Sitting of 15 May 1958

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (GREAT YARMOUTH)
  Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Great Yarmouth, presented by Mr. Watkinson; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills and to be printed. [Bill 117.]
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (KING'S LYNN CONSERVANCY)
  Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to the King's Lynn Conservancy, presented by Mr. Watkinson; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills and to be printed. [Bill 118.]
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (SHEERNESS)
  Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Sheerness, presented by Mr. Watkinson; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills and to be printed. [Bill 119.]
  BRADFORD CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER
  Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation under the Bradford Corporation Act, 1910, relating to Bradford Corporation trolley vehicles, presented by Mr. Watkinson; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills and to be printed. [Bill 120.]

  MAIDSTONE CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER
  Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport and
  578
  Civil Aviation under the Maidstone Corporation Act, 1923, relating to Maidstone Corporation trolley vehicles, presented by Mr. Watkinson; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills and to be printed. [Bill 121.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SINGAPORE

    Constitution
    Mr. Fenner Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the constitutional conference on the application of self-government to Singapore.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I began discussions with a delegation from Singapore on Monday. They are still in progress.
    Mr. Brockway: Is it not the case that at the last conference the only point of difference was the right of subversives to stand for elections, and is there hope in the present discussions of a solution of that problem on democratic lines?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I would prefer not to anticipate the conclusion of the talks.

  BAHAMAS

    Franchise (Women)
    Mrs. Whiteasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies by what method he has ascertained that women in the Bahamas do not wish to exercise the franchise.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I heard the views of the various organisations in the Bahamas, and I made certain limited observations of my own in both New Providence and the Out-Islands. I was not sufficiently satisfied that the demand was widespread enough to justify including votes for women among the constitutional changes which were necessary at once.
    Mrs. White: Did the right hon. Gentleman take steps to consult any women or any women's organisations, and, if so, with what results? Does he not think that, had he recommended the granting of the franchise to women, the political organisations he consulted would have rapidly undertaken their political education?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir. I saw a large number of women while I was there, and a delegation advocating this step came to see me. Clearly, votes for women will be introduced in due course in the Bahamas, but I was concerned in immediate first-aid measures.
    Mrs. Slater: What exactly does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "in due course"? Is it soon, a long time, or perhaps never?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It certainly does not mean never. I think this is a matter where public opinion in the Bahamas had better express itself.

  NIGERIA

    Fernando Po (Report)
    Mr. E. L. Mallalieuasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent the recommendations of the last Parliamentary delegation to Fernando Po have been implemented by the Federal Government of Nigeria.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The views of the Spanish authorities on the delegation's recommendations have recently been received and are being examined by the Federal Government.
    Mr. Mallalieu: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as recently as this year responsible people, like the Government Chief Whip in the Eastern Region of Nigeria—and I am sure he must be a responsible person, as all Government Chief Whips are—have been saying that there is still considerable maltreatment of Nigerians in Fernando Po?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will answer another question about this when we get the views of the Spanish authorities.

    Disturbances, Zaria
    Mrs. Whiteasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been drawn to the arrest of a number of members of the Northern Elements Progressive Union in Northern Nigeria and to the letter addressed by Mallam Aminu Kano to the Sardauna of Sokoto; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member is probably referring to disturbances at Zaria on 29th March, when a large crowd tried to break into a Native Court. One hundred and fifty-three people were brought before a magistrate. Eleven of these were imprisoned, 18 fined, 104 bound over and the rest acquitted. The
    580
    Premier of the Northern Region has agreed to a proposal made by Mallam Aminu Kano that all parties in the Region should confer on ways and means of maintaining peace in the Region. A meeting is being arranged for 29th May.
    Mrs. White: Whilst thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that helpful reply, may I ask whether he will bear in mind the other point made by Mallam Aminu Kano, that possibly political cases would be better tried in courts other than the Alkali courts?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No doubt that will be argued at the meeting.

    Railways
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a detailed statement on the extent and condition of the railway systems in Nigeria, the plans for their renovation and extension, the estimated cost of the implementation of those plans, and on the financial provision made for their execution; and when the work will commence and be completed.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the reply is very long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Hughes: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving me a detailed reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Does he agree that the further railway development of Nigeria is necessary for the proper development and exploitation of the country and that it would be unfair to put the financial burden of that upon the new Government?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is not only desirable but absolutely vital for the development of Nigeria. I have no fear about adequate funds being available.
    Following is the reply:
    The Nigerian railway system comprises some 1,770 route miles of 3 ft. 6 ins. gauge line connecting Nguru in the north and Lagos and Port Harcourt in the south. There are branch lines from Zaria to Kaura Namoda, Kafanchan to Jos, Minna to Baro and Ifaw to Idogo. The system is wholly single track.
    With the object of speeding up train movements and reducing operating costs the Nigerian Railway Corporation is at present undertaking a five-year programme of modernisation and improvement covering the period 1955–60, the estimated cost of which is £21½ million. The main items in the programme are the provision of new diesel electric locomotives, diesel railcar sets for suburban and branch line passenger service; new rolling stock for both passenger and freight, track

    581
    relaying and improvement, rebuilding of passenger and freight stations, extension and improvement of sidings, marshalling yards and other terminal facilities, new running sheds, modernisation of workshop plant and machinery, and improvement of the communications and signalling systems.
    At present the Railway Corporation has 214 mainline steam engines, 58 shunting engines, 10 diesel electric engines, 4,841 wagons, 496 coaches. There are on order 25 mainline diesel electric engines, four diesel shunting engines, two diesel railcars, 1,055 wagons and 69 coaches.
    The Corporation is also undertaking an extension of the existing railway system from Kuru, just south of Jos to Maiduguri in the Bornu Province in the north east of Nigeria, a distance of approximately 400 miles. The extension will be a single line track. It will open up a productive area which has hitherto lacked adequate communications and is expected to result in an increase of exportable products. Work is expected to commence forthwith and it is hoped that the extension will be completed by late 1963. The total cost of the project is estimated at £19½ million.
    The International Bank for reconstruction and development is providing a loan of £10 million towards the £41 million needed for the 1955–60 plan and for the Bornu extension. Of the balance £12 million will be provided by the Federal Government of Nigeria and £19 million from the railways' own resources.
    Tentative plans for an extension of the 1955–60 programme for a further five years are expected to cost about £19 million. Specific financial arrangements for this extended programme have not yet been made, but the Corporation expects that its own resources will nearly suffice with possibly some borrowing from the Federal Government.

