242, which was issued in 1951. What has the circular meant? It has meant that local authorities have been faced with the necessity to cut their expenditure. But when the Ministry of Education asks local authorities to cut expenditure it knows full well that there is certain expenditure which cannot be cut and which today must, of necessity, increase all the time—for
  1544
  example, loan charges on buildings and the salaries of teachers. Therefore, when a local authority is to cut its expenditure, it must look to the remaining part of its budget and to such items as science equipment, books and stationery, improvements and amenities.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), in opening the debate, spoke, too, of the Ministry's attitude towards the report of the committee which considered maintenance allowances. If we are to get sufficient teachers and technologists, we must do everything possible to ensure that talent is not wasted. Unless we have a proper system of maintenance allowances for children who remain at school after the age of 15, we shall have a very great wastage of talent.
  The Minister made a great deal of the Estimates, which were issued two days ago, because they showed an increase. It would be very strange indeed if the education Estimates did not show an increase at this time. There are more children in our schools, particularly at the secondary stage, where it is more expensive to educate a child than at the primary stage. There are rising costs which, it has been calculated, account for two-fifths of the increase.
  There are other increases caused by the Government's policy—for example, higher interest rates which local authorities are being called upon to pay—and there is the belated but welcome payment of equal pay to women teachers. To give one example alone from the increase in the Estimates, an additional £2 million is necessitated for the employer's share of the higher National Insurance contributions.
  We are having to spend much more today to maintain the same education service, but what we spend must be set against the needs of the service. Let me quote from a speech by the noble Lord who, when Minister of Education, said. on 9th March, 1957:
  "On school education, we spend somewhere about 3 per cent. of our national product. What would we say of a family that spent only 3 per cent. of its total income on educating its children? I think we should say that it was a great deal too little. How can we look forward to a prosperous future if we do not spend adequate sums on public education? The truth is that we cannot"

  1545
  That was Viscount Hailsham speaking, when Minister of Education. The truth is that we are spending less than 3 per cent. of our national income, which is less than the need and less than is being spent by many other countries.
  We on this side feel that we are not moving forward as we should and that the economies, sometimes small, are very mean. It is no exaggeration to say that local authorities are filled with uncertainty and feel that they cannot plan ahead with any assurance of being able to carry out their plan. There is today a need for the Ministry of Education to have a building programme defined over a period of years, thus enabling planning to be done by the local authorities, who at the moment do not know where they are.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) said in his speech today that education was far better out of the prejudice of high-powered party politics, and I believe that to be true. Nevertheless, over the last few years the party opposite has used education for political purposes. [HON. MEMBERS "Oh"] Let me give examples.
  Let us look at the history. In October. 1951, this was said in the Tory election manifesto:
  "In Education and in Health some of the most crying needs are not being met. For the money now being spent we will provide better services and so fulfil the high hopes which we all held when we planned the improvements during the war."
  That was in October, 1951, before the General Election. In December, two months later, the party opposite issued Circular 242, which asked local education authorities to cut their estimates by 5 per cent. Therefore, immediately after the General Election the work was stopped.
  We come next to December, 1954. which, as we all remember, was a few months before the General Election of 1955. In December, 1954, the President of the Board of Trade, who was then Minister of Education said, "Go ahead", and he issued Circular 283. He relaxed restrictions. He took the brake off. He said that rural reorganisation was to go ahead. Minor works and improvements could go on unrestricted as long as any one job cost under £10,000.
  1546
  The local authorities were very pleased with all this. They made their plans accordingly and so, at the 1955 General Election, in "United for Peace and Progress" the party opposite was able to put the following in its election manifesto:
  "In the next five years…we intend to complete the reorganisation of all-age classes in the rural areas and make good progress with reorganisation in the towns. We shall also tackle the problem of the slum schools…Grants will continue to be given for playing fields, community centres and youth clubs"
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Miss Bacon: I can only assume that those hon. Members opposite who are cheering their heads off have not read the recent circulars issued by the Ministry of Education, because the Government now go back on those promises.
  Rural reorganisation is now held up. Town and city reorganisation has not begun. Minor works are being cut. Money is being taken from the playing fields and community centres. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle in his remarks about party politics. I believe that the time has come when education policy should be related to the needs of the children and not to the date of the General Election.
  Is it any wonder that in the local authorities there is a feeling of depression? Their major building programme has been cut, their minor works programme is being cut, there is a general appeal for economy, and now they fear the block grant. We on this side of the House would like to know from the Government what their plans are for the future and what they are aiming for in education. What do they consider to be the most urgent problems at the present time? I believe that the most urgent problem is to reduce the size of classes, especially in the primary schools.
  The Minister today pointed to the fact that the size of primary school classes had been reduced in the last three years, but he did not say a word about secondary schools where the size of classes is increasing. Despite the fact that the size of classes in the primary schools has been reduced, due to the fact that the bulge has gone from the primary schools, there are still 30,000 classes in the primary schools with over 40 pupils each, and there are still over 500 classes of

  1547
  over 50 pupils. The position is even worse in some of the secondary schools.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that primary schools were among the most delightful schools in the country. Some of them are. I taught for eight years in a secondary modern school, but for a few months I taught in a primary school. I tried to teach 45 young children, aged six and seven, the rudiments of reading and writing, but I did not feel that I was going into the most delightful spot in the country. Until we get the size of classes down, we shall never make real progress with education.
  We can all agree that the size of classes is too large, but if we are to get the size of classes down we have to plan for the supply of teachers. At present, the Government have no long-term plans for increasing the supply of teachers by nearly enough to make a great inroad into the size of classes. One of the great inequalities in our system today is that between the public school and the State school, but a greater inequality is that between the normal primary school and the private preparatory school where classes are probably only ten or a dozen. We must have a major attack in the size of classes, which means getting more buildings and more teachers.
  Are the training colleges to be extended? What do the Government intend to do to recruit more teachers since, with a three-year training course, the supply of teachers will decrease? I deplore the impression which is being given that after 1961, as the numbers begin to fall, fewer teachers will be required. That attitude is creating the fear that teachers will be unemployed in the years ahead. I deplore that because, as the numbers in schools go down, after 1961, we should be able to make great inroads and many improvements.
  Several hon. Members opposite have spoken about the Labour Government's record in education. Hon. Members opposite must realise some time that there was a war from 1939 to 1945 and that there was the Korean war while we were in office, but that, nevertheless, we achieved a great deal in education. In spite of all the difficulties, we raised the school-leaving age to 15, and that was no man achievement. We managed to
  1548
  produce the teachers so that that could be done. We abolished fees in secondary schools, and made it possible for many boys and girls from working-class homes to go to university.
  This was at a time when the Labour Government were converting the old distressed areas into Development Areas. a time when there was a shortage of building materials and builders. Today, there is no shortage of building materials; indeed, many builders are unemployed. The position is quite different. We should not always be chasing to catch up with where we were. We must go forward.
  I will resist the temptation to speak about something very dear to my heart, although two or three hon. Members opposite have referred to it—secondary education. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Ashton) asked the Minister whether we could draw any conclusions from the 40 comprehensive schools already built and the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. Hornby) thought that we had not discussed secondary education today because so many people now accepted selection at 11 years of age.
  I take the opposite point of view. It has not been discussed very much today, because we realise that people outside are beginning to take the view that selection at the age of 11 must go. I would advise the hon. Member for Chelmsford to read the Times Educational Supplement for 7th February, 1958, which gives a review of the work being done in the comprehensive schools which are now in operation. I will only say that all the fears of the past have been proved groundless by those schools. In no area containing a comprehensive school are the parents asking for a return to the old system.
  I want to say a word about the universities. We welcome the expansion in technical schools and universities. I agree with one hon. Member who asked for more facilities to be provided for girls to train in science and technology, but as we expand the universities we must make quite sure that the right people go there. Today, 56 per cent. of the students at Cambridge and 44 per cent. of the students at Oxford are from public schools. There is a great deal of dissatisfaction over the whole question of university entrants, and we ought to have an inquiry into the problem.

  1549
  I have concentrated more upon primary and secondary schools than upon higher technology and the universities, because I feel that there has lately been an emphasis upon technical education and the universities. It is right that these should expand; they are extremely important. But we must not let our concentration upon the higher forms of learning make us forget the needs of the mass of our children who leave school at the age of 15. Without higher forms of education we cannot survive as a great economic Power, but it is equally true that unless we pay a great deal of attention to our primary and secondary schools we cannot survive as a great democratic Power.
  We in the Labour Party have always regarded education as the main driving force of progress, both for the individual and for the nation. We cannot afford to economise or waste any ability and talent, and it is because there is economy at the moment, and because we feel that talent and ability are being wasted, that we have moved this Motion. The Government have been responsible for uneasiness today and uncertainty about the future. They have filled local authorities with dismay; they have filled teachers with apprehension, and they have lost the confidence of parents. We therefore propose to vote for our Motion tonight.
  9.28 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Sir Edward Boyle): If my memory serves me right, the last occasion when the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) addressed the House from that Dispatch Box was on 26th April, 1955. I should like to congratulate her very sincerely upon a speech which we all enjoyed, which was both moderate and reasonable in content. I want to reply to some of her points in the course of my remarks, but I should like first, to say, that I am sure all those who have taken part in the debate—and all other Members in the House, wherever they might sit—are delighted that the Education Estimates are rising this year. Indeed, as the hon. Lady quite fairly said, it is absolutely right that they should rise.
  It is somewhat ironical, however, that we should be debating this Motion almost upon the very day that my right hon. Friend has announced the highest level of educational expenditure in our history.
  1550
  I am sure that that was one of the reasons why, listening to the debate, I felt—as many other hon. Members must have felt—that it was one of the most friendly debates upon a Motion of censure that the House has experienced for a fairly long time.
  When I first saw the Motion on the Order Paper and thought of the policies which my right hon. Friend was following and the Estimates he was about to introduce, I was reminded of the maxim of an ancestor of mine in this House —"Never bother to knock a man down when you can trip him up with a piece of string" I commend that advice to the House.
  I wish to come straight away to the issue which I know has been bothering hon. Members most in this debate, namely, Circulars 331 and 334. I wish to deal with them as fully and as frankly as I can. No one can possibly doubt the importance either of rural reorganisation or what is referred to technically and perhaps a little unfortunately as "minor works".First, about rural reorganisation.
  When one measures the rate of educational progress in Britain since the war, one observes that some of the most dramatic examples of this progress are evident in the rural counties. I have seen many of them for myself. During the last year I had occasion to visit counties such as Shropshire, Norfolk and Lincolnshire, to mention only three, and I have been very conscious of the revolution in education that has taken place in these counties since the war.
  Some very striking new secondary schools have been built, and I think it fair to say that there is a completely different climate about secondary education in those areas from that which existed before the war. Prior to the war, it was argued that if new secondary schools were built workers would be taken away from the land. Today, one of the first questions asked by a farm worker, or rather by his wife, is what is the school like and what provision exists for secondary education. I think it true to say that if we wish to get people to live and work in the country today we have to provide them with amenities on an urban scale.
  May I say a word about minor works. I have seen for myself for example, in

  1551
  the West Riding of Yorkshire, what can be done with the reconditioning of an old building under a minor works scheme. I am sure all of us on this side of the House very much hope that it will not be long before these restrictions can be eased. But do not let us underrate what has already been achieved both with regard to rural reorganisation and minor works. As my right hon. Friend said this afternoon, two-thirds of the programme of rural reorganisation, that is to say 224 schools, have been either completed or are going ahead untouched. In fact, it is only 31 schools compared with those 224 which are at present having to be postponed. The figures for minor works are quite striking. During the nine years from 1945 to 1954 the total value of minor works completed was £42 million. During the next three years following Circular 283 we did £40 million worth of minor works. That is to say, during the last three years we have completed very nearly as much as was done during the preceding nine years. For the moment there has to be restriction, but I ask the House to remember the great progress we have made in many rural areas, and I hope that it will not be long before the restrictions can be lifted.
  Now I come to Circular 334. I think a good deal of exaggerated talk has gone on about this circular. I do not believe that any service is done to education by those who talk as though every element in educational expenditure is equally urgent and essential. Circular 334 recognises absolutely clearly the necessity to meet the basic needs of the increasing numbers in the schools and the development of technical education. This is stated clearly in the circular.
  But at a time of financial stringency, while these major policies of educational expansion must be maintained both in the schools and in further education, it is right to seek for minor economies. One interesting thing is that, with the exception of only one item, Circular 334 does no more than give examples of expenditure which merit especially careful scrutiny. The only exception to that in the Circular is a limitation of£3 million on the grant payable in respect of capital expenditure from Revenue. I do not think that is an unreasonable limitation, particularly at a time when educational Estimates are rising.
  1552
  I would say one word about the Estimates. One or two hon. Members have made reference to them. The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) said that the curve was flattening out. For goodness sake do not let us think that the curve of educational expenditure could ever rise in a smooth and continuous manner. The Burnham awards would make this unlikely. Whenever there is a new Burnham award, since 9s. 1d. out of every £1 is spent on teachers' salaries, the curve must rise steeply. It would not be possible for the curve to rise steadily over a term of years.
  I have one further point before I leave the circulars. The whole educational world should be grateful that the Government took the necessary measures last autumn to ward off a threat to the £ sterling. If the Government had failed to take those measures and the £ had fallen, it would have been necessary to send out far more drastic circulars. My right hon. Friend certainly would not have then been able to introduce Estimates for greatly increased expenditure on education. That point is worth remembering.
  For a few minutes I should like to reply to certain detailed questions which have been raised during the debate. We had a most sincere, interesting and thoughtful maiden speech from the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. McCann). I am sure that all of us who heard it were much impressed and were very glad indeed that we were in here at the time. I know it is not customary to take up controversial points contained in a maiden speech, but the hon. Member raised two points on which I would, with the permission of the House, like to comment. The first was the state of minor works in Rochdale and Lancashire, and the other was sanitation. In view of what the hon. Gentleman said I made urgent inquiries. I am glad to learn that the only minor work for which Rochdale put in has been approved.
  Mr. McCann: The question of the sanitary arrangements was in respect of my neighbourhood of Eccles. I thought I had made that clear. The only time I mentioned Rochdale was in connection with minor works.
  Sir E. Boyle: All I wanted to say was that I took due note of the hon. Member's point. I will certainly pursue it right away. The hon. Member also mentioned special schools for the educationally subnormal. Special Schools is a branch of the work of the Ministry for which my right hon. Friend has asked me to take special responsibility. There are very few aspects of the work of the Ministry which are more interesting or rewarding. At the present time there is no real shortage of places for the blind or the deaf, and very much better provision than there was some time ago for the physically handicapped. It is, however, true that there is still a serious shortage of places for the educationally subnormal.
  Last year, we built seventeen new schools for this class of child and provided 2,378 new places; but there are still some 13,800 awaiting places. I will tell the hon. Member for Rochdale that we did send out a questionnaire to local authorities in the course of 1956 on this subject. In a way, if the House will forgive me for putting it like this, supplying places for these children creates its own demand. The more places we provide, the better local authorities become in discovering these children. We are doing our very best to meet the need. I am glad to think that we have this problem now under control. Some of the schools for the educationally subnormal are first-class and admirable institutions.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) and a number of hon. Members referred to the Youth Service and to the very great importance of providing sufficient facilities for young people after they leave school between the ages of 15 and 18 years or, indeed, 15 and 20. I entirely agree with my hon. and gallant Friend about the great importance of this subject, and indeed it will grow in importance when National Service comes to an end. It is a difficult subject, and one must look at the question of the Youth Service in the context of further education as a whole. My right hon. Friend has had a meeting with the George V Jubilee Trust, and next week he is meeting representatives of the organisation known as S.C.N.V.Y.O.
  One of the other difficulties of the youth service is the enormous number of bodies
  1554
  concerned. What I can promise is that we are very well apprised of this subject and of its growing importance in the years ahead, and my right hon. Friend will consider carefully the suggestions which have been made in this debate.
  On the subject of technical education, I should like to mention two or three aspects. The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) asked about the building programme for technical education. Perhaps the House will forgive me if I give a few figures. In 1957 we started £1271 million worth of work. We started 116 projects, including 20 complete new colleges and 92 major extensions. The value of projects completed in 1957 was just under £7 million and the total value of building work done was about £71 million.
  I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the very great importance of the emphasis on science in the schools. I have mentioned this on a number of occasions. It is certainly encouraging if one looks at the trend of G.C.E. figures in recent years. In five years G.C.E. passes at the ordinary level have gone up, in mathematics by 54 per cent. physics by 88 per cent. and chemistry by 81 per cent.; and at the advanced level, in mathematics by 55 per cent., physics by 47 per cent., and chemistry by 34 per cent. Those figures reveal an encouraging trend.
  There has also been a fairly steady rate of increase in the supply of technical teachers, and I believe that the Burnham Report of October, 1956, was helpful in this respect. I also think that the concern of public opinion with all matters relating to technical education has helped here, and I certainly hope that Circular 336 drawing attention to certain recommendations of the Willis Jackson Report will do still more to increase recruitment of technical teachers.
  I should like to turn to one or two other points. The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) spoke about the work of the teaching profession, and I entirely endorse all that he said. I do not think the country yet appreciates how much we owe to the efforts of the teaching profession, in many cases having to take over large classes in very unsatisfactory buildings in the 1950's. We should all realise how much the nation owes to their efforts.