    Roads and Communications
    Mr. John Hallasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what grants have been made to the Federal Government and the Regional Governments from the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund for the improvement of roads and communications in Nigeria.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: From 1946 to 1955 nearly £2·5 million was granted for the improvement of roads in Nigeria and the Southern Cameroons. Since 1955, grants for road developments have been made as follows:

    Federal Government—£3·3 million.

    Northern Region—£3·45 million.

    Western Region—£770,000.

    Eastern Region—£970,000.

    Southern Cameroons—£659,000.

    Mr. Hall: Is there any way of ensuring that each region is devoting the grants to the causes for which they are intended?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, there is machinery to secure that.

    Constitution (Report)
    Mr. N. Pannellasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made by the Commission of Inquiry established as a result of the Nigeria Constitutional Conference, 1957, to examine minority problems and the question of new States; and when he expects the Commission to Report.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Commission has completed its hearings in Nigeria and has returned to this country to write its report. I expect to receive it later this summer.

    Constituency Delimitation Commission (Report)
    Mr. N. Pannellasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made by the Delimitation Committee appointed as a result of the Nigerian Constitutional Conference, 1957; and when it is expected to report.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The report of the Constituency Delimitation Commission has been presented to the Governor-General and is being published in Nigeria tomorrow.
    Mr. Pannell: In view of the fact that the appointment of this Commission and the Commission of Inquiry mentioned in my previous Question was not reported to the House, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the findings will be communicated to the House as soon as possible?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir, certainly. I will also see that a copy of the report submitted in the latter case to the Governor-General of Nigeria is placed in the Library as soon as I receive it.

    Groundnuts
    Mr. N. Pannellasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the export crop of groundnuts in Nigeria for the season 1957–58, and the price per ton paid at railhead, compared with the figures for the previous season.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: About 600,000 tons—after meeting the needs of the local oil-crushing industry—compared with about 270,000 tons in 1956–57. The price at railhead for special grade groundnuts was £38 9s. per ton compared

    583
    with £36 19s. in 1956–57, but the standard grade price has remained at £33 9s. per ton for the two years.
    Mr. Pannell: Was the Groundnut Stabilisation Fund drawn upon in order to pay these prices?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes.

  CAMEROONS

    Development Corporation (Staff)
    Mr. E. L. Mallalieuasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of Africans and Europeans, respectively, employed on the staff of the Cameroons Development Corporation; and what opportunities are given to Africans for training to qualify them for staff jobs.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have asked the Federal Government for the information and will write to the hon. and learned Member when I have a reply.

    Budget Expenditure
    Mr. R. Edwardsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what decisions have been reached as a result of the consultations between the Southern Cameroons Government and the Nigerian Federal Government with regard to the deficit in the Budget of the Southern Cameroons Government for 1958–59.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Governor-General of Nigeria, as High Commissioner for the Southern Cameroons, has directed that recurrent expenditure in the Southern Cameroons be kept within the limits prescribed by recurrent revenue until financial arrangements for the territory are considered at the Resumed Constitutional Conference, which is expected to be held later this year, in the light of the report of the Fiscal Commission now in Nigeria.
    Mr. Edwards: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is widely reported that substantial economies are being made now in all fields of Government activity, and, if this is so, would he not agree that this will be harmful both to British prestige and to the native population now and in future?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir; it would be so—if it were true.

    Roads
    Mr. R. Edwardsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the amount of the grant for the year 1957–58 on road communications in the British Cameroons.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Southern Cameroons Government have been granted £659,000 from Colonial Development and Welfare funds for road development during 1955–60. The budget provision for road development in 1957–58 was £213,000, of which £174,000 was eligible for reimbursement under the terms of the grant.
    In addition, a sum of £3·3 million has been granted to the Federal Government in Nigeria towards a programme for the development of trunk roads costing £20 million in the period 1955–62. Part of this expenditure will be devoted to trunk roads serving the Southern Cameroons.
    Mr. Edwards: Although the amounts seem enormous, does the right hon. Gentleman believe that they are really adequate to the task they are intended to perform, as the whole economy of the Colony is dependent upon roads? Will he not agree that the expenditure on the new bridge over the Mungo River is being minimised because of the dreadful state of the roads leading to and from the new bridge?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that they are pretty sizeable sums.

  KENYA

    Communal Labour
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies with which Colonial Governments he has concluded consultations about the application of the International Labour Convention on the abolition of forced labour which was ratified by Her Majesty's Government in December, 1957; and on what grounds he bases his view that the byelaw of the Kiambu African District Council requiring all adult males to perform unpaid communal labour every Thursday morning for five hours is not a breach of this convention.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As regards the first part of the Question, I am not yet in a position to add to my reply to the hon.

    585
    Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) on 1st April. As regards the second part of the Question, which I assume refers to my reply to the supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) on 15th April, my view is based on paragraph 2 (e) of Article 2 of the 1930 Forced Labour Convention which is the only Convention on this subject at present applicable in Kenya.
    Mr. Robinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are other interpretations? It is not a fact that the exclusion is of communal work of an emergency nature and not regular communal work of this kind? Is he further aware that there is a danger of the extension of this practice lending itself to considerable exploitation of the Africans? Will he have another look at the matter?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have looked at the matter very carefully in Kenya and elsewhere. It is not a question of emergency work. If the hon. Gentleman wishes, I will give him the actual quotation in detail afterwards, but I would just say now that it refers to normal civic obligations.

  SIERRA LEONE AND NIGERIA

    Military Forces
    Mr. Wiggasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the transfer of the control of military forces to the Government of the Federation of Nigeria on 1st April, 1958, and the proposed transfer of control to Sierra Leone on 1st January, 1959.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Control and administration of the Nigerian military forces reverted from the War Office to the Governor General of the Federation of Nigeria on 1st April, 1958. This transfer was agreed at the Nigerian Constitutional Conference held in London in May and June of 1957. I would refer the hon. Member to paragraph 61 of the Report of the Conference (Cmnd. 207).
    Similar proposals have been made for the transfer of control of the Sierra Leone military forces, as foreshadowed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War at paragraph 25 of the Memorandum on the Army Estimates 1958–59
    586
    (Cmnd. 372). I am awaiting the views of the Governor of Sierra Leone.
    Mr. Wigg: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell the House what the subvention from British Government funds to the Government of Nigeria is in the present year and what it will be next year, and, perhaps, even the year after, and will he give similar figures for Sierra Leone? Will he also tell the House whether Nigeria and Sierra Leone continue to be an internal security commitment for British forces, having regard to the fact that we have left in this country only two battalions in any sort of condition to meet an emergency?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not think I could answer that question at this stage. The Finance Member for the Federation, Chief Festus, an old friend of many hon. Members, is in this country at this moment discussing matters of that kind.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Tilney.
    Mr. Wigg: With great respect, the right hon. Gentleman could surely tell us—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have called the next Question. Mr. Tilney.
    Mr. Wigg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If I am not allowed to press the right hon. Gentleman for a reply on the issue of whether the Government are able to discharge their military commitments in Sierra Leone and Nigeria, I beg to give notice that I shall seize an early opportunity of raising the matter on the Adjournment.

  OVERSEAS CIVIL SERVICE (SPECIAL LIST)
  Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many members of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service have applied to be considered for the Special List.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Three hundred and five applications have been received in the Colonial Office, and four officers have subsequently withdrawn their applications.
  Mr. Tilney: Will my right hon. Friend agree that these figures are somewhat disappointing, and will he consider so widening the Special List that a Commonwealth-wide Overseas Civil Service can be built up?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir, the figures are certainly disappointing, though they represent some 15 per cent. of the officers entitled to apply for consideration. As my hon. Friend knows, Sir John Martin's report upon his recent visit to Nigeria in connection with this matter is now under very close examination.
  Mr. Creech Jones: Is the Special List still limited to Nigeria, or is it contemplated that Malaya and other territories shall be included?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the right hon. Gentleman appreciates, I have no Parliamentary responsibility for Malaya now, but I understand that discussions have taken place—they are not yet quite concluded—with the Government of Malaya, and also with the Government of Singapore, for which I speak in this House.

  COLONIAL TERRITORIES

    Political Rights of Women
    Mrs. Emmetasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how far, in the drawing up of the constitutions of emergent territories, the Convention on the Political Rights of Women, passed by the United Nations in 1953, is taken into careful consideration.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The principles enshrined in this Convention are always kept in mind during consideration of constitutional revision in territories where these rights are not already secured, but regard must also be paid to local religious or other customs in such matters.
    Mrs. Emmet: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is some disappointment that in the new Constitution for the Bahamas the Convention on the Political Rights of Women has not been observed inasmuch as the women there have not been granted votes?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As I have already said in reply to an earlier supplementary question, I do not for a moment doubt that this will come about in the Bahamas in due course, but the purpose of my visit was to take immediate action to remedy proved grievances and I did not feel that this as yet fell into such a category.

  SEYCHELLES

    Plantation Workers (Wages)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what date last November the wages of plantation labourers in the Seychelles were raised by 13 shillings per week; how many workers were dismissed during the following month; how many have been re-employed at task rates; and what action is being taken by the Government to prevent the victimisation of workers and to ensure that proper rates of wages are paid.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Minimum wage rates in Seychelles were raised by amounts varying from 4s. 6d. to 13s. 6d. a month on 2nd November, 1957. As the registration of employment and discharge of labour is not compulsory, the information requested in the second part of the hon. Member's Question is not available. The Labour Department has so far noted 15 cases of dismissals through to be due to the wage increase. No information is available about the number who have been re engaged at task rates.
    The Seychelles Government do not consider that there is any victimisation of labour at present but will prosecute in any case where evidence of evasion of Minimum Wages Orders is obtained.
    Mr. Swingler: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the matter is kept under close review? Is he aware that there are allegations of victimisation of workers and deliberate evasion of the long-overdue wage increase that was granted? Will he, therefore, ask the Labour Department in the Seychelles to keep him continuously informed about the matter?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir, I will indeed.

  CYPRUS

    Wine Industry (Report)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what decisions have been reached by the Government of Cyprus on the recommendations contained in the detailed report submitted to the Government by a French wine expert in 1957.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Following Professor Branas' advice, several thousand improved varieties of vine cuttings have been imported and a working party from the industry has been set up under the Vine Industry Consultant to submit plans for a Vine Institute.

    Mr. Michael Pissas
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what representations have been received by the Government of Cyprus from the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions about the release of Cypriots detained without trial, the return to the island of the Secretary General of the Cyprus trade unions, and the resumption of negotiations with Archbishop Makarios; and what response has been made to these representations.
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reply has been sent by the Governor of Cyprus to the appeal sent to him by the General Secretary of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions to give favourable consideration to the request by Michael Pissas, the exiled General Secretary of the Cyprus Workers' Confederation, for permission to return to Cyprus to resume his trade union duties.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Governor received a letter from the General Secretary of the I.C.F.T.U., asking that Mr. Pissas be allowed to return to Cyprus, and a letter from Mr. Chiakoulas of the I.C.F.T.U. making the same request, and also asking for the release of all political detainees and the suspension of the Emergency Regulations.
    The Governor replied that he regretted he could not agree to meet these requests in view of the continued violence in the island and the failure of Mr. Pissas to abstain from political activity, despite his undertaking to do so. The Governor undertook, however, to keep the case of Mr. Pissas under review in the light of developments in Cyprus.
    Mr. Swingler: Is the Secretary of State aware that this international trade union organisation represents a very powerful opinion all over the world and that very sympathetic attention should be paid to its views? Is it a proper way of trying to lay the basis for a negotiated settlement in Cyprus to
    590
    exclude important leaders of the workers in Cyprus who have been put in a responsible position in the trade unions of the island?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The more important the organisation the greater the obligation on its officers to keep their word, and this man flagrantly broke his word both in Athens and in Brussels.

    Situation
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will now make a statement on negotiations regarding the future of Cyprus.
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on his discussions with the Governor of Cyprus.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot at present add to what I said in reply to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. L. Jeger) on 8th May.
    Mr. Brockway: Is the Secretary of State able yet to say when he is likely to be able to make a statement upon this matter? Is he aware of the very grave concern there is at the long delay in settling the Cyprus issue, which many of us feel is a disgrace to the record of this country?
    Mr. Lennox-BoydWithout accepting for a moment what I may, I think, call the really monstrous statement in the hon. Gentleman's question, I can say that the Governor of Cyprus and the Ambassadors in Ankara and Athens are presently in London and we are having discussions.
    Mr. Robinson: Can the Secretary of of State assure the House that, before the Whitsun Recess, we shall have a statement of firm intentions and not just another statement that the Government have no statement to make?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I would ask the hon. Gentleman not to press me at this moment on that. An opportunity will certainly be given for a Question of that kind to be answered.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Before the Whit-sun Recess?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: An opportunity will be given before the House adjourns to answer the sort of question which the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) asked.