  1555
  In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Mr. Hornby), there is no intention of going back on the Government announcement of a three-year course of teacher training. As to the size of classes, it is true—and I admit it—that whereas there has been some appreciable improvement in the size of primary classes, there has been some retrogression in the case of secondary classes. But I feel that to some extent that was inevitable. After all, we are only just over half way through the period of peak pressure in secondary schools. Three years from now, primary numbers will be down by about 300,000. whereas secondary numbers will be up by another 400,000.
  Indeed, the most serious challenge will come next September when the secondary school rolls will rise by approximately 200,000. But I repeat what I said in the debate on teachers' supply, that it will not be long before my right hon. Friend will be consulting the National Advisory Council on the Training and Supply of Teachers, and I can assure the hon. Member for Fulham that the question whether we need more training facilities for teachers will be fully discussed. I agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East that all this talk that one occasionally hears about a threat of unemployment for teachers in the 1960's is dangerous and is absolutely beside the point.
  Now a very brief word on the question of the organisation of secondary education. This is, I know, a very well-worn theme. I feel that the time is not far distant, if it has not come already, when no one will be able to mention in this House the comprehensive school without a low moan being heard around the Chamber—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh.]—only because it is a well worn theme. But I would say this to the House. I think it is generally agreed that there must be a substantial element of selection in our system of secondary education simply because children do so obviously differ in their abilities and aptitudes. But we are certainly not complacent about the existing methods of selection.
  I am not sure whether hon. Members opposite realise quite how large a wealth of experiment is now going on in secondary education. In the first place, as the
  1556
  hon. Lady said, we have not merely a considerable number of comprehensive schools, but what I think is a wider category, a very considerable number of schools where we have both selective and non-selective streams at the same school —for example, bilateral schools of many kinds, both in town districts and in rural districts as well. Then we have experiments, such as those now starting in London, where a secondary central school and a secondary modern school in different buildings are brought together to form one school for administrative purposes. Then there are experiments such as Mr. Mason's interesting Leicestershire experiment carried out in two limited areas in that county.
  The present Government very much welcome this experimentation because the needs of each area quite clearly differ. There is room for trying out a variety of ideas, and I think we should be very unwise at the Ministry to discourage local authorities from embarking upon any of these plans which can be justified on their educational merits.
  One thing I will say is this, and I think that what I am going to say has a great deal of support not merely from supporters of the present Government but from a wide variety of opinion in this country of all parties and none. We believe that we ought to be extremely careful and think very hard before agreeing to any proposal which involves, as it were, the swallowing up of an existing grammar school which is doing a first-class job. We should think very hard before agreeing to that.
  Within that limit and with that one exception, I am quite certain there is room here for a great deal of experimentation, and, indeed, not only at secondary stage. Only a week or so ago I saw a primary school of which there was virtually no "streaming" at all, and where children with varying abilities were taught in the same class. That seemed to me at that stage a perfectly reasonable experiment to make.
  Hon. Members in all parts of the House know well that no Government in our history have had a finer record of educational achievement than the present Government, and this is true all along the line, whatever criterion hon. Members may choose. As is well known, the Ministry of Education Vote has almost

  1557
  exactly doubled over the period of eight years. It has risen from £192 million in the financial year 1950–51 to £381 million for the forthcoming year. Even if we allow for the fall in the value of money during this period, the increase in real terms is still very large.
  Mr. Frank Beswick: How much?
  Sir E. Boyle: I will give the hon. Member a precise answer, that the total public expenditure on education during these years expressed as a percentage of our gross national product has risen by more than one-quarter.
  The only thing I would say to the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Sydney Irving) and others, is that one must exercise great care over these calculations involving gross national products. I shall certainly read the book he mentioned, although I understand it does not appear until tomorrow; but I will certainly read it. However, I think these comparisons between one country and another, and between different countries at different times, have to be made with great care and selectivity.
  It is exactly the same if we look at the figures for teachers and, even more striking, the figures for new school places. In 1951 there were 215,000 teachers in our primary and secondary schools. By 1957 this figure had risen to nearly 254,000, a rise of 18 per cent. And then I have no doubt that both the Government and local authorities have done an outstanding job in the provision of new school places during the years of the bulge. Since October, 1951, we have provided no fewer than 1,405,000 new school places—more than twice the number of places which hon. Members opposite provided during their term of office. I believe that the success of the campaign to conquer the bulge has exceeded all reasonable expectations. By the time it has been completed about 1½ million children, nearly a quarter of all pupils at maintained schools in England and Wales, will be attending completely new schools.
  I should like to say a few words about capital expenditure on new schools. In 1951, the value of work done on major projects for primary and secondary schools was £34 million. In 1957, the comparable figure was £63 million and the estimate for this year, £60 million,
  1558
  is only a very little smaller. I remind hon. Members once again that the value of a £ spent on school building is greater today than it was in 1951. Every £1 million spent today produces about 25 per cent. more school places than it produced then.
  My last comment about our achievement is that we have been completing schools more rapidly. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Denzil Freeth) pointed out that when we took office the rate of school building was becoming slower and slower and that it was necessary to impose a moratorium. I am glad to see that during the first nine months of the current financial year we have completed schools to the value of £50 million. That is an all-time record for school completions during the course of a year. I think it throws a strange light on what we sometimes hear from he right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) when he speaks about "taking it out on the kids".
  But having said all this, I emphasise that we certainly must not be complacent, because very much remains to be done. The hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East pointed out that there are still far too many children in this country having to learn in old, unfit and unsatisfactory schools. Altogether 100,000 senior children are still attending all-age schools, and I am afraid that a large majority of them will inevitably be there until the bulge is through. We certainly want to be able to embark on the replacement of the old and unfit schools. There is an enormous amount still to be done, and we are still nowhere near the full implementation of that great Act which is so intimately associated with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede).
  As I thought was my duty in the debate, I have given the House a certain number of figures, but we must never forget that figures and statistics, as it were, cloak real people. If anyone wants to see what this progress in education since the war has meant, he need only go round to see these schools with his own eyes. During the past year I suppose I have visited about 100 schools. I have been to 40 or 50 separate authorities. I have tried to keep a fair balance between seeing work done in the old

  1559
  schools and the work done in the new schools.
  I have been enormously impressed with what can be done in the old and unfit schools, but at the same time I do not see how anyone could visit the new schools without feeling that our effort in new school building since the war has been one of our national achievements of which we have every right to be very proud. I can give only my personal impression, but it seems to me that there is more gained than lost in these bright and airy schools, in getting rid of the straight rows, in giving children greater freedom to move, and in allowing them to get on with their work more purposefully with rather less supervision. That is quite consistent with giving very careful attention to reading ability. In fact, the reading ability in those schools has risen considerably.
  And then again, no one could visit our secondary schools today without being greatly impressed by three things. First, there is the high standard of scientific provision in many of these schools, and also the high standard of provision in things like woodwork and metalwork. There is the very great trouble taken by many teachers to pin up attractive material round the walls of the schools, particularly material dealing with subjects such as history. I am very glad to see the amount of attention given to local history in our schools today. That seems absolutely right. Finally, I make no apology at all for referring to the subject of art in schools. After all, standards of taste and beauty are things which affect everyone in our society and not just a minority.
  One has only to see what is done by imaginative teachers, not only of fine arts but of ceramics and plastics. to
  realise what this means. Indeed, hon. Members have only to go to the National Gallery or the Tate Gallery on a Sunday afternoon and see the large numbers of young people there, or to see the large numbers of young people in the audience at the Festival Hall, to see something of the gains we get from attention being given in our schools to the arts.
  The hon. Member for Fulham said that today we need an appetite for education. I think he was quite right to say that. I believe we have today a greater national appetite for education than ever before. He used a phrase which seemed a very just one. At the end of his speech he said that we wanted to reach a system in which people could lead full and happy lives and contribute fully to the development of a happy and civilised society. I thought the objectives he outlined at the end of his speech, and the benefits we hope to obtain from our educational system, were very well described.
  The exigencies of parliamentary procedure and the conventions of party practice mean that in a minute or two we shall have to withdraw for a Division. Otherwise, I cannot see any conceivable reason why we should have a Division today, or why we could not have had an ordinary Estimates debate. I have no doubt that we all take pride in what has been achieved in this nation in educations since the war. We on this side of the House are proud of what we have done. We shall not in any way regret having to give an account of it when the time comes, either in national or in local elections. We believe we have a first-rate story to tell. We shall be very glad to tell it and it is with every confidence that I ask my hon. Friends to vote against this Motion tonight.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 244. Noes 306.

  Division No. 73.]

  AYES

  [9.58 p.m.

  Ainsley, J. W.

  Benson, Sir George.

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Albu, A. H.

  Beswick, Frank

  Brockway, A. F.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

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

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Blackburn, F.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Anderson, Frank

  Blyton, W. R.

  Burke, W. A.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Boardman, H.

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. C.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Baird, J.

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

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

  Callaghan, L. J.

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

  Bowles, F. G.

  Carmichael, J.

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

  Boyd, T. C,

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Chapman, W. D.

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

  Probert, A. R.

  Clunie, J.

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

  Proctor, W. T.

  Coldrick, W.

  Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

  Randall, H. E.

  Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

  Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

  Rankin, John

  Collins, V.J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Reeves, J.

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Reid, William

  Cove, W. G.

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Rhodes, H.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Kenyon, C.

  Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

  Cronin, J. D.

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Grossman, R. H. S.

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Ledger, R. J.

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Dalton, Rt.. Hon. H.

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Royle, C.

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Short, E. W.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Lewis, Arthur

  Shurmer, P. L. E.

  Deer, G.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Delargy, H. J.

  Lipton, Marcus

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Diamond, John

  Logan, D. G.

  Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

  Dodds, N. N.

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Donnelly, D. L.

  McAlister, Mrs. Mary

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

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

  McCann, J.

  Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

  Dye, S.

  MacColl, J. E.

  Snow, J. W.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  MacDermot, Niall

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Edelman, M.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

  McInnes, J.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Steele, T.

  Edwards Robert (Bilston)

  McLeavy, Frank

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Stonehouse, John

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Stones, W. (Consett)

  Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

  Mahon, Simon

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

  Finch, H. J.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

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

  Fletcher, Eric

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Swingler, S. T.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

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

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Gaitskell, R;. Hon. H. T. N.

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Gooch, E. C.

  Mason, Roy

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Mellish, R. J.

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

  Messer, Sir F.

  Thornton, E.

  Grey, C. F.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Timmons, J.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Tomney, F.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Monslow, W.

  Usborne, H. C.

  Grimond, J.

  Moody, A. S.

  Viant, S. P.

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  Watkins, T, E.

  Hannan, W.

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

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

  Mort, D. L.

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Hastings, S.

  Moss, R.

  West, D. G.

  Hayman, F. H.

  Moyle, A.

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Healey, Denis

  Mulley, F. W.

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Fint)

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

  Neal, Harold (Boisover)

  Wigg, George

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

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

  Willey, Frederick

  Holman, P.

  O'Brien, Sir Thomas

  Williams, David (Neath)

  Holmes, Horace

  Oliver, G. H.

  Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

  Houghton, Douglas

  Oram, A. E.

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

  Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

  Oswald, T.

  Howell, Denis (All Saints)

  Owen, W. J.

  William W. R. (Openshaw)

  Hoy, J. H.

  Paget, R. T.

  Williams, W. T. (Ba ons Court)

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

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

  Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Winterbottom, Richard

  Hunter, A. E.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Parker, a.

  Woof, R. E.

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Parkin, B. T.

  Yates, V. (Ladywood)

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Paton, John

  Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Peart, T. F.

  Zilliacus, K.

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

  Pentland, N.

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

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

  Prentice, R. E.

  Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Pearson

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Price. J. T. (Westhoughton)

  NOES

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Ashton, H.

  Baxter, Sir Beverley

  Aitken, W. T.

  Astor, Hon. J. J.

  Beamish, Col. Tufton

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

  Atkins, H. E.

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald

  Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Balniel, Lord

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Anstruther-Cray, Major Sir William

  Barber, Anthony

  Bidgood, J. C.

  Arbuthnot, John

  Barlow, Sir John

  Biggs-Davison, J. A.

  Armstrong, C. W.

  Barter, John

  Bingham, R. M.

  1562

  1563

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Bishop, F. P.

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Maddan, Martin

  Black, C. W.

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

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

  Body, R. F.

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

  Bossom, Sir Alfred

  Harvie-Watt, Sir George

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

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

  Hay, John

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Braine, B. R.

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

  Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.

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

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Marshall, Douglas

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

  Mathew, R.

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Hesketh, R. F.

  Mawby, R. L.

  Browne, J. Nixon (Cralgton)

  Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

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

  Bryan, P.

  Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

  Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

  Moore, Sir Thomas

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

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Campbell, Sir David

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Carr, Robert

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

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Channon, Sir Henry

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Nairn, D. L. S.

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hope, Lord John

  Neave, Airey

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Cole, Norman

  Hornby, R. P.

  Nicholls, Harmar

  Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

  Cooke, Robert

  Horobin, Sir Ian

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

  Cooper, A. E.

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

  Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

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

  Corfield, Capt. F. V.

  Howard, John (Test)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Craddook, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral, J.

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

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

  Osborne, C.

  Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Page, R. G.

  Crowder, Petre (Rulslip— Northwood)

  Hurd, A. R.

  Partridge, E.

  Currie, C. B. H.

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

  Peel, W. J.

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

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

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Deedes, W. F.

  Hyde, Montgomery

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Pitman, I. J.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Pitt, Miss E. M.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Pott, H. P.

  du Cann, E. D. L.

  Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

  Powell, J. Enoch

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

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Duncan, Sir James

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Duthie, W. S.

  Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

  Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Profumo, J. D.

  Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

  Ramsden, J. E.

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

  Kaberry, D.

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Keegan, D.

  Redmayne, M.

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Kerby, Capt. H. B.

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Erroll, F. J.

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Kershaw, J. A.

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Finlay, Graeme

  Kimball, M.

  Ridsdale, J. E.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Kirk, P. M.

  Rippon, A. G. F.

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  Lagden, G. W.

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Fort, R.

  Lambton, Viscount

  Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Foster, John

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  Langford-Holt, J. A.

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Freeth, Denzil

  Leavey, J. A.

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Leburn, W. C.

  Russell, R. S.

  Gammans, Lady

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

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Gibson-Watt, D.

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

  Sharples, R. C.

  Glover, D.

  Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

  Shepherd, William

  Glyn, Col. Richard H.

  Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

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

  Godber, J. B.

  Linstead, Sir H. N.

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

  Llewellyn, D. T.

  Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

  Goodhart, Philip

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

  Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

  Gough, C. F. H.

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

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Gower, H. R.

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Speir, R. M.

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Longden, Gilbert

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

  Grant, W. (Woodside)

  Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

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

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

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Green, A.

  Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  McAdden, S, J.

  Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

  Storey, S.

  Gurden, Harold

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Studhotme, Sir Henry

  Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

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

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)84

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Teeling, W.

  1564

  1565

  Temple, John M.

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Webbe, Sir H.

  Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

  Whitelaw, W. S. I.

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Vickert, Mitt Joan

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Wood, Hon. R.

  Thornton- Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

  Woollam, John Victor

  Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Wall, Patrick

  FELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Turner, H. F. L.

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

  Mr. Oakshott and Mr. Wills.

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

  ATOMIC ENERGY (PEACEFUL USES)
  Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]
  10.10 p.m.
  Mr. Roy Mason: First, Mr. Speaker, I must say how grateful I am to you personally for giving me a second opportunity to initiate this Adjournment debate. I fully realise that, had I taken the first one, I should have been sitting on these benches until the early hours of the morning before being able to raise the particular matter in which I am interested.
  My reason for raising the issue of the need for more information on research and development of the peaceful uses of atomic energy arises from the many Questions I have put on this subject and the scanty information I have gleaned from the replies. The culminating point was the blanket of secrecy which, foolishly I think, descended on our success with Zeta. In spite of my Questions and the many Press reports of this magnificent achievement, the Government refused to speak.
  The fly in the ointment, I think, was the Joint United Kingdom-United States Declassification Committee. American influence predominated to stop any announcement. No one knows to what degree Admiral Strauss, Chairman of the American Atomic Energy Commission, was responsible. Hazarding a guess, I would say that he was, in the main, responsible.
  I have kept a number of cuttings of newspaper comments. A few weeks after the success of Zeta, but many weeks before the Government made the announcement that we had managed to build up that temperature successfully and pointed the way towards harnessing hydrogen power, the News Chronicle, on 10th December, had a headline:
  1566
  "H-energy gag on British Scientists. Harwell wants to tell all. But Americans won't agree."
  The Sunday Express said:
  "United States gag 'riles' British H-power scientists."
  Again, there was a comment in the Yorkshire Evening Post, which said that the Government
  "won't talk about the newest discovery of the nuclear age."
  So it went on. Following the comment on 10th December by the News Chronicle, the Observer, in its headline on the front page, said:
  "Harnessing H-Bomb; News soon"
  and said, in the course of its article:
  "The Atomic Energy Authority originally planned to make this announcement last October, but it was delayed by pressure from Admiral Lewis Strauss, Chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission."
  I believe that to be substantially correct.
  The Americans were, and still are, behind us in this work. We might well ask ourselves at this stage, because it is relevant: why this should be so? First, they tried to explore too many avenues, none with great success—atomic energy power stations, rockets, nuclear stations, nuclear fusion, and so on. Prior to the Sputnik shock, America suffered from McCarthyism. There was little interchange between the universities and research establishments. The anti-Red complex curtailed the free exchange of ideas and progress.
  Later, demands for economy cuts blunted progress in all their experiments, even those which were showing promise. Then, of course, the Sputnik launching was responsible for pressure being applied by the United States on the United Kingdom to stop the announcements of our success in paving the way towards taming and harnessing the hydrogen bomb for industrial use. Admiral Strauss, it would seem, anyway, was afraid of a Sputnik and Zeta panic in his department in Washington.

  1567
  We all realise that thermo-nuclear power will revolutionise our lives. Major industries will be hit, particularly oil and coal; also, a relatively new one, uranium mining, may be affected. However, because of the rigid establishment of big business in the United States these industries, oil, coal, etc., will tend to retard atomic progress in America. The United States sees quite clearly that only if there is a more concerted effort on its part can it hope to compete with us in thermo-nuclear research and with Russia in space missiles. So far, the Americans lag behind, and only when the United States Government have won their internal, domestic battle, can they start to compete successfully in these matters.
  Of course, we have an urgent need for this new form of power, and this is proving a strong driving force. I should like to praise the Harwell team for their magnificent achievement. It was, of course, of Commonwealth composition, but that is part of our strength. We have the scientists, although perhaps not enough. We certainly have the skill, and, given sufficient finance, we can maintain a lead in applying atomic energy to peaceful and industrial uses. Despite Admiral Strauss's pressure on the Declassification Committee, it was most obvious that American lay opinion was not being fooled either. American newspapers made it plain that the success belonged to the Commonwealth team at Harwell. Admiral Strauss, in this case has made a fool of himself. Indeed, the whole exercise over the past few months has been a foolish one.
  If Anglo-American co-operation in the peaceful application of atomic energy is to succeed, amateur exercises in "who dun it" must cease. Is it not true that the Harwell team desired its release long before it was given? Why disappoint these brilliant men? Was not this their finest hour? Why is it that the Government should have suppressed the announcement, allowing the Declassification Committee, at least, to stop the Government from allowing this announcement to be made much earlier? Zeta has paved the way. It has proved that a thermonuclear power station is a possibility, and other exciting advances will follow.
  There are bound to be milestones of progress. Shall we, on these occasions, receive the news immediately? Can we
  1568
  have assurances that the Declassification Committee will not cause any more delays of future announcements? It seems to be a committee with incredible power. Few people are aware of its composition, or when it meets. No one knows to what extent it has been classified and declassified, but is it not proving a very strong barrier between Harwell and the Government? Is this not a publicly-owned industry? Why cannot we have periodic Government statements?
  Zeta II is now being designed. I would like to receive assurances from the hon. Gentleman that there will be no skimping of financial aid for this project, and that it will continue to receive priority and that we shall, if we query it, receive statements of its progress in the House.
  Can the hon. Gentleman also say to what extent serious consideration has been given to the division of labour and the allocation of tasks in the nuclear field between the American and British scientists? I am convinced that because of our differing degrees of desire for thermonuclear power, and also because of the greater resistance to its practical use by the business interests of the nation, we shall forge ahead. There could well be a satisfactory arrangement, and this may be taking place, but I do not know to what degree. The Americans are specialising in the military development of atomic energy coupled with missile research and development. We, of course, are specialising in its industrial application.
  I now switch to the questions that I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman. I shall ask quite a number. Indeed, this is the reason for my initiating the Adjournment debate. We have been short of information. Will the hon. Gentleman say to what extent the Atomic Energy Authority has applied its mind to producing an air-cooling system for the atomic power stations, thereby giving us the added advantage of being able to build a station anywhere than on the coastline as at present? Further, how strong is the link between the Atomic Energy Authority and other industries, private and nationalised? How are they kept informed in advance of engineering techniques and the uses of new metals, particularly heat-resisting metals? To what extent is the Atomic Energy Authority farming out experiments to private industry?