  ADEN

    Trades Union Congress (Representations)
    Mr. Bennasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what representations have been received about industrial conditions in Aden from the Trades Union Congress there; and if he will make a statement on the recent strike.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Aden T.U.C. called a 24-hour general strike on 25th April, which was widely supported but peaceably conducted. They presented to the Governor a memorial asking for the repeal and replacement of the Immigration Ordinance, the establishment of an Employment Bureau and the introduction of a Social Insurance Scheme, and the imposition of price control on foodstuffs. I am awaiting the Governor's views on these representations.
    Mr. Benn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is severe discontent about this issue and some other issues in Aden, and, since the Aden T.U.C. has suggested that an international commission might visit the Colony to examine it, will he consider that application sympathetically?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I ought to give the Governor a chance to write to me first.

    Disturbances
    Mr. Bennasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a further statement on the situation in Aden Colony in view of the disturbances recently reported.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Since 6th March, there have been several incidents involving hand grenades or explosives in Aden Colony designed to terrorise the inhabitants and resulting in three deaths and injuries to ten people. The Governor, with my approval, issued a proclamation on 2nd May bringing Part II of the Emergency Powers Orders in Council, 1939 and 1956, into force in the Colony, and has made emergency regulations under the Orders in Council enabling the detention of persons believed to be concerned in these outrages. The Governor will use his powers and make regulations under these Orders as sparingly as is consistent with the maintenance of public safety. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL
    592
    REPORT a statement issued by the Governor on 2nd May.
    Mr. Benn: While, naturally, deploring the violence which has broken out in Aden, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not, in his own mind, associate some of the discontent with the fact that political activity in Aden has been limited, some applications for the publication of newspapers have been prevented, and that, two years ago, Lord Lloyd announced that, in the foreseeable future, there could not be self-determination for the Colony?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir. I am afraid that it has more sinister origins than that.
    Following is the statement:
    "Following two recent bomb-throwing incidents which occurred in restaurants in one of the main centres of Aden and in which 12 innocent persons were injured, the Governor has today, 2nd May, 1958, proclaimed a state of emergency in the Colony. The purpose of this Proclamation is to provide the police authorities with additional powers under Emergency Regulations to prevent such acts of violence and to protect the lives and property of the public. It is hoped that extensive use will not require to be made of the Emergency Powers or that the life of the people of the Colony will be seriously affected."

    Protectorate Treaties
    Mr. Bennasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he proposes to revise the treaties governing Her Majesty's Government's relationship with the rulers of the Aden Protectorates; and if he will make a statement on his recent talks with the Sultan of Lahej.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have no proposals under consideration for revision of the treaties. As regards the second part of the Question, I have agreed with the Sultan of Lahej that our discussions should remain confidential.
    Mr. Benn: While, naturally, I respect the wish of the right hon. Gentleman that these discussions should be confidential, since I hope that that proves that they will be important, will he not agree that treaties going back as far as 1882, which are still in force and impose humiliating conditions on the rulers of the Protectorates, both East and West, ought now to be revised if there is to be any peace in the hinterland?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: To describe the treaties as humiliating is, if I may use the phrase, really rather ludicrous. In particular, the most recent treaty with the Sultan of Lahej was in 1952.
    Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that he holds the palm for the speed with which it is possible for man to drift towards disaster, and does he not appreciate that, unless he does something rapidly in this part of the world, disaster will be upon us before we know where we are?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly not.
    Mr. Wall: Is it not a fact that these treaties are solely to protect these people from aggression from over the border in the Yemen, and is it not also a fact that there is far more freedom in Aden than exists anywhere in the Yemen?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir, to both.

    British Troops and Arrests
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies under what provisions of the Treaty with the Protectorate of Lahej the Governor of Aden exercised powers, respectively, to order and implement the arrest of the Director of Education and the President of the Legislative Council of Lahej and to send British troops in the Sultanate.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: For the purpose of ordering the arrests referred to, the Governor did not rely on any specific provision of the Treaties with Lahej, but on the Aden Protectorate Orders in Council, 1937–1956. For the purpose of sending British troops into Lahej, he relied both on the Orders in Council and on the Treaties, which, by imposing on Her Majesty's Government the duty of protection, imply permission of the use of troops for that purpose.
    Mr. Brockway: Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that it is a very grave action to arrest Ministers in a Protectorate, to send in British troops and to rely on an Order in Council of this character? In view of that situation, will he endeavour with the Sultan, while he is in London, to reach a solution which will really be permanent in these matters?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No solution would be desirable in the interests of Lahej or the Aden Protectorate which allowed for the return of the Jifri brothers to Lahej.

  GAMBIA

    Mechanical Ploughing Scheme
    Mr. John Hallasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what percentage of village rice land in Gambia has been tractor ploughed in each year since and including 1955 under the mechanical ploughing scheme; and at what cost.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: About 10 per cent. in each year since 1955. The farmer pays 30s. per acre for ploughing and 20s. for disc-ing, and there is a subvention from the Farmers' Fund of 90s. and 25s., respectively, per acre.
    Mr. Hall: May we take it that the success of this scheme means that we have solved the problem of the hungry season? If so, should we not congratulate everyone who has been concerned with the scheme.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir; I think that that is true. I am sure that the House would like to join in congratulating the retiring Governor on a really brilliant achievement.

  SIERRA LEONE

    Diamond Mining (Prosecutions)
    Mr. John Hallasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many successful prosecutions have been made in Sierra Leone during 1957 under the Alluvial Diamond Mining Ordinance, 1956.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Nine hundred and sixty-two.
    Mr. Hall: Does the fall in the rate of convictions mean that we have succeeded in dealing with the problem of illicit diamond mining? Is it less serious than it was?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am afraid that it remains still as serious. The Governor, in a rather picturesque phrase, says that it is like trying to keep wasps away from a jampot at an August picnic.

    Ferrous Metals
    Mr. R. Edwardsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what decisions have now been reached as a result of the discussions between the Sierra

    595
    Leone Government and the Columbia-Southern Chemical Inc. and British Titan Products Limited on the production of titanic ferrous metals, especially rutile.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No decisions have yet been reached. The Sierra Leone Government are studying proposals which have been made to them and negotiations will continue.

  HONG KONG

    Textile Industry (Working Hours and Conditions)
    Mr. Allaunasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will consider introducing legislation to fix a maximum working week and a legal minimum wage in Hong Kong textile factories in order to improve conditions there and also to defend Lancashire against unfair competition.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am awaiting certain information from the Governor about the length of the working week in industrial establishments, including textile factories, and am not yet ready to make a statement on that matter. As regards a legal minimum wage, I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member on 27th June, 1957.
    Mr. Allaun: I note the Minister's reply. Is he aware that many Hong Kong operatives are working twelve hours a day for seven days a week? Could not he introduce a legal maximum of six working days a week, at least for women and girls, since no such limitation at present exists? Would not that be in the interests both of the Hong Kong workers and Lancashire, where four or five mills are closing down every week?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As I have said, the Governor will be shortly writing to me about this matter, and when I am ready to make a statement I shall do so.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Drunkenness (Young Persons)
    Mr. Simmonsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many instances, as a result of the cases of 2,072 persons under eighteen years convicted for drunkenness in the three
    596
    years 1954–56, proceedings were instituted against the licensees from whom in something less than half the cases the drink was known to have been obtained.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): In 1,192 of the 2,072 cases in question, the source of the drink was unknown. Of the remaining 880 cases in which the source was known, licensed premises accounted for 635. During the same period, the number of persons proceeded against for knowingly selling drink to persons under eighteen for consumption on licensed premises was 135 and the number convicted 67.
    Mr. Simmons: Is the Home Secretary aware that there is very serious concern among social workers at this increase in drinking among young people? Is not the percentage of convictions rather low, considering the numbers involved? I understand that the Minister is considering ways of obtaining information on juvenile drinking. Can he promise a report to the House in the near future on the steps that the Government are taking to check this growing evil?
    Mr. Butler: We do our best to obtain all the information we can. It is very difficult to establish the exact source of the drink. That is why the number of convictions is relatively small.
    Mr. Ede: Does not the Secretary of State think that the figure of only 70 convictions out of 137 cases, which were presumably presented to the bench by the police, calls for some investigation by his Department?
    Mr. Butler: I cannot interfere with the ordinary administration of justice, but I do not think that this is unnatural. What I think is rather extraordinary is the number of cases known compared with the number which have been brought up for trial. That is the real difficulty.
    Mr. Remnant: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he has any means of penalising these juveniles who give false information of their age to licensees or club stewards.
    Mr. Butler: It is simply a case of finding them out and catching them. Then we can do something about it.

    Mrs. Janet Armstrong
    Dr. D. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what length of time Mrs. Janet Armstrong was a prisoner on remand at Holloway Gaol awaiting trial subsequent to her committal by the magistrates; what opportunities she had of communicating with other prisoners during that time; and whether, in view of the information supplied to him by the hon. Member for Carlisle, he will hold an inquiry into the circumstances of her stay at Holloway.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Mrs. Janet Armstong was received into Holloway prison on 1st September, 1956, and discharged from court on 13th December, 1956. She had the opportunity to speak to other untried prisoners, particularly, though not exclusively, during exercise. I do not think that an inquiry into the circumstances of her stay in Holloway could throw any further light on her husband's case.
    Dr. Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware, however, that this Question arises from two facts? First, at the trial at which her husband was convicted for murder this young woman had changed her evidence from that which she gave to the police prior to being placed on remand; and secondly, that one of her fellow-prisoners at the time has publicly admitted in a popular newspaper that she has discussed the case with her? Will not the Home Secretary reconsider his decision in the light of these two facts?
    Mr. Butler: Information has been given to me by my hon. Friend, and I have also read the statements in the newspapers concerned. As I have the case under close consideration at the present time, perhaps my hon. Friend and the House will allow me to consider it further.

    Cremation Certificates (Charges)
    Mrs. Slaterasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further recommendations have been or are to be made to medical practitioners for charges for cremation certificates B and C.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The Annual Report of the Council of the British Medical
    598
    Association, published in the British Medical Journal on 19th April this year, reminded members of the Association's policy that a suitable fee for the completion of either of these certificates is two guineas plus mileage allowance. The Association has informed me that another reminder was included in a bulletin sent last December to hospital consultants and specialists, and that it recently decided again to draw the attention of hospital staffs to its policy in the next bulletin.
    Mrs. Slater: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. In view of the fact that there are many different charges, from two guineas upwards—some of which are considered very excessive—is it possible for his Department to do something to reinforce the bulletin sent out by the Medical Association?
    Mr. Butler: We are watching this matter, but in the meantime we would like to support the Association's efforts.

    Election Registers (Errors)
    Mr. J. Rodgersasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider introducing legislation to amend the Representation of the People Acts to make provision for altering the register once it has been published if a name has been omitted through the error of an official.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: No, Sir. Much as I regret the mistakes that occasionally occur, I attach great importance to the principle that the register, once published, is final.
    Mr. Rodgers: I appreciate the need for maintaining public confidence in the register, but does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is quite unjust that people should be excluded from the register, after they have filled in the necessary forms, simply because of a clerical or a printer's error? Should not steps be taken to have the names of these men returned to the register so that they are not disfranchised?
    Mr. Butler: The register is compiled to cover about 29 million voters, and on the whole we escape without very many mistakes. In the circumstances, and in view of the precedents—because this matter has come up before my predecessors on many occasions—I would rather

    599
    adhere to my general answer unless I get evidence to make me alter my mind.
    Dr. King: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that most British citizens prize very highly the right and privilege of voting, and that if they are deprived of that vote through no fault of their own they feel a very deep sense of injustice?
    Mr. Butler: I have to balance that very important consideration of our civil liberties against the very considerable difficulty of altering the register once it is published.

    Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board
    Mrs. Butlerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department at what date it is anticipated that the work of the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board will be wound up.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Until further progress has been made, it is impossible to say.
    Mrs. Butler: Does the Home Secretary realise that the Board is putting some pressure on these unfortunate people and causing them considerable anxiety by telling them that it will shortly be wound up? In view of the understandable difficulties which the remainder of these refugees are finding in settling in this country, will he give an assurance that if and when the Board's work is wound up some other agency will be set up to cope with cases which are still not satisfactorily settled?
    Mr. Butler: I have ascertained the source of the hon. Lady's anxiety. It is that the Board's staff warn people in receipt of regular allowances that it will not be able to help them indefinitely, but in response to her Question I should like to say that there is no immediate prospect of winding up the Board. It is intended that it should do the work entrusted to it.