  1569
  In view of the recent experience of the declassification Committee causing frustration among our leading scientists, how far are the Government satisfied that scientists and engineers working in the atomic energy field are not being stunted and embarrassed by unnecessary restrictions? What steps are being taken to step up the increase in skilled staff required for the furtherance of thermo-nuclear power. Is it not true to say that Zeta developments will demand four times the number already employed?
  I notice that the Government have managed to secure an agreement with Italy to the effect that used uranium rods from their atomic power station—which is largely being supplied by us—will always come back here for processing. It is not a watertight agreement, but I think that the Government have done extremely well to get such a measure of agreement on their first export. I should like to ask to what extent the Government anticipate getting that measure of agreement and the same understanding with Japan.
  Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether we are prospecting for unanium in this country and, if so, to what extent? Are there any prospects of our cutting down initial expenditure by mining our own uranium here? I noticed in The Times of 3rd February that the Canadian Minister of Trade, Mr. Churchill, had announced that arrangements had been completed for the sale to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority of approximately 105 million dollars—about £38 million—worth of uranium, in additon to a 115 million dollar order decided upon last year. It may be that there are no possible chances of our mining economically pitch blend and uranium in this country, but I should like to know to what extent we have made a survey and whether there is any possibility of our cutting down initial expenditure in that direction.
  There are many other questions that could be asked. I do not want to delay the hon. Gentleman's reply, but I should like to finish by asking a few more questions. If it so happens that he is unable to furnish me with all the replies tonight. I shall be obliged if he will forward them to me later. Why can we not have a statement by the Government on the progress which has been made to put safely into effect the Wigner release?
  1570
  Are the Government completely satisfied that another Windscale accident could not happen again? When that operation was taking place, there was doubt whether the instruments were working correctly. Are the Government satisfied that the Wigner release can be operated quite safely in all our future atomic energy power stations?
  Is it too premature to ask whether another revolutionary project, equally as fantastic as Zeta—that is, the direct conversion system of the power from a future thermonuclear power station, without the conventional orthodox steam-raising and turbines—is making progress? This project, I understand, is rather "in the air". I should like to know to what extent the Government can release any information and whether this system will be incorporated in the first thermonuclear power station.
  Are we satisfied also that our method of forever neutralising waste fission products from the atomic power stations and experimental reactors by dumping them in the Irish Sea, and also storing them in canisters, is the best possible method? This has been causing me concern. I have tried by devious means, particularly by questioning the Prime Minister, to find out to what extent this system is proving effective and safe and whether we can rely on it for all future occasions. Particularly having in mind that we shall have many atomic power stations built in the comparatively near future and that the dumping of waste fission products will be an increasing and growing problem, I should like to know that the Government are quite satisfied that the methods adopted are safe.
  What are the Government doing to stop the drift of some of our best scientific brains to the United States? Is it not a fact that the top 5 per cent. of our scientists and atomic engineers are going over to America on scholarships and that 40 per cent. of them are being "creamed off" by the Americans once they have got them there? The Government must apply their minds to this most vexing problem.
  I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell me what inducements we can offer to our scientists and atomic engineers to keep them in this country, even if they do accept a scholarship, so that they might be induced to come back

  1571
  again. We really are short of information. I have raised this subject tonight, requesting more information concerning the research into and the development of the peaceful application of atomic energy, in the hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give me and the House as much information as possible.
  10.25 p.m.
  Mr. Paul Williams: I am aware of the need for speed in the debate, and also for the need for security in these matters, but I should like to support many of the remarks which have been made by the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), more especially because of the method of disclosure of the way in which we are handling our nuclear propulsion methods for merchant vessels in this country.
  I do not want to go over ground which was covered in the debate on the Navy Estimates, but it seemed extremely haphazard that it was during that debate, and after an intervention by the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, that we discovered that our researches are one year ahead of those of the Americans.
  There is terrific propaganda in this matter if it is true. I intervene in the debate very quickly only to ask the Government that when they have matters of this importance to declare in the future they should give rather more consideration to the propaganda value of the discoveries made, and that more importance should be attached to the public relations and propaganda side of this business.
  10.26 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Sir Ian Horobin): I can only speak very rapidly on a great number of points, which would justify a very long debate. In reply to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams), I do not think I can usefully do more than say at the moment that I will take note of the hopes he has expressed. As to the numerous points put to me by the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), I will take them in reverse order, because I can only give a sentence or so to about half—a—dozen of them.
  On the question of the drift to the United States of our top scientists, we
  1572
  cannot, of course, put an iron curtain round this country, but I think that so far the proof of the pudding or of the plasma, as the case may be, is in the eating or the heating, and we seem to have a pretty good team left. I do not think that this is a very urgent problem at present, from such inquiries as I have been able to make on that very point at Harwell from time to time.
  The storage and disposal of atomic waste is one of the great troubles, but so far it—is not a major difficulty. The present system of allowing the early decay to proceed and concentrate has not faced the Authority with any insuperable difficulties, but it is something that we shall have to go on to consider as quantities increase. As to the possible direct conversion to electricity from Zeta, the hon. Member for Barnsley is looking a very long way ahead. In theory, the plasma could be used directly for conversion, but that is a long way ahead and I do not think that at the moment it is a practical consideration.
  As to the Wigner release, we know a great deal more than we knew at the time of the Windscale occurrence, and whilst one cannot give a categorical assurance in this extraordinarily difficult field, we can at least take some reassurance from the fact that all the tendency is to higher temperatures in the reactor and, as long as we have the graphite-moderated reactors, the higher the temperature the greater the annealing that is done as the process goes on. I am afraid that I have to speak in the most awful shorthand, but I hope that I make myself clear.
  The prospects of finding uranium in the United Kingdom are extremely slight. Broadly speaking, the same thing would apply to Japan as applies to the processing of the elements from Italy, because, in any case, neither of those two countries have any facilities for doing it. Therefore, they must go somewhere to have it done, and I think that we can take it that in both cases they will come here.
  On the question of whether our scientists are stunted by restrictions, as the hon. Member for Barnsley put it, and whether the staff is sufficient, one of course is never completely satisfied. We can say that there is every evidence in this country that some of the stultifying restrictions of so-called security which

  1573
  have caused a good deal of difficulty—and I put it no higher—in some other countries do not appear to have arisen in this country. I think that we have had a more sensible and moderate approach.
  On the question of links with industry and farming out of experimental work, I can think of three large firms which took part in the construction of Zeta. Considerable arrangements are made for allowing firms and undertakings of various kinds to make themselves acquainted with the processes. For instance, the whole basis in the case of the consortia which are building the electricity generating stations is that by various arrangements they are given the opportunity of informing themselves through the Atomic Energy Authority. I think it is fair to say that the relation in this country between A.E.A. and private enterprise certainly shows that we have no reason to believe that we have not found a happier and more practical arrangement for a partnership between the Authority—in this country the A.E.A. corresponds to the American Commission —and industry, than others.
  With regard to air cooled condensers, I am advised that considerable progress is being made in connection with conventional stations. There are great economic difficulties, but it is thought that there may be sufficient set-off in the saving in fuel transport costs by being able to put the stations nearer to the coal, whereas it might not be possible in the ordinary way because there is not sufficient water, but It is quite uncertain whether those will cancel out.
  In the case of atomic stations, the amount of water involved is enormously greater and, therefore, the chances of it being an economic proposition are extremely slight at the moment; but, at any rate, progress in the actual design and development of such cooling methods is well advanced, and if it can be proved to be satisfactory in a conventional station, then conceivably at some future date it might be worth consideration in connection with atomic stations.
  In the few minutes which remain to me, I should like, having run rapidly over a number of points, to go into the extremely important question of the arrangements made in connection with Zeta and the possibility of Government statements. We must separate two points -—first the declassification point, and then
  1574
  the question of what and what kind of Government statements in this field can or should be made. I cannot accept, even as quoted by the hon. Member, some of the newspaper accounts of what is alleged to have happened. On the declassification point, we must be clear that this is and must be primarily the responsibility of the A.E.A. who alone have the knowledge to say what is or may be of security importance and what is not.
  I know the hon. Gentleman follows these matters very closely, and I think he will agree that a lot of what is published is not light reading. When it comes to deciding what may have military or security considerations, only the A.E.A. can decide. In this case, only the A.E.A. and the United States were concerned, because no thermo-nuclear work is being done in Canada.?
  In this case, the declassification took place just before Christmas. The work had been done at Harwell in the summer. At no time, I am advised, did the A.E.A. —as theoretically, no doubt, they might have had to do—call for any diplomatic or Government assistance in their routine discussions which took place with the Americans as to what should be declassified and when. I really think that if there is one authority in the country which is entitled to say that it has earned the right to decide these technical matters and for other people to have some confidence in their judgment, that is the A.E.A.
  During those months discussions took place. Whether the A.E.A. felt they might have occurred earlier, or that declassification might have taken place earlier or not, or whether more might have been declassified, that is entirely the responsibility of the A.E.A., and at no time was there any question of the Government either being called in to assist them or holding them back or interfering in any way.
  When declassification took place just before Christmas, it was only a matter of weeks before Harwell made the very elaborate and successful arrangements for taking people down there. There was a Press conference and photographs of Zeta, and so on. The story was given, and it achieved, I think, a major amount of well-justified publicity. I do not think that anything was lost in that way. The whole thing was handled very well.

  1575
  But, in any case, the responsibility for all that rests on the A.E.A., and I think, as I say, that the Authority is entitled to ask for the confidence of this House and of the country in its decision as to what should be declassified and when.
  We then come to the question of the Government's statement which took place in the middle of November before declassification had taken place. The actual work, in substance, convinced "Harwell that it had succeeded". Perhaps "convinced" is too strong a word to use. Let us say that the actual work 90 per cent. convinced Harwell that it had succeeded in producing some of the neutrons which were undoubtedly being emitted by Zeta by thermonuclear processes.
  In response to a Question in the middle of November the Government made a statement in general terms to that effect. It was quite impossible—I submit it would be very undesirable—for the Government, in this House, to endeavour to go further into what is an extremely technical matter.
  Might I just dray/the attention of the hon. Member and of the House to just the sort of thing which appears annually in the Report of the Atomic Energy Authority? I have just marked a passage. almost at random, to show the kind of thing I have in mind. It states:
  "It is well known that research in nuclear physics requires machines capable of accelerating charged particles over a very wide range of energies, from a few hundred keV to thousands of MeV."
  1576
  The hon. Gentleman no doubt appreciates the significance of these figures, but I very much doubt whether the majority of hon. Members would have the slightest knowledge of what the Authority was talking about, and that sort of thing goes on for pages in the Report—those who follow this sort of thing appreciate that. But for the Government to try to invade a field of this kind and make periodic statements on the subject instead of leaving it to the A.E.A. to do so in its Report would, I submit, be very unsatisfactory.
  Just occasionally, and Zeta was one of them, the proper occasion arises when, after Parliament comes back, as it did in this case in October, a statement in general terms might be made. But I submit that it would be very undesirable for the House to attempt from time to time in a kind of race between, say, us and the Americans or between us and the Russians to embark on statements from this Box on very technical matters.
  Such statements are far better left to the Authority which, I suggest, has, and certainly ought to have, the confidence of everybody in the country not only that it is doing its work extremely well and will probably do what has to be done quicker and better than other people, but that it can be trusted to do it in the proper way and at the proper time.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Eleven o'clock.

TANGANYIKA
  African National Union (Branches)
  African National Union (Branches)
UGANDA
  Nile Waters (Conference)
  Nile Waters (Conference)
NORTHERN RHODESIA
  High Court (Appeals)
  High Court (Appeals)
COLONIAL TERRITORIES
  Judges
  Judges
NORTHERN RHODESIA
  Copperbelt Technical Foundation
  Copperbelt Technical Foundation
SIERRA LEONE
  Pepel Port (Regulations)
  Pepel Port (Regulations)
HONG KONG
  Schools (Grants)
  Schools (Grants)
SOUTH AFRICA
  Committee on Maps and Surveys (Meeting)
  Committee on Maps and Surveys (Meeting)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Approved Schools (Training)
  Approved Schools (Training)
  Port Medical Centre, Cardiff (Morphine)
  Port Medical Centre, Cardiff (Morphine)
  Girls (Remand Accommodation)
  Girls (Remand Accommodation)
  Remand Centres
  Remand Centres
  Police (Pensions)
  Police (Pensions)
  Election Deposit
  Election Deposit
  Court Facilities, Becontree
  Court Facilities, Becontree
  Metropolitan Police Fund
  Metropolitan Police Fund
  Probation Orders (Sexual Offences)
  Probation Orders (Sexual Offences)
  Rent Act
  Rent Act
  South Western Magistrates' Court
  South Western Magistrates' Court
COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS
  Australia (Livestock Imports)
  Australia (Livestock Imports)
  High Commission Territories (Legislative Councils)
  High Commission Territories (Legislative Councils)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Restrictive Practices Court (Order of Proceedings)
  Restrictive Practices Court (Order of Proceedings)
  RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT, 1956
  RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT, 1956
  SCHEDULE
  SCHEDULE
  Cinemas, London and Middlesex (Closures)
  Cinemas, London and Middlesex (Closures)
EDUCATION
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Scientific Careers
  Scientific Careers
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Arts Council
  Arts Council
  British Forces, Germany (Support Costs)
  British Forces, Germany (Support Costs)
  Gold Sovereigns
  Gold Sovereigns
AGRICULTURE
  Food Survey Unit (Reports)
  Food Survey Unit (Reports)
  Farm Incomes
  Farm Incomes
  Birds
  Birds
  Crop-Spraying
  Crop-Spraying
  Farm Improvement Scheme
  Farm Improvement Scheme
COAL
  Large Coals
  Large Coals
EMPLOYMENT
  International Labour Organisation (Africa)
  International Labour Organisation (Africa)
  Office Facilities, Borrowash
  Office Facilities, Borrowash
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
TRANSPORT
  Bicycles (Lamps)
  Bicycles (Lamps)
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  CARDIFF (RHOOSE) AIRPORT
  3.5 p.m.
  LORD OGMORE: 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 plans they are making to lengthen the runways and to erect a permanent passenger terminal building at Cardiff (Rhoose) Airport.]
  THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, the subsidiary runway at Rhoose Airport, near Cardiff, is being lengthened by 414 ft. to 3,700 ft.; improvements are being carried out to the terminal building and new aerodrome lighting and navigational aids are being installed. These works should enable Rhoose Airport to meet the traffic requirements at the airport for some years to come.
  LORD OGMORE: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for what appears to be a very satisfactory Answer, may I ask him whether the runway will now meet the needs of Viscount aircraft? And is he aware that on Saturday last no fewer than 600 'plane movements took place at this airport?
  LORD MANCROFT: Yes, my Lords, I am aware of that; and it is with the possible increase in traffic in view that these calculations of improvements have been made. I am afraid that I cannot, without notice, answer the noble Lord's question about the Viscount because I cannot remember what length of runway the Viscount requires; but, so far as I know, no Viscount is at the present moment using the airport as a regular part of its service, and I do not believe it is envisaged that it should in the future. But, if the noble Lord would allow me, I should like to look into that question.
  LORD OGMORE: I am much obliged. This is very important, because quite soon not only B.E.A. but a number of other aircraft companies will be using Viscount aircraft or aircraft needing a similar runway.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, it might be convenient to your Lordships if I say now that my noble friend Lord Chesham will be making a statement at approximately 3.45 p.m. on the Annual Review of Farm Prices.

  THE MERCANTILE MARINE
  3.8 p.m.
  LORD WINSTER LORD WINSTER rose to call attention to matters concerning the Mercantile Marine; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. At the outset of my remarks I should like to say how very deeply I regretted to read of the death of Lord Rotherwick. His was a name to conjure with in the shipping world, while his advice and personality will, I know, be very deeply missed.
  The text of my remarks to-day is taken from some words spoken by the Prime Minister at the Chamber of Shipping Dinner on October 7 last year, when he said:
  "No industry is more important than the shipping industry to the maintenance of the economic strength of this country and its influence in the world."
  I think those words link on to some words once used by Emerson, who said:
  "The most advanced nations are always those who navigate most."
  I think the Prime Minister and Emerson are agreed that Britain will flourish only for so long as her shipping enables her to do so. Those two sayings form the background to the remarks which I shall make this afternoon.
  Our shipping industry was built up in exceptionally favourable times. We had the first run of the steam engine, and in those days we had vast amounts of coal to carry out and grain to bring back. To-day, the industry is passing through very difficult times; but it still

  323
  boasts of vast experience, of our traditional know-how, of prime seamen and unsurpassed engineers. All those factors combine to offer safe and punctual sea transport, and to offer it at economic rates. The Prime Minister said that our Merchant Navy is enormously impressive, and he spoke of it as consisting of nearly 19 million tons. That figure requires analysis, because it includes fishing vessels, tugs, harbours, estuarial and river craft: the trading fleet is about 16½ million tons.
  Many countries at present are expanding their merchant fleets because they enjoy advantages which are denied to our shipowners. For instance, there is the question of subsidies. The United States undertook to pay about 40 per cent. of the £1,000 million programme laid down in 1955. The American Government also insures about 90 per cent. of privately financed mortgage, and grants operating subsidies to enable the American lines to compete with their foreign rivals. Those operating subsidies may amount to as much as £60 million a year. A 10,000-ton freighter, for instance, may receive a subsidy of £500 daily towards her operating expenses. I know that the French Line has just laid down the magnificent new 56.000-ton liner "France". There again, the French Government will grant a very heavy subsidy towards the building of that ship.
  So far as this country is concerned, some people talk to me as if the doubling of the investment allowance had put our shipowners into perfectly happy positions; as if they had nothing to complain about now. That investment allowance is, however, only a small help to owners of small fleets, and it still leaves the owners of ships running under flags of convenience with the great advantage that they enjoy at present. The trouble is that the depreciation allowed for taxation purposes is not proportionate to current replacement rates; and that fact, coupled with inflation, makes it difficult, if not impossible, for shipowners to replace ships out of earnings. Shipowners do not build ships for the fun of building them, or because they look nice when they are built: they build, or do not build, according to whether they see their way to securing the necessary funds. They do not build in anticipation of such subsidies as I have quoted, but only
  324
  if they estimate that the ships will earn profits. Replacement costs are very heavy indeed. A Cunard passenger ship, built for £1 million in 1939, will to-day cost £5 million. A dry cargo liner, which in 1939 cost, say, £247,000, to-day will probably cost £1,200,000. Because of these heavy costs, replacements have to be delayed and obsolete ships kept in service. The fact is that new construction to-day is an act of faith.
  Doubling the investment allowance still leaves about two-fifths of the cost of replacement to be found out of profits which have already paid tax. I speak of replacements but, of course, to replace is not enough: we need to expand to meet competition, and to expand into new fields. Freights are a sad story to-day. The industry has, of course, had some good years, but the lean years have now come with a vengeance! On January 1 this year, 80 ships, aggregating nearly 400,000 tons, were laid up, and laid up for other than repair. The sad thing about it was that they included ships which had been laid up immediately after completing their trials. Freight rates have fallen catastrophically. From about 105s. a ton for coal to the U.S.A. they have dropped to 52s. a ton. For tankers, the drops have been even more severe. But while freight rates fall, running costs do not. It is all very well to lay up a ship, but to tie up a 10,000-ton cargo vessel will probably cost something like £85 a day. One reason for the state of affairs that I have described is that there is to-day far too much tonnage in existence for too little cargo. It must be remembered that to-day we have 40 million more tons at sea than before the war. The new ships of large tonnage are much more efficient in their arrangements, so that fewer ships can lift more cargo. The demand for cargo space for bulk cargoes has been falling, and in a recent month as many orders for cargo were cancelled as in the whole of last year. That, I think gives your Lordships some picture of the fall of freights at this moment.
  I think it is agreed that Britain can thrive only on a high volume of international trade. We import about £76 per head of the population, and export about £65, leaving £11 to be made up by invisible exports. To these invisible exports the shipping industry is a great contributor. I see that the shipping services to-day

  325
  are valued at no less than £250 million; and that sum alone pays for all our imports of tea, coffee, chocolate and spices.
  In shipbuilding, costs continue to rise. In 1956 building costs were five times what they were in 1937. In 1957, Japan led the world in new construction with nearly 21 million gross tons—1 million gross tons more than Great Britain built in the same year. Japan has trebled her output in the course of three years. In the last quarter of 1957 she started 90 new ships, with a tonnage of over 700,000 gross tons, while Britain started only 74 new ships, with a gross tonnage of 436,000. That is a small illustration of how Japan has gone ahead. Japan's position seems almost unassailable, but at least we have retained our competitive status with other nations, and we are retaining the leadership in new contracts. The present order book is now about 1,000 million tons, but these huge figures must not obscure the need for greater efficiency. On the Clyde, there is a good spirit: they believe that we can regain our old position, in spite of the fact that 1957 was their poorest year for many years.
  But there are things in our favour. Much new machinery and equipment has been put into the yards; more steel will probably become available in the future; there is the increased investment allowance and there are signs of a more cooperative spirit in the industry. Indeed, my Lords, there should be a good spirit in the industry, because full employment in shipbuilding is assured for something like five years ahead. I feel that these factors ought to enable the industry to increase its capacity by about 1¾ million tons a year and, very important, to improve delivery dates and the giving of fixed prices. Demarcation strikes are of course a bugbear. I hope they will not make their appearance again in 1958, and that the new machinery of which I have spoken will be operated to something like its maximum efficiency.
  There are two questions I should like to ask in connection with shipbuilding. The Liverpool shipowners have set up a committee to inquire whether shipowners have adequate facilities for shipbuilding and purchase. My first question is, does bank finance offer the required flexibility to shipowners wishing to build? The other question is this. I was told last year that in three of the trades concerning
  326
  shipbuilding 4,000 more skilled men were required. That seems to me a very high figure, and it set me wondering whether something is at fault with the apprenticeship system as its exists to-day.
  The great feature of shipbuilding in recent years has been the building of tankers, and in 1957 the record of very nearly 5 million tons of new tankers was established. Tanker construction really dominates the shipbuilding scene to-day. Suez touched off the building of huge tankers, but it will require a 70,000 or 80,000-ton tanker going round the Cape to equal a 40,000-ton tanker going through Suez. I am not at all convinced that these mammoth tankers will prove economic, and we may find that something like a 30,000-ton tanker will be the best. The largest tanker afloat to-day is one of 85,515 tons deadweight, and the company owning that enormous tanker has ordered three of no less than 103,500 tons deadweight, and ordered them from a Japanese yard. Niarchos and Onassis, who are known as the golden Greeks, each have tankers of over 105,000 tons on order in America. It seems to me that these big tankers represent a lot of eggs in one basket, and because they are so big that does not mean that they are immune from break-clown or from mishap.
  May I touch for one moment on the question of the appearance of the ships which we are building at the present moment? In the Navy we had a saying, "If she looks right, she is right", and, upon my word, as regards naval ships I must say that that very often indeed proved to be correct. Foreigners judge a British ship by her appearance as compared with foreign competitors, perhaps lying in the same port. But the modern British freighter is often a very odd-looking ship. She has what I would call an irregular ensemble; she looks to me like a schoolgirl whose teeth are being bridged or got into shape. Often these ships have a heavy exterior design which, to my eye, wants tidying up. In motor ships the funnel is frequently clear of the bridge, which gives a ship a very disjointed look. And with regard to the funnels of some new lines, I can say nothing else than that they are completely freakish in appearance. I hope we shall get away from these short, squat funnels, and combine the funnel with the mast, which I am sure would give the

  327
  ship a much more attractive appearance. Some of the names given to our ships are also very freakish indeed. There was an American businessman, who I imagine was not extremely literate though a good businessman, who decided to go into the shipping industry, and he bought a ship called "Ajax". He prospered and he bought three more; and he called them "B-jax", "C-jax" and "D-jax". That is, I think, typical of some of the freakish names we see to-day.
  If I may, with great respect to some who are present to-day, I should like to say a word about shipowners. I think they are a sturdy, independent race of men. Twice in fifty-eight years they have had to replace losses largely caused by Admiralty neglect, and since the last war I imagine they have spent something like £700 million on building 7½ million tons to make good their shortage. I do not wish to be invidious, but in view of a recent announcement I think it is fair to say that the P. & O. Steam Ship Company has shown great courage and enterprise. Perhaps I may take this opportunity of congratulating the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, on his recent appointment as Chairman of the Port of London Authority. London is still the greatest port in the world, and I feel convinced that in that position he will render great service to our economy. At a difficult time for shipping the P. & O. Company's commitments for new tonnage have risen from £39 million to £89 million—£45 million for completions and £44 million for tonnage ordered but not yet laid down. Since the war that company has built 1.300,000 gross tons at a cost of £150 million. I notice, too, that the Company is not laying up ships at the present time but extending its interest. The Company entered the tanker business two years ago and since then has put on order eighteen tankers. I think all those things show great boldness and also great faith in Britain's future.
  With regard to replacements there is another point which I think is overlooked. It is said that a ship costing £200,000 in 1937 would cost £1 million to reproduce to-day. That means reproducing the ship of 1937. But, of course, there have been great developments in shipbuilding since 1937, and to replace the £200,000 ship to-day would probably cost not £1 million but more like
  328
  £1,600,000. I believe that is a point which is frequently overlooked.
  I want to come now to what I believe to be the most important matter on which I wish to touch to-day—the question of what are known as flags of convenience". This is a most menacing problem and one which is still unresolved. My noble friend Lord Henderson kindly called my attention this morning to the fact that the Nordic Foreign Ministers, whose meeting is reported in The Times to-day, have been discussing the question of flags of convenience; but I notice that although they discussed and deplored these registrations they have not put for-ward any proposals for a solution of the problem. The "co" has dropped out of the very awkward word "Panlibhonco" and it has become "Panlibhon"; but I can only say that the abbreviated name smells just as unpleasant as the name in its original form. It represents the most disturbing maritime phenomenon of the post-war years. I do not know whether there exists a Liberian who knows the stem of a ship from the stern—I understand that they mostly live in the bush; yet Liberia has become the fourth greatest maritime country in the world; and those mammoth tankers of which I have spoken are operating under the Liberian flag.
  I believe that the figures I am about to give are important. Since 1950 "Panlibhon" tonnage has grown from 4 million to 14½, million, and is still growing. Greece, which is a genuine maritime country, has only 301 ships operating under the Greek flag but 497 operating under flags of convenience. In fact, the Greeks operate 53 per cent. of the flags of convenience tonnage, the United States of America operating some 40 per cent. Of course these countries—Panama, Liberia and Honduras—impose very indulgent conditions for registration. No qualifications of any kind are demanded. The seat of management of the ships need not be in the country of registration. Then in the matters of surveying, load line, and crew conditions, our requirements are very strict; but such conditions do not exist in regard to registrations in these three countries of which I have spoken.
  Taxation in those countries is negligible—in all three it is 9d. per ton per year, and owners who register with them have the assurance that that will continue

  329
  for twenty years to come. For a 5,000-ton cargo liner the registration fee is £2,000. What that means is shown by the fact that it is equal to the cost of one transit through the Suez Canal. Moreover, there is no tax on earnings. Our shipping cannot survive against this tax-free-competition. If taxation and inflation continue on the present scale in Britain our fleets will be submerged. Sea transport will fall, lock, stock and barrel, into the hands of flag of convenience countries. Already 10 per cent. of the world's tonnage is under such flags, and such owners can afford to build when ours cannot.
  Sometimes people speak to me as if this tonnage under flags of convenience were comparable with the kind of secondhand motor car that one sees for sale outside garages on the Great West Road. It is not second-hand tonnage at all. The greater part of it is new and efficient tonnage. Some 35 per cent. of the tonnage under these flags is under five years old. Our comparative figure is 22 per cent., so we must not imagine that this is second-hand tonnage. Our shipowners simply cannot afford to build on a scale to meet such competition and cannot therefore share fully in the world expansion of fleets. Liberian tonnage increased by 1·6 million in one year. Ours took eight years to increase 1·5 per cent. I feel that that is a very significant figure. To-day, public utility companies are chartering these flag of convenience ships, and crude oil is being carried in them to the European refineries. The Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association see the final ruin of our merchant fleet if something cannot be or is not done. They say:
  The British mercantile marine cannot hope indefinitely to survive against competition from ships of flag of convenience fleets."
  This is an immensely difficult problem, but of one thing I am sure: it is most essential, in endeavouring to meet it, that all the countries affected should act together, It would be a very bad thing if, in desperation, individual countries began to take unilateral action in the matter. There are certain very unpleasant facts which must be faced. We have to remember that in London great numbers of ship-brokers, ship chandlers and insurance men live, for the greater part, on flag of convenience owners. They would suffer a very heavy reduction of living if they had
  330
  to live on British owners alone. Then there are those who do bunkering for these ships, repair yards, shipbuilders and so on. Flags of convenience have become "big business"; and, so far as I can see, so long as the "Panlibhon" countries connive at this state of affairs, flags of convenience are likely to stay.
  Most important of all, we have to face realistically the fact that Washington gives full support to and encourages these ships. Fifty per cent. of the ships flying these flags of convenience are U.S.A.-owned or controlled. The Americans are out to save operating costs and. my word! they do it. A Liberty ship or T.2. tanker costs twice as much to operate under the American flag as it would cost under a flag of convenience. During this shipping recession, to operate under flags of convenience is about the only way to make money.
  This really serious menace to our mercantile marine has grown up under successive British Governments of both Parties, but it would be interesting to know whether the present Government have any suggestions to make in the matter. An allied handicap to our shipping is flag discrimination, which is governmental action which restricts the freedom of traders to choose the ships in which their cargoes may be carried; and that, of course, impedes the free flow of international trade. I believe it is a two-edged weapon, because if Britain cannot sell her shipping services on a competitive basis she must buy less abroad; and flag discrimination must raise prices and increase the cost of imports and exports; and because of increased transportation costs we shall get export costs which are higher than those of imports. The evil is on the increase. It diverts trade from normal economic channels into channels decided by nationalism. It hinders international trade. Unfortunately, here again, America is giving a lead in this matter—a lead which I am sorry to see is being followed by some South American Republics.
  My Lords, the last matter I wish to touch upon I shall deal with as briefly as I can, for I am afraid I am detaining your Lordships for much too long. However, it is a vast subject. I should not like to sit down without saying something about nuclear developments in the mercantile marine. There is a great deal of

  331
  research in progress. Britain and America have safety organisations working with their atomic energy organisations; the Admiralty have a safety committee working on problems of nuclear behaviour with shipowners and shipbuilders, and they are studying also problems of nuclear behaviour in ports and coastal waters. So far as I know, exchange with America of nuclear ship information is confined to information about warships. I recognise that naval reactors could possibly be used in much the same form for merchant ships. But I am quite satisfied that duplication in this matter of nuclear research still exists between America and our country. We have no permanent working group in Washington. I saw the other day a speech by the Minister of Supply in which he spoke guardedly, but clearly what he said indicated his disappointment. He said that the Americans are tending to hug secrets to themselves—in other words, the Americans are not living up to the principles advocated by their President.
  The other point I particularly wish to make about nuclear developments is that I think we are wise to go slowly in this matter—not too slowly, not to lag. Our object should not be to (what I will call) "do a Sputnik", but to build a nuclear-powered merchant ship which could be run safely and profitably. It is true that America speaks of building a nuclear-powered cargo ship in 1960, a ship of 21,000 tons, but that is certainly not going to be economic. We have decided in principle (those blessed words which are so frequently used by Government spokesmen) to build a prototype reactor for a merchant ship by 1964, and I think that if we do that we shall be doing well. "Safety" and "Profitability" should be the watchwords—safety, certainly, because, unlike nuclear-powered houses, liners may carry 2,000 passengers, and ports are situated in very populous areas. A fire in a port like Southampton might put the whole port out of action; and there is the risk of collision or fire. If eventually all merchant ships become nuclear-powered, the rate of sinking will continue as at present. The fact that a ship is powered in one way and not in another will not make any difference to the average number of sinkings, which in 1956 numbered about 163 ships. What
  332
  do you do about fission products in a sunken ship? That is quite a problem to consider.
  In conclusion, may I say of the personnel, of the crews and seamen in our merchant fleet, that on the whole I think they are pretty good. The shipowners meet the demands put forward to them on behalf of the officers, of which I can speak to some extent, and of the seamen, of which I know from hearsay. I think they meet those requests not in a spirit of being driven into a corner and having to yield to something, but in a genuine spirit of wanting to have contented officers and men in their ships. Perhaps at the moment one of the main demands on the part of the officers and personnel refers to air conditioning in Persian Gulf tankers. That is a problem which will have to tackled one of these days, and perhaps the question of leave and reliefs for officers and men employed in the Persian Gulf tankers will have to be looked at again.
  We hear a lot about the drift from the sea. Well, as to a spirit of adventure, there are plenty of candidates for cadetships and apprenticeships, but one finds that early enthusiasm wanes. Running a ship is a very arduous business, not an affair of glamour by any means, and perhaps officers and men are busiest when in port. There is separation from the family and there is only a distant prospect of command; and so, as I say, the glamour tends to get worn off and the spirit of adventure dies, and one finds there is a fairly steady drift from the sea. The big lines are to-day, I believe, short of junior officers; and shortage of engineer officers has been a problem for a very long time.
  What of the future? I do not trust the scientists a yard, or what they may do, but as far as we can see (we cannot always take long views at the moment) Britain will be surrounded for a long time yet by exactly the same amount of salt water as she has been surrounded by in the past, so we shall continue to need ships and crews. But there will be technological developments leading to changes in basic design, which has remained virtually unchanged for about a century. I do not know about automation as applied to ships and shipbuilding. It is only ten years since an aircraft took off, crossed the Atlantic and landed under

  333
  remote control, but, for the present, manpower has a certain advantage over the machine: it is more flexible, it is more reliable, and it has the great advantage that man can be produced by virtually unskilled labour!
  As for the spirit which animates the mercantile marine, I should like just to quote this extract from Lloyd's List, from the master of the "Sea Isle":
  "Drifting slowly South East. Weather good. Pumps out. All pipes blocked. No water for food or drink. Drinking beer until tug arrives."
  So long as that spirit animates our men we shall not go far wrong. It reminds rue of a notice seen in a shipping office which had the heading, "They were all wrong", and underneath was a long list of quotations of lamentations by eminent men about the future of this country. At the bottom it said, "We came through all right and we shall do so again." It is in that spirit, this firm belief that we shall overcome the obstacles of which I have spoken and shall once again come through our difficulties, that I have spoken this afternoon. I beg to move for Papers.
  3.49 p.m.
  LORD FRASER OF NORTH CAPE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down after his admirable speech, I should like to ask him what he meant when he said that a lot of merchant ships were sunk, due to the Admiralty. We have in the Royal Navy the greatest admiration for the Mercantile Marine, and we did our best to protect them. I know that the noble Lord was at the Admiralty for a short time during the war. It may be that that was the period to which he was referring.
  LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I did not regard my duties so highly. What I was referring to was what I think is now history: that at the outbreak of both wars of this century the escort ships and arrangements for convoy were not what they should have been, with the result that a great number of merchant ships were lost and a great number of lives of officers and men also were lost. It was to that fact that I referred and, as I say, it is a fact which is now history and not a matter of opinion.
  LORD FRASER OF NORTH CAPE: My Lords, may I say that I entirely disagree with the noble Lord? That was a
  334
  Government responsibility before the war and an Admiralty responsibility during the war.