    Provincial Police Forces
    Dr. D. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with his present powers of investigation relative to provincial police forces; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The responsibility for maintaining an efficient police force is placed by law on the police authority
    600
    for the force. The Secretary of State's duty is to satisfy himself that this responsibility is being properly discharged. He does so on the basis of reports by Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary. I do not think that any additional powers are required for this purpose.
    Dr. Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend not aware of the public concern at the recent revelation in regard to the provincial police forces? In addition to his present powers, will he not also take powers to investigate complaints made by members of the public when put through their Members of Parliament? Am I not correct in saying that, for instance, in the recent Brighton case the abuses that came to light had been going on for many years before they came to a head at the trial?
    Mr. Butler: I cannot comment on the two cases which are at present sub judice, namely, Brighton and Worcester. The case of Brighton is sub judice because the appeal of the Chief Constable still lies to me, as Home Secretary, and I would rather not comment pending the determination of that appeal. But I understand the anxiety on this matter, and I have made it the subject of inquiry, with the aid of my Inspectors of Constabulary. If a Member of Parliament wishes to put any point to me, he has immediate access to me, and I shall be glad to hear anything he says.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is here a rather difficult problem which should be looked into, namely, that it is anomalous that this House has ultimate responsibility for the Metropolitan Police but no responsibility at all, as far as I can see, for other police forces in the country? He will be aware that very grave problems are raised in this matter. Nobody wants to turn the whole police into a politically-controlled force, but does not he agree that there is a problem which needs inquiry?
    Mr. Butler: I do not think that the problem needs inquiry, but it exists, because the Secretary of State is primarily responsible for the Metropolitan Police Force and area—and it is a very large force—but has direct powers only in certain matters relating to chief constables, and a certain responsibility, through the Government, for grants. Otherwise, he is not responsible for provincial police forces.

    Crimes of Violence (Victims)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now make a statement on the progress of his study of schemes for dealing with the state of the law regarding the remedies and rights to compensation of the victims of unlawful attacks upon their persons and property.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the answer which I gave to his Question and to that of the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot) on 13th May.
    Mr. Hughes: Does not the Home Secretary realise that that Answer does not cover this Question? Does he realise that Britain lags behind other civilised countries in this respect? Does he further realise that it is hopeless to expect finance in this matter from the criminal who commits the damage because such criminals are generally impecunious—[Laughter.]—not always, but generally—and that here is a grave wrong awaiting remedy, especially in the case where the breadwinner is either killed or injured and his family left destitute? Will he look into this much-needed social reform?
    Mr. Butler: I have looked carefully into the ideas of the late Miss Margery Fry which, in short, involve a scheme of national insurance on the same sort of basis as the Industrial Injuries scheme. The reform to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred is a big question of principle on which I do not think there would be universal agreement. There is also the question of obtaining from the prisoners' earnings some sort of restitution for the victims of their crimes. That is a different problem. I have examined both questions, but I cannot undertake to get agreement in the near future.
    Mr. Hughes: I regard that answer as thoroughly unsatisfactory and I give notice that I shall endeavour to raise the matter on the Adjournment, at an early date, because this is an urgent and much-needed social reform.

    Home Safety
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the fact that in 1955 18,560 fires
    602
    were attributed to children playing with matches and that children usually obtain matches from the kitchen, what steps he is taking to encourage housewives to use automatic lighters.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: My Department has issued no advice to housewives about using automatic lighters; but a popular booklet on fire precautions produced by the Home Office and published by the Stationery Office emphasises that matches should be kept out of the reach of children.
    Mrs. Mann: Is the Home Secretary aware that a flint lighter with a retail price of 5s. 11d. is taxed at 4s., and that a 7s. 6d. battery lighter is taxed over 5s. 3d., which includes duty and Purchase Tax? Does not he think that this is being penny wise and pound foolish, and will he remit the matter for consideration to the Inter-Departmental Committee on Home Safety?
    Mr. Butler: I think that I had better discuss any fiscal question with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mrs. Butlerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further consideration he has given to the possibility of introducing legislation to enable all local authorities to incur expenditure for the promotion of home safety.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Since my answer on 19th December to my hon. Friend, the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke), there has been no Bill introduced in which such a provision could suitably be included. But I will keep the matter in mind.
    Mrs. Butler: Is the Home Secretary aware that there is considerable confusion among county district councils about this matter? While some have been spending money on home safety propaganda without challenge for a number of years, others have recently had their expenditure questioned, and is he aware this is a matter of some urgency which should be cleared up in view of the importance of home safety propaganda?
    Mr. Butler: That is why I was looking for a vehicle in which to insert this provision.
    Mrs. Mann: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his Department has already circularised every local authority in England and Wales and drawn attention to how and where they can obtain money for their activities? Is he also aware that at 5 o'clock today any hon. Member who attends the Home Safety Committee will receive a copy of that circular?
    Mr. Butler: I hope hon. Members will pay attention to the "Whip" of the hon. Lady.
    Mr. Page: Will my right hon. Friend consult his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government as to whether the provision could be introduced into the Local Government Bill in another place? Is he aware that that Bill covers this possibility?
    Mr. Butler: We have looked at it, though I will again have a word with my right hon. Friend if it is so desired.

    Licensing Laws (Breaches)
    Mr. Blackasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to ensure that night-clubs which have been struck off the Register for gross breaches of the licensing laws shall not be able to reopen on the same premises under a different name.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: It would not be practicable to give effect to my hon. Friend's suggestion without radical alteration of the law relating to registered clubs, and this would raise very contentious issues.
    Mr. Black: Is my right hon. Friend aware that public opinion has been somewhat shocked recently by a serious case? Surely what has happened recently is only calculated to bring the law into contempt? Will my right hon. Friend look at this matter again with a view to seeing whether something cannot be done?
    Mr. Butler: I have looked at it. I thought that perhaps we might re-enact the law in this way, that the same club should not be registered under a new name. But on examining that simple formula, I found that it would not work. All sorts of detailed complications and inquiries would be involved, and that is why I say that the issue is contentious.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how he is considering the question of the whole problem of these bogus proprietary clubs which are in a different position from working men's clubs and other bona fide clubs of that kind?
    Mr. Butler: We had a recent rather striking example which we are examining in the light of the Question put by my hon. Friend, and in the light of what the hon. Gentleman has said.
    Mr. Blackasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will advise magistrates that, in cases where gross breaches of the licensing laws have been discovered, the premises should always be disqualified.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: It is for the courts to consider on the merits of the particular case whether to exercise their power to disqualify premises for use as a registered club, and it would not be proper for me to advise them on the exercise of their judicial discretion.
    Mr. Peytonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the methods used by the Metropolitan Police to obtain evidence of breaches of the licensing law, with particular reference to the recent proceedings brought against a certain London night club.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The methods used to detect offences against the licensing laws necessarily depend on the circumstances of the case. I have no comment to make on the proceedings to which I assume that my hon. Friend is referring.
    Mr. Peyton: I do not think anyone will deny the difficulties which are experienced by the police in discharging their duties of implementing the licensing laws. Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is quite wrong that the police should commit offences in the course of attempting to detect the commission of offences by other people? Will my right hon. Friend look at the matter as being very serious and involving dangerous precedents?
    Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend is quite right to be anxious on this score. It is very difficult publicly to discuss all the methods that are used but this case has brought to my mind certain dangers. If my hon. Friend would care to discuss the matter with me, I shall be very glad.
    Mr. Lipton: In regard to dangers, will the Home Secretary tell me what remedy a Member of this House has if a club is called after him?