  THE AGRICULTURAL PRICE REVIEW
  3.50 p.m.
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to make a statement on behalf of my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn, who is unfortunately ill. It is on the statutory Annual Review of the economic condition and prospects of the agricultural industry which has just been concluded. The Government have now determined the guarantees to agriculture for the coming year. They have done this in the light of the review and of the long-term assurances provided for in the Agriculture Act, 1957. The details are set out in a White Paper which is now available.
  The industry's position has been improving. Net output in 1957–58 is forecast at 63 per cent. above pre-war. This compares with a revised figure of 61 per cent. for last year. It is another record that reflects the strength of the industry. I am sure your Lordships will wish to give credit to all sections of the industry. At the same time, I must remind your Lordships of the warnings that have already been given by my right honourable friend and his predecessor about the upward trends in output of milk, pigs and eggs.
  The actual net income of the industry shows a satisfactory level and a rising trend. It is forecast at £360 million in 1957–58. This compares with a revised figure of £314 million for 1956–57. When adjusted for normal weather conditions, the figures are £361½ million for 1957–58 as compared with £333½ million for 1956–57. So on both the accepted bases—the actual basis and the normal weather basis—the net income is far higher than ever recorded before. Costs have gone up by about £11 million in a full year on review commodities. This is the lowest annual increase for some time. Efficiency continues to improve. Together with the increases in the price guarantees and production grants determined by the Government over the last three years, this has more than offset the effects of cost increases.
  Her Majesty's Government have taken full account of the needs of the national

  335
  economy and of our international trading position, especially in relation to the Commonwealth. The fight against inflation continues. The protection afforded to the farmer by the guarantees has involved an increasing Exchequer burden from £206 million in 1955–56 to an estimated £290 million in 1957–58. The long-term assurances will go on protecting him against sharp fluctuations. The value of them at a time of falling world food prices is obvious. Her Majesty's Government have considered the guidance that needs to be given to production of the various commodities; and given most careful thought to the position of the small farmer. Their conclusion, on reviewing all the factors, is that it would be fair and reasonable to reduce the total of the guarantees. The maximum assured by the Agriculture Act. 1957, at this review is £1,257 million. They are satisfied that the reduction can be made without detriment to the industry's underlying strength and should enable the industry to maintain the improvement already achieved. The guarantees are to be reduced by about £19 million. This will leave them some £2 million above the assured minimum.
  The determinations now made are for livestock products for the year April, 1958, to March, 1959, and for crops of the 1958 harvest. The general production policy continues to be to foster economic production. The most important aims of the determinations for individual commodities are to discourage the highest cost production of milk, pigs and eggs. The guaranteed price for milk is to be reduced by Id. a gallon, that for pigs by 2s. a score and that for hen eggs by 1¾d. a dozen. On milk the necessary reduction has been limited out of regard for the small farmer. On pigs the existing rates of the quality premium for bacon pigs are being increased by 6d. per score. The guarantee for wheat is also to be reduced by 6d. a cwt. The guaranteed price for fat cattle is to be increased by Is. a cwt., to be used for further encouragement of quality production.
  The nitrogen subsidy is to be increased by £1½ million. The guaranteed prices for fat sheep, wool, barley, oats, rye, potatoes and sugar beet remain unchanged, except for a small increase in
  336
  the support price for potatoes to compensate for an increase in the size of the riddle for guarantee purposes. The support price system for potatoes has been under consideration. This is to remain unchanged for the 1958 crop, but arrangements for altering the system for the 1959 crop will be announced by July 1, 1958.
  Possible revision of the Marginal Production Scheme will be discussed with the Farmers' Unions. Her Majesty's Government intend also to start discussions about proposals which they are preparing for additional provisions designed to give further assistance to the small full-time farmer. The determinations now made meet the requirements of national policies and will enable the industry to maintain a fair and reasonable level of remuneration.
  3.58 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for stepping into the breach caused by the regretted illness of his noble friend. It would have been much better if his noble friend had been able to give this bad news to the House personally, instead of through the noble Lord. This statement will be read with great despondency by every member of the farming community and particularly by the small farmers, whom it hits harder than any other section.
  Of course, it is impossible to digest all the figures which the noble Lord has read out, or to attempt to have a full discussion, and the noble Lord will not be surprised if I say that at the earliest opportunity we should like a discussion on this matter. In the meantime, may I ask him one or two questions, which I think he will be able to answer? The first is: has this Review been agreed to by the farmers' unions or is it imposed upon them? Secondly, is it a fact that the justification, if any, for this reduction in subsidy is based upon a comparison between an estimate of the net income for 1957–58, a year which has not yet come to an end, with the actual income for 1956–57? Is the noble Lord in a position to say what the net income will be for a year which has not yet finished and to justify a reduction in subsidy on those figures?
  I have also a small point—I do not know whether the noble Lord can answer

  337
  this—on the pig subsidy. The noble Lord refers to an increase of 6d. in the premium for high-grade pigs: is that to come out of the 2s. reduction? In other words, will the reduction be more than 2s., to compensate for the 6d. premium, or is the 6d. premium a sort of additional advantage to farmers who are able to secure this difficult achievement of getting a Grade A pig? I think that is all I want to ask at the moment, but the noble Lord can rest assured that he will be hearing more about this subject.
  THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, could my noble friend explain what is meant by saying that the reduction in the price of milk has been limited out of regard to the small farmer? Does that mean that there is some discrimination in favour of the small farmer, or does it mean that the price of milk would have been reduced still further if there had not been so many small farmers producing it?
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for his kind words. He will not be surprised to know that I, too, regret the absence of my noble friend. Perhaps he will also not be surprised to hear that I had hoped he would not regard this as quite such bad news to all and sundry, and particularly to small farmers. I should like to remind your Lordships that there is a battle against inflation going on which comes into every aspect of our national life; and the fact is that this has been an extremely careful deter-ruination, as might be expected, and not simply a wholesale cutting of what could have been reduced to the maximum. I had hoped that, even if the noble Lord were right, small farmers might have drawn some consolation from the fact that we have announced the consideration of schemes to help. However, perhaps that will be for another day when a little more is known.
  I regret to say that the farmers' unions did not feel it possible to agree with the determination, although they have been taking their full part in examination of the general economic conditions and prospects of the industry. It may be as well for me to add that all the figures of income, output and so on were agreed, as they usually are. The noble Lord then asked me if the figure of £360
  338
  million had been taken as a basis for this determination. I think it is correct to say that it was. Sufficient information is available, although no forecast can be completely accurate. To be quite honest with the noble Lord, I do not at the moment know the answer to the question about the pig subsidy, but I will find it out and let him know as quickly as possible.
  LORD SILKIN: It is certainly not clear from the statement.
  LORD CHESHAM: I will endeavour to see that sufficient clarifying information is provided as quickly as possible. My noble friend Lord Dundee asked about the limitation on the reduction of the price of milk. What I intended to convey was that because milk is such an important product to the small farmer, the reduction was limited and not taken to what it could have been under the long-term assurances, and possibly economically should have been, which is a figure of a fraction under 1¾d.

  THE MERCANTILE MARINE
  4.5 p.m.
  Debate resumed.
  VISCOUNT RUNCIMAN OF DOX-FORD: My Lords, in declaring, as is my duty, my interest in the subject of this debate, I should like to say that, though it is probably closer and more intimate than that of many of the Members of your Lordships' House, it is one which is and should be shared by every inhabitant of these islands, as the noble Lord, Lord Winster, had so convincingly shown us. I should like to say how fully I find myself in agreement with nearly everything that fell from the noble Lord's lips during the course of the interesting and comprehensive speech he made in introducing his Motion. I wish, however that I could feel as confident as he seems to be about the prospects of British shipbuilding; and I should be unwilling to enter too far with him into the tortuous and controversial labyrinth of maritime æsthetics.
  If I do not attempt to match what the noble Lord has said by anything like an equally comprehensive review, it is simply because he has covered the ground so admirably already and I should not wish to weary your Lordships more than

  339
  necessary. But I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I detain you for a little while upon a question with which the noble Lord did deal, that of flags of convenience, because I think it is the most important single question which confronts certainly the British mercantile marine and probably the mercantile marines of all the traditional countries of the world at this time. If I should repeat some of the things the noble Lord has said, I hope that I may be forgiven.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Winster, said, the tonnage operated under these flags now amounts to considerably over 14 million gross tons; and it represents, I believe, rather more than one-sixth of the total active tonnage of the world. About half of it, roughly speaking, is tanker tonnage, and the other half dry cargo tonnage. But the proportion of tankers to dry cargo ships under those flags has increased, and is increasing, which is in keeping with the other point made by the noble Lord: that these are modern fleets, on the whole, and that their increase is not due to the purchase of second-hand tonnage from traditional maritime fleets but is brought about by the construction of modern and, indeed, quite first-class tonnage on their own account. In fact, more than half their tankers are under five years old. All that shows, if indeed the figures did not show it on their own, how rapid has been the growth of these fleets, from—I was going to say nothing, but I will say negligible proportions, at the close of the war, to something like one-sixth of the, world's tonnage in twelve years. That is a rate of increase which, if I may use the word without being misunderstood, one can regard only as highly unnatural.
  The noble Lord had something to say about the true ownership of the ships operating under these flags—for nobody supposes that they really belong to the nationals of Panama, Liberia or Honduras. About 80 per cent. of them are known fairly certainly to be in the ownership of either the United States or United States citizens, or of persons (I should hesitate to call them quite shortly "Greeks") of perhaps somewhat uncertain nationality, but with Greek connections or antecedents. Of the tanker fleet rather more than 3 million tons belongs to such Greeks, and nearly half of that to
  340
  the two brothers-in-law whom the noble Lord has already named. It is a very remarkable achievement—and let us say so frankly—that two individual persons should control between them more than 1½ million tanker tonnage and should have acquired that control in such a very short time. Something over 3 million tons of the tanker tonnage is owned by United States nationals, and of that amount, getting on for two-thirds is directly owned or controlled by the American oil companies. That is a point to which I shall return in a moment or two. Of the dry cargo tonnage, about 2 million tons is under United States control and about 4 million tons under Greek control. A very high proportion, I think, of that has been, and probably still is, employed in the North Atlantic coal trade, though ships of these flags have certainly penetrated quite deeply into a number of other trades as well.
  I think it is proper to consider why we feel, as obviously we do, that the growth of these fleets is harmful. If it were merely a question of their being a nuisance, or even a menace, which they certainly are, to the British mercantile marine alone, it would still, I submit, he a proper subject for your Lordships' consideration. But I think, in fact, that the evil goes further than that; and I think that it is quite proper for us to consider them as an undesirable element, to put it no higher, in the merchant shipping of the world at large. And since merchant shipping is, above all else, an international undertaking, I believe that we are justified in looking at it to some extent from an international point of view.
  Why do the people who own these ships find it worth while to own and operate them under these flags? In the case of the United States, I think that tonnage cost (a matter already touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Winster) is probably the prime consideration. We all know that on a free and open market it would be virtually impossible for ships flying the United States flag, and operating under United States conditions, to compete in terms of prices with ships of the other great maritime Powers. We have accepted, and I think shall continue to accept, as a matter of reality and practical politics, whatever one may feel of it in terms of economic theory, that the

  341
  United States will wish to have, and will continue to wish to have, under their control substantial quantities of tonnage for purposes not only of their national defence but also as some safeguard to their national economy. Even if we wished that they did not feel like that, I do not think that it is any of our business; and we shall get nowhere by reproaching them for it.
  I do not myself, therefore, feel that the same dangers are run by the rest of us from the fact that 2 million tons of tanker tonnage is plying under the flags of Panama and Liberia, so long as the ultimate control remains with the United States. They have a very direct link with a. very responsible Power, and I think I am right in saying that the United States have retained powers under which, in the event of emergency or hostility, they can require at any rate the greater proportion of these ships to be re-registered under the American flag. I feel, therefore, that, taking a realistic point of view, we are bound to sonic extent to omit from our consideration of the problem that block of tonnage. The same may be partly also true of the dry cargo tonnage under United States ownership. Indeed, I think it would be quite difficult for us in this country to complain unduly of people using other flags than their own for the purpose of reducing their costs of operation. I have only to remind your Lordships of the considerable volume of Canadian-owned tonnage which is registered in this country at present for precisely that reason—a fact of which I do not think any of us is likely to complain. After all, to a certain point we must recognise that "fair's fair."
  It is the question of the tonnage owned by people who do not appear to have any very direct connection with any major Power which I think is rightly causing us the anxieties that we feel. After all, the countries in which these ships are registered are not in a position, even if they thought fit to try, to exercise any noticeable degree of control over how the ships are operated, how they are manned, the conditions under which they are used, or to bear any part in those general international arrangements by which shipping throughout the world is being regulated, in the interests alike Of those who use shipping services and. in the long, run certainly, of those who provide them. In this connection, perhaps
  342
  your Lordships will allow me to quote briefly from a Report on a survey by the Maritime Transport Committee of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation which was issued early in this year. Touching on this same point, the Report speaks of one of the results of the growth of these fleets as giving rise:
  "to a diminishing degree of importance on world shipping on the part of the maritime countries with their generally accepted standards of maritime jurisdiction and authority."
  That is an impartial statement, my Lords, and I have not the slightest hesitation in endorsing it thoroughly.
  Then again, attempting to look at this matter as objectively as one can, is there a case for saying that the standards under which these ships are operated are, in fact, very much lower than those of the traditional maritime countries? I think we have to say, quite fairly, that the answer is that they are not. Those in United States ownership have, after all, that degree of guarantee behind them. The underwriters, the classification societies and, to some extent, the customers who use the services of these ships are all bound to say that the ships are, at any rate, satisfactorily maintained and fitted for their job. Although (and I think it is regrettable) there are few agreements of a binding or wide character between the owners of these ships and the crews who serve in them, it is nevertheless the fact that the unions have succeeded—and they are, I think, to be warmly congratulated on the results of their efforts—in securing that, with very few exceptions, the conditions of pay and employment in these ships are maintained at a level which, if it does not in some cases even surpass, certainly in the main equals, those of the traditional maritime Powers.
  It is true that, certainly in the case of manning, they have what one might call a parasitical characteristic. The owners, or their countries, do not go to the trouble that the rest of us do to provide proper training for officers and engineers; they merely come along and "pinch" (if the word may be permitted) the skilled men who have been produced by the traditional maritime Powers in the ordinary course of their business and for their own purposes. They have a certain bulge there, and they are not slow to take advantage of it. That same O.E.E.C. survey which I quoted a

  343
  moment ago refers to the possibility of the cutting of freight rates in bad times through a reduction of standards. That course is open to them, it is true, but so far there is no evidence, I think, that they have adopted it. There can be no guarantee, however, because nobody can stop them from doing so if they feel so disposed. In times, if such should come, of widespread world unemployment of seamen, it might be a good deal easier for them in the future than it has been in the past to take advantage of a lack of organisation among their crews to do exactly that thing.
  Their operations have up to now been confined mainly to the tanker and tramp trades. In the liner trades, they have intruded to only a limited degree. But again, lest I should be giving a prejudiced view, I should like to read one final quotation from the O.E.E.C. survey, which, speaking of liners—and it is a point of general interest which is well worth bearing in mind—says this:
  "These trades, the liner trades, are organised in a way which ensures an even and stable service for traders irrespective of fluctuations in the availability of cargoes. Attempts by outside ship owners to enter these trades in an irresponsible way to cream off valuable cargoes in good seasons and to leave trade to its own devices when times are bad are against the general interests of merchants and traders."
  That really is the point which I should like to emphasise to your Lordships this afternoon. It is the merchants and the traders whose interests, in the long run, we believe are menaced by the growth of these fleets. The menace to the traditional providers of shipping services is in a sense incidental.
  I think that if one has to find one term to summarise the nature of that menace it is simply this: that these fleets are enabled to an almost unlimited degree to behave irresponsibly. It is the irresponsibility which, over a long period, is I think the most dangerous element. How, then, is such irresponsibility to be controlled? It will not be controlled, I think we may be fairly certain, by the countries whose flags these ships fly. I am extremely doubtful how far it can be directly controlled by any action taken by the Governments of other countries. It is, as the noble Lord has said, certain that no such action can be effective unless it is combined action and includes virtually the whole of the major shipping Powers of the world.
  344
  Certain suggestions in that direction led very early on to a clear indication that Japan, for one country, was unlikely to fall in. I think it is improbable that the United States would be willing to accept any measure of control which would be satisfactory to the rest of us. I fear, therefore, that the possibilities of getting international agreement for control are remote, and even if we could get it the practical problem of exercising it in the ways in which it should be exercised is immensely difficult and immensely complicated. I will not attempt to lead your Lordships through even the by-paths of that labyrinth this afternoon, or I fear that none of us would get any dinner tonight. Suffice it to say that, as a practical problem, of the many solutions which have been from time to time considered by shipowners in this and, indeed, in other countries, very few have offered any hopeful possibility of a cure which would not probably be, in a different way, almost as harmful as the disease.
  There is only one line of country on which, though I am not hopeful that it will be, I think progress might be made. I said a few moments ago—and I had the feeling that your Lordships agreed —that the growth of these fleets was in the long run against the interests of all the users of shipping services throughout the world. Now it is a simple truism that the shipowner exists to carry the cargoes that somebody else wants carried and, moreover, wants carried in his ship rather than in somebody else's.
  That leads me on to the word "discrimination." I hope your Lordships will not think that I am trying to make a play on words if I say that there are two very different meanings to that word. The first is the discrimination which is exercised by a customer or a purchaser of any goods or services—the choice which he exercises in the goods and services which he will buy and from whom he will buy them. That is a discrimination of which I think many of us in many connections would like to see more than we have sometimes seen in the past. Certainly nobody who is providing services can complain—he should, indeed, be glad—if he finds his customers highly discriminating in their choice. Discrimination by Governments, on the other hand, is discrimination by third parties,

  345
  not parties to the bargain, and it has the effect, as the noble Lord so clearly pointed out, of restricting the ability of the customer to discriminate in the former sense. It limits his choice. The whole reason for its existence is in fact to enable people to compete in the provision of shipping services who would not be able to do so without discrimination either in their favour or against somebody else. It must, therefore, in its essence, be harmful to the general progress of the transport of goods about the world by sea.
  We might well feel that, although that view is correct, as I believe it to be, this case is so exceptional that governmental discrimination should be exercised against ships flying the flags of convenience. For the reasons I have just given, I do not believe the attempt is likely to succeed., but I am quite certain that if the major users of the services provided by the ships were persuaded that their own best interests over a period of time would not be served by using them any more than they had to, quite a noticeable change of climate would shortly be felt.
  In this connection, I should like to quote some words which fell from the lips of Mr. Tennant, of the British Navigators' and Engineer Officers' Union towards the end of last year. He said in a public speech:
  "I think that if charterers got together internationally and agreed among themselves to stop chartering these ships, and public utility corporations did the same, the effect would soon be felt."
  I entirely agree with him, except perhaps that he may be going a little too far when he said "stop chartering." I would say: Do not use them if you can get tonnage from one of the traditional maritime countries. For, after all, in the past few years when, generally speaking, the supply of tonnage in the world has been considerably less than the demand for it, it would have been unreasonable and, indeed, stupid to fail to take advantage of any tonnage that was available. But at the present time, when something like the opposite is taking place, I think the charterers and the merchants and traders, if they chose to take advantage of their market superiority, could do something which would, in the course of time, work strongly in their interests.
  346
  Though it is a dangerous thing ever to suggest to anybody else how he should conduct his affairs, it seems to me that the oil companies, if they were so minded, would be in a particularly strong position at the present time to take that precise action. If they were to say that they would not renew any charter with a ship flying the flag of Panama, Liberia or Honduras so long as they were able to find a vessel flying almost any other flag in the world, then I think you would find a noticeable shift of tonnage from those particular flags--I will not say to which, but, at any rate, to flags whose control over them would be more effective and more salutary. That is the only attempt at a concrete suggestion which I can make to your Lordships, but I say, quite frankly, that I have not any great hope that the enlightened self-interest of the merchant traders and oil companies of the world has yet reached the point at which they are likely to adopt it. I think it is worth trying, and I make no apologies for suggesting it.
  There is only one other thing, of a more general character, that I would say before I sit down. We are debating this subject, for the first time, I think, in your Lordships' House of recent years, when the prospects for the shipping trade are bad. Of how bad they are the noble Lord, Lord Winster, gave us some examples. I think that they are even worse than he said in the North Atlantic coal trade, where I believe the more recent rates have been about 22s. per ton, instead of the 30s. he mentioned. What that means in practical terms is, roughly speaking, this. It has been calculated fairly accurately that a Liberty ship can just about pay her way on a cash basis in that trade at a freight rate of 40s., and the more modern bulk carriers could perhaps do the same, on a cash basis, and again without proper allowance for the increased capital cost of the ship, at about 30s. Below that rate any tonnage making, a charter is bound to do so at a considerable loss. And that is not a unique case. It is perhaps worth noting, in passing, that a great deal of tramp tonnage which used to come on the open market has been taken off that market in recent years, as is also the case with tankers, which are being either taken on long-term charters or employed directly by the owners of the goods which it is required to carry. I think, too, that

  347
  the habit of chartering in bulk has had something of the same effect in reducing the area of the open market.
  That being so, changes in demand show their effect upon a much smaller number of ships nowadays than they used to, and consequently the movements up and down become very much more marked. A large number of ships in the world are still carrying cargoes on contracts arranged before the present fall in freight rates. It is not, therefore, a universal fall, and the fact that it is not universal makes it more marked where it does show. I do not know what moral to draw from this. The moral I should like to draw, though it may not appeal to some of your Lordships, is that open market economy has a very great deal to be said for it, whatever views may be held to the contrary. But that, again, is, I think, a tendency unlikely to be reversed in modern trading conditions.
  This is my final point. I do not believe that you can overcome wide fluctuation in the demand for tonnage, and consequently in the remuneration which from time to time it can command, by any form of planning or any form of international agreement. The thing is not forecastable. A ship will last for twenty years, and in the ordinary experience of life during that time there will be a mixture of good years and bad years. The good years, I am sorry to say, are frequently occasioned by the failure of politicians to preserve the prospects for peace as constantly as we should like. The last two notable booms in shipping resulted, first, from the Korean war, and secondly, from that train of events which followed the Egytian seizure of the Suez Canal. There will always be geographical variations and variations in extent. There must, therefore, be some surplus of tonnage if the world is not much more frequently than it ought to be starved of the tonnage it requires for its daily needs. If that is true of the world, it is even more true of this Island. There has, therefore, been a recognised obligation on the part of shipowners of all countries to build up to what they think the probable maximum demand, rather than to attempt to restrict tonnage in case demand should fall off. That is part of the Faith with which the noble Lord credited us. I
  348
  think it comes also with the other Christian virtues of Hope, and I dare even suggest Charity.
  But you can only do that, and this country above all can only do that, if you are in a position when times are good to make sufficient provision not only for the general replacement of your fleet but also to carry through your day-to-day operations without undue strain when times are bad. The man who is operating his ship at a cash loss may still feel it better to do that than lay her up at a greater cash loss. I am sure it is in the interests of employment among seafarers, the maintenance of the vessel, and the traders of the world, that he should do so; but he cannot do that if he has no fat to live upon. One of the reasons—I think the main reason—why British shipping has, as the noble Lord was generous enough to say, come back again after the immense losses of two world wars is not only because of the schemes of war risk insurance but also because of the fact that for many years before each event shipowners have, frequently to the annoyance of their shareholders, thought it proper to plough back large sums of money rather than distribute them. The real risk I see to British shipping in future is that it may be unable to do that. If it becomes completely unable to do it, I do not think the people of this country will be able to count in the future, as they have in the past, upon an adequate, stable and efficient mercantile marine.
  4.37 p.m.
  LORD SALTER: My Lords, when the noble Viscount who has just sat down stated his association with the shipping industry. I naturally reflected, as doubtless many of your Lordships did, upon how great in shipping history is the name he bears, from a time earlier than that which is within the memory of any one of us As I reflected upon that fact and also looked at the names of some of those who are to follow me to-day, I thought perhaps that I, on the contrary, ought to begin with a declaration of no interest in shipping in the technical Parliamentary sense in which that term is used. I have to confess—with shame and regret—that I have no responsibility for, or financial association with, any shipping company. I think it worth saying at this moment because one or two things

  349
  that I shall say later on—sorne modest proposals in regard to taxation, for example—perhaps come better after one has made that declaration.
  In the ordinary and popular sense of the term "interest", however, I have indeed a very deep interest, deepened by an association through official duties which started more than fifty years ago and which has at times been a very intimate one. I happened to be at a central point in the merchant shipping control during each of the two great wars of this century, and I saw from that angle of vision—and it has left an indelible memory upon my mind—how, in each of those wars, not only success but survival depended upon the adequacy of the British mercantile marine and upon the courage and skill of those who manned it.
  Having said that, I feel that I ought at once to add that the arguments by which I am about to support the theme which I shall put before your Lordships to-day are not derived from that war experience. Had I been speaking in any other than a nuclear age I should have put, first and foremost, the argument of the necessity for having an adequate mercantile marine in case of war and as part of our preparation for war. I say frankly that I do not propose to use that argument to-day, because I find it difficult to picture a global, nuclear all-out war in which the chance of our having to face, and being able to sustain, a long-term blockade is sufficient to be the basis of present policy. The theme that I shall put before your Lordships to-day, therefore, is related solely to the position of merchant shipping under ordinary peace conditions.
  Both the noble Lord who introduced this Motion and the noble Viscount who has just spoken, have set out the character and some of the consequences of the flag of convenience system, and that enables me to dispense with something of what I should otherwise have said. I will make only this comment: I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford, that the prospects of an international Governmental agreement which is likely to solve the problem are remote; certainly it is a very distant prospect, even if it is not very doubtful. I can hardly think of any kind of principle or phrase as the basis of an international agreement
  350
  which would be more likely to give opportunities for procrastination in negotiating and evasion if any agreement was ever reached, than the "genuine link" principle of which we have heard a good deal.
  The noble Viscount, however, made another suggestion, though not with any great optimism about its chances of success, which was novel and interesting—namely, not Governmental discrimination but what might be called "consumer" discrimination. There is, of course, some possibility of that as a basis of a solution, but because that prospect is neither near nor certain, I should like to qualify a little something which was said by the noble Lord, Lord Winster: that we must be careful to proceed only on an international basis.
  So far as the noble Lord was thinking of Governmental flag discrimination I entirely agree with him. Unilateral flag discrimination by the British Government would be contrary to our tong-term conditions and, I believe, to our real interests. But I believe that in the long period, in which dangers and difficulties resulting from flags of convenience may increase, and in which no international agreement is possible, it may be necessary for Her Majesty's Government to consider what is within their own control in the sphere of finance and taxation policy with a view at least to alleviating the position and, doing so, in some respects, to a greater extent than they have in the past. Action of that kind is not subject to the difficulties of a country acting without international agreement which, doubtless, the noble Lord. Lord Winster, had in mind.
  Of the various consequences of this system, I propose to speak only now of the difficulties of other owners in replacing their tonnage. A good deal has indeed already been done to enable and encourage our shipowners to replace. In particular, the most important step of all was the increase in the investment allowance to 40 per cent., which was done by the Budget of last year. That is a very substantial concession, and a very great help in the solution of this problem. But it is subject to two limitations. In the first place, it does not do much for the small owner who cannot plan his replacement programme in such a way as to take full advantage of it and in the second place—and perhaps even more

  351
  serious—it does not enable any owner, large or small, to make plans on a confident basis for a longish-term future.
  In contrast to the advantages and immunities which the Liberian owner has, in the assurance that the charges on him will not be raised for a period of twenty years (in some cases twenty-five years), the British shipowner cannot rely on the investment allowance for any such period. The future of that allowance is as uncertain as its past history has been fluctuating and irregular. Though I know the difficulties of the British taxation system, I would suggest that it might be possible for Her Majesty's Government to give an assurance, in some suitable form, that investment allowances will not be played about with in the future as they have been in the past. Without such an assurance I believe that one of the main disadvantages under which the British shipowner is now suffering, as compared with the flag of convenience owner, cannot really be dealt with.
  I understand the point of view of the Treasury about doing, for a particular industry, anything which, if extended widely beyond that industry, would hopelessly upset the whole of their policy and programme; and I can understand the reasons why last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having that in mind last year, was unwilling to make a change in the depreciation allowance, which could then be claimed by those engaged in other industries altogether. It is an advantage that, apart from the actual enjoyment of the 40 per cent. investment allowance given last year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in making that concession, recognised, and said explicitly, that he was taking what he recognised to be a unique step for a unique industry which is the lifeline of our country. I believe that it is from that position we have to start if we are to see any solution which will be of real help through action in this matter by Her Majesty's Government, and I would briefly remind your Lordships of one or two reasons why I feel that it is fair to claim that the British shipping industry is unique, in the sense that something done for it cannot properly be claimed as equally a right for other industries.
  In the first place, I would refer to the very important place which shipping
  352
  work plays in the maintenance of our balance of payments position. Of course, there are two respects in which the services of British shipping help our position. First of all, there is the foreign exchange, the invisible earnings of foreign exchange, which we earn by providing shipping services to foreigners; and, secondly, there is the carrying of our own imports and exports in our own ships, whereby we avoid what would otherwise be the necessity of buying foreign exchange to transport those imports and exports in foreign ships. This is really a very big and very vital factor in the whole of our economy. It is an extremely intricate and complicated question to calculate exactly the contribution that is so made, but I am prepared, for the purpose of indicating the order of magnitude, to take the figures given in the Chamber of Shipping's last Annual Report, in which they estimated the net contribution of shipping earnings to the British balance of payments to be £221·4 million. My Lords, that figure approximates very closely to what is and has recently been the margin in our balance of payments, upon which so largely depends our ability to invest in the Commonwealth and abroad, to maintain the exchange value of our currency and to continue our function in holding the central reserve of the sterling area. It is therefore a very big factor indeed in the economy of this country.
  Thirdly, I should like just to refer to a point which will perhaps be developed more fully by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, who is to speak a little later. Lord Winster rather doubted whether it was worth going on with the encouragement of very large tankers—he doubted whether they were economical. I believe that the large tanker can be, and is, profitable in certain circumstances, which will perhaps be explained to us by Lord Geddes. If that is so, the possession of an adequate number of these large tankers, which can profitably and economically go round the Cape instead of through the Canal, is a very considerable extra safeguard, not only against the danger of the Canal being closed, as it has been for a time, but also against the closure of the Canal being aggravated by the cutting off of a main pipeline through which has come a large proportion of our oil from the Middle East.

  353
  If you take those three considerations together, my Lords, I think that a very strong case is made for being prepared to give special encouragement by concessions to shipowners to enable them to replace ships which they would not otherwise be able to do. Those concessions need not be admitted to be applicable to other industries, even other export industries, which cannot claim those very special reasons which I ventured to put before your Lordships, added to the very special danger which has now arisen for the British shipping industry (in a way that it does not arise in any other industry) through the development of this system of flags of convenience. It is not only the extent to which flags of convenience have developed that has to be considered, but also the rate at which they are developing. From a figure of only about three-quarters of a million tons gross before the war, I think, there has been a rise now to some 14½ million tons, of which about half are tankers; and the rate of progress is terrifying. Some kind of solution will have to be found, but while a real and permanent solution is being found, possibly in some international form, I think that some intermediate assistance of the kind I have suggested may also have to be given.
  As I intimated earlier, I have not, in putting these arguments before your Lordships, dwelt upon the importance that shipping has had in the past in the case of actual war; but it must be recognised that, in the ordinary and inevitable economic competition to which we are subject, the replacement of our shipping is of absolutely vital importance.
  During the last half-century the proportion of our tonnage has fallen from about half of the tonnage of the world to a little less than one-fifth. It is, I suggest to your Lordships, absolutely vital that that process of decline, which was to some extent inevitable for other reasons, should not be now accelerated and aggravated by the special difficulties which have been referred to to-day, without some adequate consideration and relief in the Government's financial and taxation policy.
  LORD FRASER OF NORTH CAPE: My Lords, I agree that the bigger the ship the more economical it is; but the difficulty which I would put to the noble Lord is this: where do you berth such ships in this country?
  LORD SALTER: My Lords, I quite agree that the development of these large tankers on a big scale would necessarily have to be followed by some development of port facilities or other arrangements for transhipment and so on. That is a technical difficulty on which perhaps Lord Geddes may be able to add a word in a few moments. But I had that matter fully in mind when I made my remarks
  4.57 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I should like to add a few observations on some of the matters which the noble Lord, Lord Winster, spoke about in his comprehensive and interesting speech. Before doing so, I ought, if the noble Lord has not already done it for me, to declare an interest as a director of several shipping companies.
  It is obvious to me that it is not necessary in this House to stress the importance of the mercantile marine to our country; it is fully recognised and has been referred to by several noble Lords in the course of this discussion. But, following what the noble Lord, Lord Salter, said, I think it would perhaps be helpful to try to evaluate that importance in order that it may be seen how tremendously we in fact depend upon our merchant shipping. The noble Lord spoke of some figures produced by the Chamber of Shipping, showing that the contribution of British shipping to our invisible earnings was of the order of £220 million in a year. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Winster, mentioned an even larger figure. In fact, the last time that a complete analysis was made by the Chamber of Shipping was as long ago as 1952. Another analysis would have been made last year, but it was felt that the distortion in the pattern of trade caused by the Suez crisis would have made an analysis; last year less useful than it might otherwise have been.
  But, my Lords, I suggest that that is not the whole of the story. The noble Lord, Lord Salter, mentioned that in addition to the direct earning of foreign exchange we also employed our own ships to bring necessary imports to this country. If we did not have those ships performing that service, we should be compelled to employ foreign ships, because our imports of food and raw materials are necessary for the economic life of our country. In that same year,

  355
  1952, when it was estimated that the foreign earnings of our ships were £220 millions, the actual gross freight which was paid to our own ships for foreign imports to this country was no less than £218 millions. If we had had to engage foreign ships for that purpose, although there would have been some offset in respect of their expenditure in this country—I do not think it unreasonable to estimate that that would not have been more than, say, 10 per cent. of their freight—we should have had to pay out to those foreign ships another £197 millions. So that, should some mortal disease attack our shipping industry and should it completely wither away, the Bill that would be presented to us in respect of foreign exchange would be £221 million loss of earnings and £197 million expenditure on imports—a total of over £400 million. It is a staggering figure. It is obvious that we could never be reduced to that position, but I think it is worth quoting the figure to show how really vital this matter is to our country.
  A visitor from outer space, knowing these facts, might say, "If this is so vital, how is it possible that the shipping industry is languishing?" Is it because of bad management? That is a rhetorical question which I suppose I should not address to myself, but I have had the privilege in the last year of acting as President of our Chamber of Shipping, and in that capacity I felt it to be my duty to look into this matter objectively, even critically, because I am sure that no industry can come to your Lordships' House or to the country and suggest what ought to be done unless they put themselves through a very searching self-examination. I looked at this matter as objectively as I possibly could and, as I say, with quite a critical attitude, and I think that I can assure your Lordships that there is nothing much wrong with the management of British shipping to-day. There is always the danger, when we have been in the position of being very much the "top dog," as the noble Lord. Lord Winster, reminded us, of running our business on traditional lines and getting into a rut; but I am certain that that is riot happening in the British shipping industry. In fact, some of the abortions in the way of ships which the noble Lord mentioned are partly the result of our not getting into a rut.
  356
  What, then, is it that is wrong? As the noble Lord, Lord Winster, said, there is nothing much wrong with our labour relations. I am happy to take this opportunity of paying a tribute to Mr. Tom Yates, now Chairman of the Trades Union Congress, the leader of the National Union of Seamen, who has shown great statesmanship for many years in handling, along with his fellow unions engaged in the same business, relations with the shipping industry. It is not the costs of operation, because, although these may be rather higher than some, they are certainly lower than others; they are about a happy mean.
  I think it is perfectly clear that there are only two things which are really responsible for this languishing position. One is unavoidable. It is the fact that shipping is an international business in which the British shipping industry is in competition with the whole world, and therefore the rate of reward must be less than the rates in more sheltered industries. And because the reward is less, it is more difficult to attract capital; therefore, it becomes more necessary to plough profits back, as has been done. All that makes it an industry which is living all the time, even in good years, remarkably near the border line. As I said, we cannot do much about that, unless we are to seek protection, and that is something which I. for one, hope will not happen, and other noble Lords have already expressed the same view.
  The other difficulty under which we languish is the burden of tax. It is not merely the level of taxation but the system as applied to industry. As already pointed out, this system does not allow replacement of assets to be provided for out of savings—that is, out of untaxed savings—in a period of rising prices. Of course, this affects all industry, but it has hit the shipping industry harder and faster than other industries, because in the shipping industry the cost of capital assets is very high and their life relatively short. This is a problem which I am certain is going to face all other industries in due course, when they come to replace fixed plant; but, as I say, it has hit the shipping industry harder and faster than any other.
  The grant of an investment allowance at the rate of 40 per cent. did not bridge

  357
  the gap. The noble Lord, Lord Winster, made the calculation, which is a simple piece of mental arithmetic, that with the original cost written off and a 40 per cent allowance on a new ship, if a new ship costs five times as much as the old—and that is about the figure—the shipowner has got out of untaxed earnings only three-fifths of the cost of the new ship. I could not possibly add to what the noble Lord, Lord Salter, has said, out of his great knowledge and experience of these matters, about the need for some adjustment in our taxation position as it relates to the shipping industry.
  The position would clearly be serious enough, even if there were not the matter of flags of convenience, to which reference has been made. The existence of this form of exploitation by people who are able to exploit the position makes the position even worse. I do not think I could possibly add to what the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford, said so convincingly in explaining how this system works and how it injures the interests of British and other traditional maritime nations. I would make only two observations about flags of convenience. I am not sure whether it is sufficiently understood by people who just read about it in the newspapers that the competition from flags of convenience is not in the least like the foreign competition which every manufacturer has to meet from time to time.
  If a gentleman with Greek antecedents decides to set up, shall we say, a woollen mill in Liberia, while escaping taxation in the same way as a shipowner cousin he would be faced immediately with a whole number of counteracting difficulties. He would be going to an undeveloped country and would not have a supply of skilled labour; he would either have to import it or make do with unskilled. He would be far away from his markets, both for buying raw materials and selling his products. In fact, the advantages he might gain in the taxation field would almost certainly be wiped out in other ways.
  The shipowner does not have any of these difficulties. In the first place, as has already been said, he does not have to go to Liberia: he can sit in his office, provided he keeps it outside any place where the tax collector holds sway. Then, as
  358
  has already been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Runciman of Doxford, he can engage all the skilled staff he likes, having done nothing whatever to pay for their training or, indeed, to contribute to the social services which sustain them. So far as the markets of the world are concerned, his ship sails the seas just as freely as anybody else's, and he has exactly the same access to markets as any owner in one of the traditional countries. That is the first observation I wish to make about these flags of convenience.
  The other observation is this—and here, with great trepidation, I am going to differ from the noble Lord, Lord Salter. I think it is quite conceivable that circumstances may arise in which shipping will again be vital to this country and our Allies in the event of war. It is to be observed that these owners who have succeeded in attaching to their ships the flags of Liberia and Panama will be outside the net of requisition I have no doubt that British and Allied owners, as they did in past years, will submit to requisition and will co-operate to the best of their ability in whatever has to be done. But these gentlemen, with their strange flags flying from the back end of their ships, will be in a position to bargain and accept the offer of the highest bidder. I would say that they will be in a position to bargain with either side to the conflict, or, indeed, to bargain with neutrals; and they might well prefer to do the latter, knowing what the dangers of being a belligerent may be. I think that that is a serious consideration, particularly in the matter of tankers, when we consider that in such conditions the supply of oil would be one of our most vital needs; and this large proportion of the tanker tonnage of the world might well escape our service altogether, or impose quite impossible terms if it was to be employed.
  So much has been said already that I do not think there is anything I wish to add, except this. It may sometimes have seemed to people that the shipping industry was crying "Wolf", because they will say that they have been hearing this for a long time, yet, here we are, the industry is still going and, in fact, the total of British tonnage is higher to-day than it was in 1939. It is true that the total tonnage has been increased by about 14 million tons; but when that figure is analysed we find that it is made up of over 2½ million tons of tankers, offset