    Nottingham, Chelmsford and Parkhurst Prisons
    Mr. Collinsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of prisoners, the total number of prison staff, and the prisoner-staff ratio at Her Majesty's Prisons, Nottingham and Chelmsford, respectively.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: On 2nd May, there were 228 prisoners and a staff of 109 at Chelmsford, and 173 prisoners and a staff of 81 at Nottingham. The number of prisoners to each officer was thus 2·09 and 2·13, respectively.
    Mr. Collins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at Parkhurst there is an average of considerably less than two prisoners to one officer? [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."] Can he explain why it is possible that prisons like Chelmsford and Nottingham can supply more amenities and better facilities than Parkhurst, where there are far more officers?
    Mr. Butler: In general at central prisons like Chelmsford and Nottingham the prisoners are out of their cells, and extra staff is required for supervision and training. I will look into the position at Parkhurst.
    Mr. Collinsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the week-end compound period at Parkhurst, which in 1952 was 2½ hours on Saturdays and Sundays, has been reduced to 80 minutes; why evening association, formerly of two hours' duration, is now only 70 minutes; and if he will restore association time to the hours prevailing before the staff was increased.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The week-end compound period was reduced by 15 minutes because the introduction of a new shift system made necessary some changes in the movements of officers. Evening association was reduced by 30 minutes partly because it became possible to increase workshop hours and partly because an expanded education programme made it necessary to use association rooms for classrooms. I hope to provide additional accommodation which will make it possible to restore 15 minutes of the lost association time.
    Mr. Collins: Will the Home Secretary deal in particular with the question of association time on Sundays, which is the only time when men can spend periods in association in the fresh air? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this cut was far more considerable than the one he mentioned? Will he look into the fact that since 1953 there has been a big increase in staff which could have made it possible to increase association time and not reduce it?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, I will look into that point.
    Mr. Collinsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that, on the day before he is discharged, on completing a seven to 14 years' sentence, a prisoner at Parkhurst is removed to the punishment cells, locked up at 2.30 p.m., and given a bed board for his last night, that he is denied the privilege of becoming accustomed to civilian clothes and, on leaving, although given a railway warrant and 5s. or 10s., is denied soap, towel, or any means of keeping himself clean; and if he will forthwith end this treatment and give the men a better chance to face the world in the first few days after they leave prison.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: For the convenience of both prisoners and prison staff, it is desirable that arrangements for discharge should be carried out in a place apart from the main prison. The cells used at Parkhurst are similar to those in the rest of the prison; and I have arranged for prisoners awaiting discharge to have ordinary prison beds in future. Most prisoners receive a towel on discharge from Parkhurst. Prisoners are allowed to try on their civilian clothes some time before discharge; but they do not get final possession of them until the morning of discharge. The money grant to discharged prisoners is intended to cover subsistence needs on the homeward journey; for the rest the prisoner is given a letter of introduction to the National Assistance Board.
    Mr. Collins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have seen men on the day of their discharge from Parkhurst and that my Question referred not to the regulations but to the way they are applied? Is he also aware that many of these things which are on the pre-war list are no longer allowable?

    607
    Is he further aware that if upon entry a man cannot be persuaded to sell his clothes they remain in his case, perhaps for seven years, and that when he opens it a lot of things, such as braces, have perished? A constituent of mine was discharged recently and was given this bit of cloth as all that was left to tie up his trousers. [Laughter.] It is neither very funny nor a very good foundation for the start of a new life. Will the Home Secretary look very carefully at the way in which these regulations are applied and do his utmost to help these men, most of whom are friendless and alone?
    Mr. Butler: If the hon. Gentleman will give me any further information, I will discuss it with the Prison Commission.
    Mr. Paget: May I ask whether the experiment which was tried at Bristol of giving short periods of leave before discharge to prisoners who had been away for a long time so as to get them accustomed to life has been a success?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. There is a special hostel at Bristol which is the best experiment in preparation for discharge in the country. We hope to extend that experiment. I am glad that it is working very well.

    Mrs. Marcovic
    Mr. Wadeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long notice he gave to Mrs. Anna Horrat Marcovic before service and execution of his deportation order on her at 8 a.m. on Thursday, 1st May.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Mrs. Marcovic, whose permitted stay in this country expired last October, was repeatedly instructed to leave, the last occasion being on 4th March; and I stated on 28th March, in reply to the hon. Member, that I was not prepared to agree to her remaining here any longer. As she made no arrangements to go, the deportation order I made was carried into effect on 1st and 2nd May.
    Mr. Wade: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the only desire of this unfortunate stateless person was to be allowed to remain in this country with her own family? Has there not been some lack of humanity in dealing with her case? Is it normal for the police
    608
    to call at eight o'clock in the morning and to tell a woman that she must be ready to leave the country within half-an-hour? Will he say what instructions are given when a deportation order is made?
    Mr. Butler: I cannot go into the whole merits of the case. Each of these cases is examined with great humanity and care. I might add that the relatives of Mrs. Marcovic have written to the Chief Constable of Warwickshire expressing thanks for the kindness and consideration shown by the superintendent, officers and men of the Stratford Police in carrying out the instructions of the Home Office. I am sorry about this case, but I have to follow certain rules.

    Stag Hunting
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the public disquiet on the matter, he will appoint a Royal Commission or other suitable body to inquire into the law relating to the hunting of stags and other wild animals.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: No, Sir. The Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals reported fully on this subject in 1951.
    Mr. Rankin: Since we had that report, is the Home Secretary not aware that new evidence is forthcoming? Has the right hon. Gentleman studied the copy of the Daily Mirror of 5th May which I sent to him in order that he might be better informed on the matter? Photographs in that newspaper show the final episodes in the hunting of a stag. These were photographed by an American teacher who described the incidents in the hunting of this animal as, "The most outrageous brutality I have seen." Do the photographs not stir the conscience of the right hon. Gentleman? If they do, is he prepared to think about doing something to stop this outrage on the conscience of the British people?
    Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I could not go as far as the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps the House will remember that the Committee's recommendation on red deer hunting was:
    "Hunting is a useful and necessary method of controlling red deer on Exmoor, and the deer could not be destroyed or controlled, without danger to persons or stock, in a way that would cause less suffering. It should therefore be allowed to continue".
    Mr. Rankin: Is the Home Secretary not aware that we can control deer in Scotland without committing the outrages that are committed here? Can he not follow the method that is practised in Scotland?
    Mr. Butler: I have studied the methods in Scotland. This is highly contentious matter. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to give me any further evidence, perhaps he will do so.
    Mr. Rankin: Thank you.