  359
  by a reduction of just under 1 million tons of dry cargo shipping. The 2½ million tons of tankers is not in equal proportion to our figures of imports of oil; therefore, we are, in fact, carrying less oil in our own ships than we did before. And I might add that that 2½ million tons includes 2 million tons built by the great oil companies for their own use, operated on what one might call a "C"-licence basis, and the provision of capital for that programme is not affected in the same way by the considerations that influence the investment of capital in ordinary commercial shipping for hire. It seems to me that, in spite of this increase, our position is really worse. And if it is serious now, it will be critical in the near future.
  I hope we can be assured, perhaps by the noble Lord who is to reply, that Her Majesty's Government understand the gravity of the situation and the need to take further steps, and take them soon, to put British shipping in a more competitive position. I hope they will be ready to discuss ways and means and to undertake, as the noble Lord, Lord Salter, has suggested, a reappraisal of the tax system as it applies to shipping. I can assure your Lordships that the shipping industry, with which I have been closely associated for a long time, does not like coming cap in hand; and it does not wish to grow rich at the expense of the community. But this is really not a sectional matter at all; there is no sectional interest involved. I do not think it would be an exaggeration to say that the whole future of our country depends on establishing conditions in which our shipping industry can survive.
  5.16 p.m.
  LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Salter, I have no interest in the Parliamentary sense, in shipping, but, like him, I was closely associated with the use and control of the mercantile marine during both world wars, and I think there is no national interest which needs more earnest consideration. Our shipowners, who I agree are extremely efficient, are also very farsighted, and this problem of replacing their tonnage has oppressed their minds for a long time past. I cast my own mind back to the autumn of 1939 when I was engaged in negotiating with an earlier generation of shipowners than
  360
  those who now represent that interest in this House the rates of requisition hire; and I remember how strongly I was then pressed to recognise as the basis of compensation for loss through war risk, not the actual historical cost of the ship in question but the replacement cost. I had to argue, as I was bound to in the circumstances of that time, that that was not possible in that particular connection. But as to the importance of somehow finding the funds to meet the inflated replacement costs which were inevitable there was no dispute.
  I had at the other end of the war another question, to which little reference has been made in this debate to-day; that is, the aspect of discrimination according to flag, which I always felt to be most unfortunate. Even in the later years of the war, it was obvious at meetings of the Allied shipowners that this demand that any exporting country should have its exports carried "fifty-fifty" in its own ships was going to be pressed; and it was most disturbing to see the sympathy with which the Americans viewed that approach. Of course, later on, after I ceased to have anything to do with these matters, our own Government—I think very weakly and unfortunately—accepted the stipulation from the Americans that certain financially aided cargoes should be carried to the extent of 50 per cent. in American bottoms, the Americans thus taking back with one hand sonic part of what they were giving with the other. That is the kind of action in which I think our own Government could take the most vigorous line, even at the cost of refusing aid offered on such conditions. In general, however, your Lordships would, I am sure, agree, having listened to the realistic exposition of the situation by the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford, that we cannot alone attempt successfully or wisely discrimination of any sort, and we are unlikely to persuade the countries which are the homes of these, ships operating under flags of convenience to amend their ways.
  If, then, there is an urgent problem, as I believe there is, what is the possible line of approach? We can, of course, appeal, or our shipowners can appeal, to our oil companies or other large quasi-monopolistic charterers not to take ships under flags of convenience if they can get any other. That seems to me a good

  361
  sound approach, to which no possible exception can be taken. All I doubt about it is the measure of success such an approach is likely to meet.
  Are we not brought back to what our own Government can do, keeping quite clear of any question of discrimination according to flag? That surely brings us to the issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Salter, has drawn such marked attention—a change in our own financial approach. Last year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in making what no doubt was a difficult concession for him, and a valuable one to shipping, said that he was doing what he did as a recognition of a unique position. Once a position has been recognised as unique—and in the light of the facts just adduced by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, it cannot be denied that the position of the shipping industry is unique—it seems to me that you have to go to the necessary length to achieve the result you are seeking to get: the half-measure is not enough. I am driven to the conclusion that the only line of approach likely to meet with early success is some further adjustment of the taxation burdens of the shipping industry; and that can be done in a way that does not give rise to claims from other industries which are not in the same position.
  Having gone, as I say, through two wars, I feel that I ought to be impressed mainly by what is going to happen to the country if, unfortunately, we ever get into a third emergency and our shipping is not adequate. I would not, therefore, go to the whole length with my noble friend Lord Salter in saying that this matter should be settled with that consideration entirely set aside. I think it may well still have force. If one were to speculate about the needs of the country for shipping in the event of another war, it would lead to the most interesting discussions, such as were held between the noble Lord who introduced this Motion and the noble Lord who was such a distinguished member of the Board of Admiralty when the last war broke out. I agree, of course, that the Navy is in no way open to criticism for what it did to defend the Merchant Navy; it ought to have had more escort ships; and that matter, perhaps, was fairly laid to the charge of previous Governments rather than to the Board of Admiralty.
  362
  One thing I hope the Board of Admiralty will not do in another war, and that is to rely on the Merchant Navy for many naval units which, in the last resort, are not much good to them. They take far too large a proportion of the mercantile marine for purely naval purposes when trouble comes, and the Merchant Navy is not large enough to stand it. I might mention one fact about which there is no secret; at the beginning of the last war, over fifty of our fastest and best cargo liners were taken over to be converted into armed merchant cruisers or the like. They cannot stand that, as I think everyone must admit.
  LORD FRASER OF NORTH CAPE: They did so.
  LORD HURCOMB: With what results? With many results. In the last resort, we were forced to charter a great deal of neutral shipping at extravagant prices, and to rely largely upon America for building. We ended up the war with our resources of merchant shipping enormously depleted, and our recovery in the early years of the post-war period was seriously handicapped. However, those are issues which I do not think are substantially relevant to this particular issue this afternoon. The issue is on the importance of shipping in the make-up of our general economy and its immense importance in our balance of trade. It is upon the considerations that we cannot afford to see or risk any further decay in our ability to carry our own goods and hold a predominant or large share in the general carrying trade of the world that decisions should rest. They point to the need for some action by our own Government which is both effective and swift; and no attempt simply to deal with the matter by international agreements will do.
  5.27 p.m.
  LORD GEDDES: My Lords, may I also open my remarks with a declaration of interest? I had not intended to address your Lordships this afternoon on the economics of the very large tanker. These very large ships, although still unfamiliar in this part of the world, are already, trading in the Far East and in the South Atlantic. There are quite a number over 85,000 tons, and the 103,000-ton tanker is spoken of as something quite easy to attain. I suggest that the idea that there is a bogy about these big ships should

  363
  be forgotten. As regards the question raised about whether they can be received in this country, perhaps the first thing that ought to be said is that it must be remembered that a tanker does not have to come alongside. It is so easy, when one thinks of other ships, to think of ports where they must go. In the Persian Gulf, if you go down to Umm Said, in the Qatar Peninsula, you will see these huge tankers lying a mile or two offshore loaded with twenty, thirty, forty or fifty thousand tons of oil. I suggest that the question of the port facilities need not be considered overriding. In fact, already in the United Kingdom, in the ports of Finnart and Milford Haven, plans are in hand for their reception.
  There is one further point here that should be mentioned, and that is the question of building berths and dry docks. Throughout the history of the Merchant Navy, nobody ever built a berth or a dry dock to take ships much greater than those of his day. The shipowner always had to demand the facilities: it was not the builder or the repairer who provided the facilities, in the hope that somebody would build a big ship to make them economic. I think it can be assumed that there are already both berths and dry docks where these 85,000-ton and 103,000-ton tankers can be handled in this country. It would not be in the first days, when there were only a few of them, that it would be impossible to handle them. They would not be as big as the "Queens" and they could be berthed in dry dock. So I suggest that we need not hesitate to go ahead with the big tanker if she is right—and I believe she is—merely because we hear that we have not yet got the facilities needed.
  LORD FRASER OF NORTH CAPE: With either the Mersey, Southampton or Newcastle, it would not be possible to allow a 100,000-ton tanker to lie a mile offshore and put a pipeline ashore.
  LORD GEDDES: It is out of the question that these tankers should go into any of the ports that are suggested. After all, this is a tiny island. I suggest, when we are talking of oil which is pumped from Northern Iraq or from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean, that surely it can be pumped from the Mersey, or wherever it is.
  LORD FRASER OF NORTH CAPE: If those arrangements are made. They want making.
  LORD GEDDES: They are part of the facilities. Noble Lords who have spoken already have stressed the menace of the fleets of flags of convenience. It is right that they should do so, because this is the greatest problem at present facing the mercantile marine. On the last occasion when the noble Lord, Lord Winster, called the attention of your Lordships' House to matters in connection with the shipping industry, the full menace of those soulless fleets was not yet fully obvious. Before I proceed further, it might help to demonstrate the rapidity of their growth if I remind your Lordships that in the interval since that debate those fleets have grown by 50 per cent.; in October, 1955, the figure was 9¼ million tons and to-day it is 14¼ million tons.
  In October, 1955, world trade was, broadly speaking, providing employment for the merchant shipping of the world, and though the shipowners of the traditionally maritime Powers were beginning to show signs of alarm at the growth of these soulless fleets, it was then fair to ask why they were making such a fuss when their own ships continued to trade. In his excellent speech on that occasion the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford, said that it might seem slightly odd that at a time when the shipping industry was doing so well and the shipbuilding industry was extremely full of orders it should be thought necessary to bother our heads about practices which, though irritating, could not be said to have arrived at the state of a major menace, but he went on to remind your Lordships that big things have small beginnings, and warned that they might become very formidable. In the shipping industry much has happened in the two and a half years since that debate. Contrary to the forecasts both of the experts and of the crystal-gazers, the volume of world trade has ceased temporarily to expand; indeed it now seems to be in a period of contraction, and in a period of contraction or recession or depression, it is the trader with the lowest costs who lasts longest.

  365
  My Lords, I would ask you briefly to consider, with a minimum of figures, the costs of operating a merchant ship. These fall into three main headings: direct operational costs, capital charges and taxation. It is important to see in each of those three categories how we stand in relation to our Liberian competitors. Under the heading of operating costs there are included such items as wages, provisions, stores, repairs and so forth, many of which are directly proportional to the number of men on board. Ships registered under the flags of convenience are bound by few rules or agreements or understandings. It will suffice to illustrate the gravity of the competition to say that the 103,000-ton tankers, to which I referred a few moments ago, under the Liberian flag carry a crew of fifty-two men, which happens to be exactly the number carried on the British 18,000-ton tanker. It is to the financial implications of this comparison that I would particularly draw your Lordships' attention, but it is of equal importance to bear in mind the social implications as they affect our merchant seamen. There are no Party politics in this problem, and it must be borne in mind that if we lose this war against the flags of convenience the loss will far most heavily on the men in the Merchant Navy.
  The second heading is the cost of the capital charges, which is, of course, directly related to the price charged by the shipbuilder. During the shipbuilding boom of the last ten years the shipbuilders of the world have been able to call the tune and, on the whole, the shipowners have had to dance to it, though there was little difference in price between the different shipbuilding countries of the world. To-day, however, in this respect also a very different state of affairs is developing. The order books of the shipyards are not so fat as they were two years ago, and one finds that the foreign owners, many of whom in the past have built their ships in Great Britain, have discovered that tonnage is cheaper in other countries; and while it is broadly true that the British shipowner has thus far remained loyal to the British shipbuilder, it is difficult to see how long he can allow his competitor this further advantage. It may be useful to develop this particular point a little further.
  366
  I have been fortunate recently to obtain some first-hand knowledge of shipyards both on the Continent of Europe and in Japan, and have been impressed by two major points. The first, and by far the more important, is that there is only one trade union per shipyard, and there is a consequent freedom both from the cost of demarcation and from the menace of the demarcation dispute. The second point is, administration, which can organise the building of a 103,000-ton tanker in five months, from keel to delivery, and a 40,000-tanner in four months. That is competition which we are not yet ready to face. Moreover, certainly in Japan, the final bill is ready the day your ship sails. The result, so far as the shipping industry is concerned, is beyond dispute. The soulless shipowner who is untrammelled by loyalties to his shipbuilders and is free to shop where the ships are cheapest can to-day obtain a fixed price of roughly 80 per cent. of the best basic price obtainable in a British yard. Your Lordships will realise that basic price remains subject to unpredictable increases based on the cost of labour and materials. This difference in costs means that a large tanker built in Britain at current prices must throughout her entire life earn £200 per day more than her foreign-built competitor in order to meet the increased capital cost.
  I have tried to demonstrate that the ship of the flag of convenience already has an advantage over the British ship both in respect of operating costs and in respect of capital charges, though both of these are, at least to a small extent, within the control of the owner. I come now to the third category of costs, which has been already well discussed—that of taxation—and about that the owner can do nothing. It cannot be said that any department of Her Majesty's Government remains unaware of the menace not only to our Merchant Navy but to the nation of the flags of convenience. I have well in mind the increase in the investment allowance granted last year, and we know that in his Budget speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer recognised that unique position to which reference has already been made. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Salter, has already said, no one can really suggest that an insecure investment allowance, which can be withdrawn without notice, is the whole solution of the matter. In this connection I

  367
  would repeat that Liberia has undertaken not to increase registration fees or taxes for twenty years, Costa Rica for twenty-five years, and Honduras for thirty years, from the date of registration of the vessel. Furthermore, so long as taxation is related to allowances which in turn are based on the historic cost of the ship, just so long will the tax-gatherer suck the lifeblood progressively from the very bunting of the Red Ensign.
  Your Lordships are well aware that the taxation in the countries to which we have been referring is derisory, and many shipping companies, whether or not they foresaw the present decline in world trade, did recognise the menace of the flags of convenience; and when they saw that Her Majesty's Government would not seriously help them they went stealthily to British Colonies where the burden of taxation was less than in the Home Country. I use the words "went stealthily". Surely something has gone quite wrong with government when the shipowners of this country, great and small, must conspire with their lawyers and with specialists in the West Indies to set up companies by means of which they hope to remain alive in a trade which is of primary importance to the nation. The atmosphere of such negotiations is one of conspirators preparing for some dark deed rather than of adult business men struggling to survive in their legitimate trade.
  It is not even as though the powers were lacking to enable Her Majesty's Government to help shipowners in this respect. If the nursery games of colonial registration are to be the answer, then under Section 468 of the Finance Act, 1952, Her Majesty's Government could open the door and help shipowners in the realignment of their business rather than build a maze and invite them to try to find a way through. The shipping industry has had many fair words from Her Majesty's Government. In 1955, it was urged that the British shipowner should be allowed to meet international competition on equal terms, but as soon as an attempt is made to do so all that he finds is niggling bureaucracy. It is no good going on pretending that there can be any compromise in this matter. If we want to carry our own goods in our own ships and have the benefit of cross freights as an invisible export in peace
  368
  time, and have a dependable merchant fleet in time of war, and if we want to give our sons a chance to do likewise, British shipping must be made as free of tax as are the ships that are registered in Monrovia.
  5.43 p.m.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Winster, reads:
  "To call attention to matters concerning the Mercantile Marine …"
  He might well have added the words:
  "and one problem in particular";
  because it is, of course, the problem of the flags of convenience that has loomed large in every speech in your Lordships' House this afternoon. From the speeches to which we have listened—very well-informed speeches, too—we are now in no doubt whatever that the growth of what the noble Lord Lord Geddes, in a powerful speech called the "soulless fleets", operated under flags of convenience, is a serious problem, a problem that might well menace the whole prosperity of the British merchant marine.
  Let me assure the House at the outset that Her Majesty's Government are powerfully aware of the anxiety with which the rapid growth of tonnage operated under these flags is regarded by British shipowners and by British seamen. Your Lordships are now well aware of all the facts and I will not repeat them. The total tonnage operated under flags of convenience, under what started this evening as "Panlibhonco" (an unattractive word whichever way one looks at it), is greater than that of any active fleet in the world except that of the United Kingdom. There are also large numbers of ships on order for shipowners who probably register and operate them under these wretched flags of convenience. It is difficult to be precise about the extent of these orders, especially at the present time, with the current state of the freight and tanker charter markets, but they probably amount to twice the tonnage on order for operation under the British flag.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford, drew attention to the advantages which encouraged foreign shipowners to operate ships under these flags of convenience. First, it is easy for foreign-based companies to register their

  369
  ships under these flags; the legislation and machinery are in themselves probably inadequate for the enforcement of proper standards of safety and of crews' wages and conditions; in many cases, costs of operation are not so high; and, lastly, the taxation imposed in "Panlib." countries on shipping enterprises is unrealistically low.
  Most of the tonnage registered under the flags of Liberia and Panama belongs to owners of United States and Greek origin. For the Americans, the costs of operating under flags of convenience are very much lower than under their own flag. A great deal of the new construction for these flags since the war has been financed from American sources. Much of this capital has been obtained from sources which are not traditional shipping sources because, owing to conditions of operation under these flags, the shipowners have been able to promise a quick return, particularly if they already held time charters for new tankers from oil companies. This has been the way in which much of the tanker tonnage under flags of convenience owned by independent tanker owners has been built up during a period of shipping profits.
  This, then, is the problem, and your Lordships are asking, and have frequently asked this afternoon, what Her Majesty's Government are going to do about it. I believe that the House is also well aware by now that there is no easy or quick solution to this threat. Because of the nature of the British merchant fleet, we have to be very careful lest any action taken by Her Majesty's Government may harm British shipping more than "Panlibhonco" owners. The British merchant fleet exists and prospers on the free exchange of shipping services. It is therefore most important that we should not take any action against flags of convenience which is in any way discriminatory or restrictive, because in the long run that might, by a chain effect, lead to the placing of restrictions elsewhere on the operation of British ships. In this respect, as the noble Lord, Lord Winster, pointed out, we are in much the same position at Governments of other traditional maritime countries who are also most worried about flags of convenience problems. They also see the danger of taking any discriminatory action, and they have had just as much difficulty as we have had in proposing any real practical solution
  370
  ant to make the point as clearly as I can that it is essential that anything we may do should not hurt the long-term interests of British shipping. Nevertheless, although your Lordships do not seem to think it was quite enough. Her Majesty's Government have already done a great deal to help British shipping firms to withstand competition from the flags of convenience. It was this competition—which, of course, is totally different from the foreign competition which other sections of British industry have to withstand—that was a major factor in persuading Her Majesty's Government to increase the investment allowance for new ships from 20 per cent. to 40 per cent. of their initial cost. As your Lordships know, this further measure of taxation relief was given in the 1957 Budget. It should enable the British merchant fleet to compete on more equal terms with ships sailing under flags of convenience.
  As a result of the increased investment allowance, shipowners now receive tax-free allowances over the life of a ship, including wear and tear allowances, equivalent to 140 per cent. of its initial cost. With this increased investment allowance, a United Kingdom shipping firm which has a fairly continuous programme of replacement and new building is substantially relieved of most of the disadvantage at which it would otherwise operate in competition with companies sailing their ships under flags of convenience.
  I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Winster, and with my noble friend Lord Salter that a company which has only a small fleet and has no regular programme of replacements does not derive so great an advantage from the increased investment allowance. It is, however, relevant to the problem, I think, that shipping companies with small fleets which are not part of larger combines own only a small proportion of the tonnage on the United Kingdom register. Your Lordships will see therefore that, however optimistic or pessimistic a view may be taken of the results, the increased investment allowance has been designed to help British shipowners to compete with owners operating under flags of convenience. It does this by aiding the growth and expansion of the British merchant fleet through helping those

  371
  companies who have a programme of expansion and replacement. I hope that the effect is to reduce considerably the competitive advantages, of which we have heard so much this evening, previously enjoyed by flag of convenience owners.
  The increased investment allowance has been in force for less than a year. It will be some time, I think—and by that I mean a number of years—before its full effects become clear. I do feel that the extent of this assistance which has already been given to the British shipping industry is not quite as fully appreciated as it might be. I must, however, make one qualification. The benefits of the increased investment allowance, and indeed of any other tax-free allowances, are felt only when profits are being made. I realise that in the present state of the shipping market it may be argued that many companies are not at the present time in this position; and that may well be true. Nevertheless, I must point out that, from the point of view of taxation when profits are not being made, a British shipping company is in the same position as a shipping company operating under a flag of convenience, except possibly in so far as the latter may have managed to save more money during times of abundance. I shall come back, if I may, in a moment to the question of the present shipping slump and its possible effects on the flags of convenience problem.
  In the meantime, let me add that Her Majesty's Government will pay most careful attention to the expert advice they have received this afternoon. But I must add that I am in a slightly embarrassing position. As my noble friends Lord Simon and Lord Hurcomb are aware, this is the close season for financial crystal-gazing; and if there is one thing that is not going to come out of this debate it is a Budget leak. My lips, I am glad to say, are completely sealed; indeed, not only what I say but also what I do not say should not be considered of any significance in that connection on any problem at all.
  My Lords, we are also considering this problem from an international point of view. The United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, which is at
  372
  present in session at Geneva, is considering the problem of the relationship between a ship and the flag it flies. This question has been mentioned by nearly every speaker this afternoon, and it brings to the fore one of the more tiresome aspects of the question, since the ships operating under these flags generally have only the flimsiest connection with the State concerned. I should dearly like to see the face of the captain of a Liberian tanker if you suddenly retired him on half-pay into the middle of Liberia. I well remember travelling on the maiden voyage of the liner "Olympia", built, and built well, by Scotsmen on the Clyde for Greek owners, flying the Liberian flag with a German crew, plying between English, Irish and Canadian ports—and the head barman born in Skegness!
  Another international aspect is this. The Maritime Session of the International Labour Organisation, whose affairs we debated yesterday on a Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, and which will be making its decisions in April and May of this year, is to consider a resolution about the conditions in the ships sailing under flags of convenience. The purpose of this resolution is to ensure, so far as possible, that certain standards of safety and crew conditions are maintained in these ships. Her Majesty's Government are giving, and will give, careful consideration to the proposals which come before these two conferences. The other traditional maritime nations are as concerned as we are about this problem, but I must remind your Lordships that, like us, none of them has been able to come to a satisfactory solution.
  Questions of crew conditions on flag of convenience ships can, of course, as I have explained, be dealt with internationally through the International Labour Organisation. But my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation would certainly use his powers to prevent unsafe ships, descendants of the unlamented "coffin ships," whatever their flag, from sailing from ports in this country. In this he would have the support of British shipowners and the unions.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord to ask whether that would apply to ports within the Commonwealth or our Colonies?
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I cannot answer that question without notice, but I think that most of the ports in the Commonwealth and Colonies have much the same rules as we have. I do not know whether that applies to all of them, but I think most of them have. But there is a point which arises here: not all these ships, by any means, are "coffin ships" such as we were used to in the past. Many flags of convenience ships are fast and of modern tonnage, in which conditions are reasonably good. There was certainly room for improvement, but that is just another aspect of the problem.
  The Government are keeping in close touch with the General Council of British Shipping and the trade unions about this threat to the British merchant fleet. We are more than ready to give careful consideration to any proposals put forward to enable us to come to a satisfactory solution. I think your Lordships will now realise how difficult it is going to be to find a satisfactory answer. I gather that shipowners themselves have been having some difficulty in suggesting any really satisfactory solution. Nor, indeed, to be quite frank, have your Lordships been unanimous this afternoon in your solutions. It is an additional complication, as several noble Lords have pointed out, that most measures, to be effective, must secure a wide degree of international acceptance; and this is not always forthcoming. Nevertheless, as I have said, we are prepared to examine any serious proposal which may be made to us to solve this problem.
  The Government, as I hope I have made perfectly clear, are most concerned about the whole question. As the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, reminded us, some United Kingdom shipping companies have set up associated shipping companies in Bermuda and the Bahamas. No one was very happy about that. But I think that the increased investment allowance has caused some companies to think again about their intentions. In any case, the extent to which such associates may be set up is governed by the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1952. This, therefore, is another problem about which, for obvious reasons, I do not want to say any more at the moment. But I need hardly add that we are most anxious to see British tonnage increased and modernised, and holding its own with foreign competition.
  374
  Before I leave the flags of convenience problem there is one further comment that I wish to add. A considerable amount of tanker tonnage operating under flags of convenience belongs to American oil companies: it is rather more than one-quarter of the total tanker tonnage under these flags. In recent years some of these companies have, with the encouragement of Her Majesty's Government, built up various British subsidiary tanker companies, which now operate more than one million deadweight tons of tanker tonnage under the British flag. These British companies now have on order a large number of ships whose delivery will greatly increase this total. This is another factor which must be taken into account when considering what is to be done to combat the growth of tonnage under flags of convenience.
  Your Lordships will have seen photographs in The Times, the Manchester Guardian and the Daily Telegraph in the last few weeks of the depressing spectacle of ships laid up in many of the rivers and estuaries around the country—the noble Lord, Lord Winster, drew our attention to that matter. The world total of ships laid up at the present time is rather more than 4 million gross tons, and the British share of this is over half a million tons, mostly tramps, but including quite a few tankers. The reason for this state of affairs is the sharp drop during 1957 of the freight and tanker charter rates, due to the reduced demand for shipping services. This situation is serious and must certainly be a matter of concern to the shipping industry. However, shipping as a world industry is notoriously subject to booms and slumps. White it is difficult to say what the immediate future may hold, I do not honestly believe that the present conditions will continue indefinitely. I feel sure that in the long run world trade will have an increased need of increased British tonnage. Ii certainly seems that in the next few years there may be a surplus tonnage of tankers, but it also appears probable that early in the 1960s the demand for tankers may overtake the supply.
  I know that it has been argued that one cause of the present shipping slump is that too much tonnage, especially of tankers, has been ordered by owners who are able to operate under flags of convenience unhampered by taxation. I am

  375
  not certain that that argument is not a little misleading. The fact that a great deal of tanker tonnage has been built in the world was, as I think noble Lords have pointed out, most useful to us during the Suez crisis, and its existence is to some extent an insurance against future troubles. Taking a long-term view, tonnage on the present world scale is needed, and will continue to be needed. The question at issue is rather who should own this tonnage. British shipowners, and Her Majesty's Government, would naturally prefer to see more of it owned and operated under the British flag and less—much less—under the flags of States which have little or no real connection with the shipowner.
  The present shipping slump has another bearing on this flags of convenience problem. At the present time, there are considerable quantities of tonnage on order both for the British flag and for operation under the flags of Liberia and Panama. In recent months, owing to the depressed state of the freight and tanker charter markets, there have been a number of cancellations of orders, though I cannot get much definite information about their extent. Some of them have probably been cancellations of potential rather than firm orders. I am glad to say that the proportion of orders cancelled in United Kingdom shipyards has been relatively small. It does seem, however, that a considerable amount of the cancellations in recent months may have been cancellations of speculative orders which had been placed by owners, particularly independent tanker owners, who operate under flags of convenience.
  It would be rash to forecast what the future may hold in this respect, but it is certainly interesting to note that much of the tonnage on order for the British merchant fleet has been ordered by well-established companies, and that the greater part of the tanker tonnage is on order for the oil companies. I hope that much of this new British tonnage is less liable to cancellation than some of the new tonnage on order for operation under flags of convenience.
  My Lords, I think that I must now say, in answer to several questions put to me, something about the shipbuilding industry. I believe that not less than £50 million has been spent in the ten years
  376
  ending 1956 on the modernisation of shipyards in the United Kingdom. Further programmes of capital expenditure will be completed within the next few years and they will cost about £70 million more. The industry has obviously been active in development schemes to meet the needs of the day. These major modernisations are being carried out in a manner which minimises the effect on current production. The present capacity of our shipyards, given adequate supplies of labour and materials, is about 1¾ million gross tons of shipping a year. When the various schemes of modernisation have been completed, this should amount to about 2 million gross tons a year. The supply of steel, particularly plate, has been one of the restricting factors in present-day shipbuilding. The additional needs of the industry, in order that it may bring its capacity up to this 2 million tons, has been calculated and phased into the development plans of the iron and steel industry. The target date is 1961, but I suspect that there may be some difficulties in meeting it.
  Our ships continue to be built to the highest possible quality and we have nothing to fear in this respect. We sometimes hear criticism, however, about the speed of building. It is always dangerous to draw conclusions from a purely statistical exercise, without taking account of the nature of the order book. Our shipbuilding industry has always aimed at a well balanced order book.
  Our industry excels, of course, in the building of liners, which involve much highly skilled finishing work. Liners inevitably take longer to build per gross ton than, say, tankers. At present no fewer than ten passenger and passenger-cargo liners of 20,000 tons and upwards are under construction or on order in United Kingdom shipyards, including the biggest liner to be built here since the "Queen Elizabeth". As a very modest shareholder in the P. and O. Company, I was delighted to listen to no fewer than three of our Directors this afternoon. I should like to congratulate them warmly on the new liner "Canberra" which they are building for me, even though she does look like the first cousin to a Norwegian whale-factory ship. I listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Winster, said about that. All I can say is that marine architects seem

  377
  no more successful in solving the problem of what to do with funnels on the too of ships—particularly, I am sorry to say, on top of P. and O ships—than land architects in solving the problem of lift machinery on the top of new buildings Fortunately, however, this is one of the controversies for which I do not have to answer in your Lordships' House. I would only suggest earnestly that my noble friend Lord Simon should get back into his rut again.
  May I say a word about labour relations? The industry has suffered from a considerable number of disputes of various sizes, including the national strike of shipyard workers last spring. The noble Lords, Lord Geddes and Lord Winster, both drew our attention to the troubles about demarcation, and I think that the public has been bewildered by the triviality of some of these disputes It is obviously important from every point of view to secure closer working relations in this industry. The Government have always taken the view that this cannot effectively be dealt with by any general approach equally applicable to all industries. It should rather be tackled by the two sides of each industry concerned in the light of its own special needs.
  In April. 1956, my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour and National Service referred the whole question of restrictive labour practices, under the wider reference of more efficient use of manpower, to the National Joint Advisory Council. The Council agreed to draw the attention of employers and trade unions concerned to the urgent need for a new and positive examination of practices which impeded the full and efficient use of manpower resources. Each industry was asked to send a report to the Council on the action it was taking or proposed to take. The whole matter has since been under continuous study by the Council, and its Joint Consultative Committee's replies to the Council's inquiries have show much evidence of willingness over a considerable part of industry to deal with problems in a practical way. We hope to issue a statement later in the year showing what progress has been made. The Government are satisfied that this is the right way to tackle the problem.
  378
  We hope that the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industry will itself be able to resolve its difficulties. We do not feel it would be appropriate for the Government to intervene. We do not think that the legislative approach on restrictive practices would be helpful. Legislation, which in any case would be very difficult to draft and enforce, would not correct restrictive attitudes where they exist but might even tend to confirm them. Its probable effect on production might be more marked than the effects of the practices against which legislation might be aimed. We do not need to be told that British shipping is one of the most important industries in this country. It is vital to our survival in peace and war and it makes a most important contribution to our balance of payments. It is a free enterprise industry and it has to withstand intense competition from foreign shipowners and, in particular, from those who operate their ships under the flags of convenience.
  I have tried to give your Lordships the Government's views on this problem and on the future outlook for the British Merchant Navy as a whole. The threat from flags of convenience is a tortuous and tricky one and it is hard to see what action would be the best to take. Nevertheless, the Government are well aware of the significance of this. They have already done their best to help British shipowners and seafarers. The Government are very ready to consider any other responsible courses of action which may be suggested to us by the industry, by the unions and by your Lordships.
  6.10 p.m.
  LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I feel that in introducing this Motion I made a speech of intolerable length for which I apologise, and I thank your Lordships for the patience which was shown to me. I have only a few brief remarks to make now. Although the noble and gallant Admiral of the Fleet, Lord Fraser of North Cape, did not take part in the debate, he reproached me for not knowing something about the protection from our Fleet. I now understand from him that when there is a failure to protect our shipping it is the Government of the day, and not the Admiralty of the day, which is responsible. I would accept that correction on one condition: that is, that the noble and gallant Lord is willing

  379
  to give the Government of the day the benefit when things go well. My recollection of the First World War is that we did not get convoy until Mr. Lloyd George intervened and insisted upon it over the head of the First Sea Lord. To come to the Second World War, I shall be happy to tell my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Fraser of North Cape, is willing to give him and his Government the entire credit for the victory which we won in the Battle of the Atlantic.
  LORD FRASER OF NORTH CAPE: I said that the Government were responsible before a war, but the Admiralty are responsible during a war.
  LORD WINSTER: Then we come back to my original point: that during two world wars the Admiralty, as it is now admitted, failed to afford adequate assistance to our merchant shipping.
  As regards what has been said about the berthing of large tankers, which is an important point, I think it has been adequately replied to by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes. I believe there are on the Clyde alone some eight projects for the reconstruction and improvement of yards and then, of course, we are promised new developments at Milford Haven and Finnart. I think we may say that that problem is being foreseen and adequately taken care of.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford, referred to the crews of flags of convenience ships. I am sorry if I gave any impression that the crews of all these ships are sub-standard. I have every reason to know that they are not, because an official from the Association with which I am associated was seconded to the International Transport Federation to take care of that very point, and although he has been successful in taking measures to stop certain ships where the crews have been sub-standard, yet I know from his reports that those ships are the exception and there is little to complain of in the great run of flags of convenience ships. I much appreciated and admired the moderate nature of the noble Viscount's criticism of the United States in this matter of flags of convenience. I thought he put his case in a manner least calculated to ruffle the feelings of our American friends. As to the cure for
  380
  this evil, upon which the noble Viscount touched, I feel that the Government will have to help, although I am well aware that shipowners do not want any "feather-bedding" on the part of the Government. While, in that respect, other industries might resent any particular help given to the shipping industry, yet those other industries must remember that their own prosperity rests in no small part upon the shipping industry; and if the Government assists that industry it is assisting many other industries as well.
  Although the attention of the debate has been mainly concentrated upon flags of convenience, I feel that the evils of flag discrimination are also most serious; and flag discrimination runs completely contrary to the accepted general principles upon which business is carried on. As regards what the noble Viscount said about laying up, I think nothing is sadder in that respect than the dispersal of old, tried and trusted personnel which has to follow when ships are laid up. The noble Lord, Lord Salter, put the figure of invisible services at £220 million. I do not wish to argue the point, but my latest information is that it might be more accurately put at something in the nature of £250 million. I appreciate, of course, the point about the £218 million which we save by carrying our imports in our own bottoms.
  LORD SALTER: I accept that. I quoted the figure in the Annual Report of the Chamber of Shipping, which sufficed for my purpose.
  LORD WINSTER: I make the point only because it shows that the figure of invisible exports tends to grow. I have already referred to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, about the accommodation for these mammoth tankers, but as regards what he said about their size, I would say that a 15,000-ton tanker takes a crew of about 40-odd men, and when the size goes up to 40,000 or 45,000 tons it means a matter of only another seven men. There is no doubt that up to a reasonable figure of size, operating costs diminish with the larger ship. With regard to the noble Lord's remarks about shipbuilding, I would point out that, although it may sound very fine to say that we have a £1,000 million order book and five years' full employment
  381
  guaranteed, that is not altogether an advantage; there are disadvantages about having a very large, five-year order book to work off.
  I must sincerely thank the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for his most helpful reply. I never cease to be amazed by the versatility of the noble Lord. He is indeed the handyman of the Government, yesterday replying with the greatest ability upon labour questions and to-day handling the mercantile marine as if he had been at sea all his life as well as in a shipowner's office.
  LORD MANCROFT: That is not so far from the truth.
  LORD WINSTER: When I listen to the noble Lord, I am reminded of two lines:
  "… and still the wonder grew
  That one small head could carry all he knew."
  Not only is the noble Lord most versatile, but he has the delightful quality of being able to make even the commonplace sound agreeable and informative. He spoke about flags of convenience as if all the traditional maritime countries would like to see something done about them. But I cannot quite accept that, because it is clear from what has been said this afternoon that America has no wish to see this system ameliorated, but, on the contrary, is at great pains to encourage it.
  The great point that has to be remembered now is this. In the past I have heard many speeches and discussions on this subject in which people have spoken hopefully about some method being devised which would put an end to flags of convenience. I am sorry to say it, but I think we have now to recognise the fact that the flags of convenience are here to stay, and the Government, who are, I am sure, doing everything they can to ameliorate the ill effects of them, must recognise that fact. At any rate, it is quite clear, from what the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has said, that, as a result of debates which have taken place in this House and speeches made elsewhere, the Government are now fully alive to the mischief which is being done, even if perhaps we must admit that they have no particular ideas at the moment on what to do about it.
  I am glad that something was said about demarcation I thought nothing
  382
  was sadder last year than to read of 1,800 men fatalistically awaiting dismissal because of a demarcation dispute which had nothing whatever to do with the employers or the conditions of their employment. I welcome the information about the amount of money that has been spent in reconstructing and improving the yards, and I repeat what I said in my speech; that I hope that great expenditure will be rewarded by the working of the new machinery and equipment to something like full efficiency. I hope, too, that the great leaders of the shipping industry will in future be fully backed up by what happens in the ports, because slowness of turn-round is another great difficulty with which the shipping industry has to contend.
  It only remains for me to thank, as I do very sincerely, all those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I think, if they will allow me to say so, they have made it a thoroughly valuable debate, which will give great encouragement to all connected with our Merchant Marine and with the shipping industry. It will show them, as in many other ways, that noble Lords have a habit of bringing very expert advice and experience to bear upon any subject which comes before this House. With those few remarks I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL
  Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a, and to be printed.

  WALTHAM HOLY CROSS URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
  The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: the Orders made on the 6th and 26th February last discharged, and Bill referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
  House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past six o'clock.