    Persomnia
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has now received a report from the Poisons Board in regard to Persomnia.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: No, Sir. This matter will be further considered by the Poisons Board at its next meeting in June.
    Mr. Rankin: In June? I will wait till then.

    Robberies with Violence
    Mr. du Cannasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of robbery with violence, involving the theft of money, were known to the police for the year 1958 to the latest convenient date.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I regret that no figures for 1958 are yet available, and the statistics do not in any case enable me to distinguish robberies involving theft of money from other robberies.
    Mr. du Cann: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great public concern there is at the increasing number of attacks upon wages clerks and others who have to handle very large sums of money? Does he not agree that the danger might be mitigated if it were made legal to pay wages by cheque and if penalties for this type of offence were substantially increased, including the re-introduction of some form of corporal punishment?
    Mr. Butler: I am aware of the anxiety on this score. We see from the newspaper and from our reports that the incidence has been increasing. I am considering further forms of counter-activity to see what we can do about it.

  CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (SPEECH)
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister to what extent the speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on the international situation, delivered at Cambridge on 3rd May, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I have read my right hon. Friend's speech. It seems to have been very good, and there is nothing in it from which I would dissent.
  Mr. Hughes: As the speech seemed to the Prime Minister to be very good, how does the right hon. Gentleman explain that no report was available in The Times in the Library? Is he aware that the argument of the Chancellor was that we should never be the first to drop the H-bomb? Is that the view of the Government, and if we are not to be the first to drop the H-bomb, shall we be in a position to retaliate afterwards?
  The Prime Minister: What my right hon. Friend said was that we have no aggressive intent against Soviet Russia; we shall never be the first to attack.

  PRIME MINISTER (VISIT TO UNITED STATES)
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister if during his visit to the United States of America he proposes to discuss with President Eisenhower the strategy of nuclear war.
  The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Gentlemen on 20th March.
  Mr. Hughes: Yes, but does not the Prime Minister think it time to discuss the whole question of strategy with President Eisenhower? Is he aware that the Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Strategic Air Command of the U.S.A. said that it would be safer to be in a bomber over Moscow in the event of a war than to be a private citizen in New York? Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that the Deputy Commander-in-Chief does not think that in an all-out war America or Russia would survive, and that a war would end civilisation for 2,000 years? If that be the strategy, is it not time that it was revised?
  The Prime Minister: It is very useful to have advice as to the subjects which I ought to raise with the President of the United States. No doubt the whole problem which the hon. Gentleman has in mind will be raised, with other questions.
  Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it about time he had a discussion with the President on avoiding angry crowds for Vice-President Nixon?

  INDIA AND PAKISTAN

    Emigrants to United Kingdom
    Mr. Osborneasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what has been the result of his inquiries made to the Governments of India and Pakistan in regard to the immigration of Indians and Pakistanis into this country; and if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): Yes, Sir, in response to the inquiries which my noble Friend has made, the Governments of India and Pakistan have expressed their profound concern at the problems which have arisen through the recent sudden rise in immigration from those two countries. As recently as 5th May, Mr. Nehru stated in Parliament that the Government of India realised that, because of the freedom which Indian citizens enjoy in entering the United Kingdom, there is a responsibility cast on the Government of India to prevent this from being abused. The Indian authorities have assured us that the regulations governing the issue of Indian passports to intending migrants will continue to be strictly enforced. The Government of India are also very ready to take other remedial action open to them.
    The Pakistan Government for their part have recently announced stricter regulations for the issue of passports valid for travel to this country. They have increased the cash deposit required before such passports are issued and have stipulated that a migrant must have a working knowledge of English and a guarantee of work prior to his departure from Pakistan.
    While it is still too early for these latest measures to have taken full effect, the numbers arriving in March and April have been much less than in February.
    Mr. Osborne: May I thank my hon. Friend for the information that the Pakistan and Indian Government are doing what lies in their power and ask him if it is not now urgent that we should do something on this side to control this immigration? In view of the fact that only yesterday 3,000 of our best citizens went to Australia and we are replacing them in this country with Pakistanis who can live on our Public Assistance without working—as thousands are doing today—will he please urge his colleagues in the Cabinet to look into this matter?
    Mr. Alport: I think it is generally accepted that any Government would be reluctant to introduce legislation which would depart from the traditional policy of successive Governments under which British subjects are allowed to enter this country without let or hindrance. From the terms of my Answer, my hon. Friend will realise that the Governments of Pakistan and India have taken very appropriate steps in dealing with the problem from their end and we hope that by tackling it in that way we shall produce a satisfactory solution without having to depart in any way from what has been a long-standing traditional policy in this country.
    Mr. H. Hynd: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many Pakistanis get out of their country by saying that they are going on a pilgrimage to Mecca but that the pilgrimage finishes in this country?
    Mr. Alport: I am not aware of that, but from information the Pakistan Government have given they are anxious to prevent any evasion of the law of that sort.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal 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, 19TH MAY, TUESDAY, 20TH MAY AND WEDNESDAY, 21ST MAY—Committee stage of the Finance Bill.
At the end of business on Monday, we shall ask the House to consider the

613
Motion for an Address relating to the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951; and, at the end of business on Tuesday, the Motions to approve the Pig Industry Development Authority Levy Scheme (Approval) Order, and the Draft Ploughing Grants Scheme, as well as a similar Scheme for Scotland.
THURSDAY, 22ND MAY—Supply [14th Allotted Day]: Committee.
The subject for debate will be announced at the beginning of next week.
It is hoped that we shall be able to adjourn on Friday, 23rd May, for the Whitsun Recess until Tuesday, 10th June. In present circumstances, however, I must ask the House to treat these arrangements as provisional. I will make a further statement as soon as possible.
Mr. Gaitskell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there will be a Government statement on Cyprus early next week?
Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, it is our intention to make a statement on Monday.
Mr. Gaitskell: In that case, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while we do not wish to commit ourselves finally on the business for the last day before the Whitsun Recess, it may very well be that we shall wish to debate that statement?
Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, I am sure this matter will be considered with the utmost responsibility at the discretion of the Opposition. It is their day and we await their request on the matter.
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Would it be possible to arrange for a statement tomorrow, after Questions, on the situation in the Lebanon in view of the fact that 300 British women and children have been evacuated from Tripoli through Beirut, which is by no means a pacific city, and that at the other end of the Mediterranean American units seem to be in a state of instant readiness and have received movement orders?
Mr. Butler: As the House is aware, this is a matter that I must discuss with my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. I shall convey the result of that discussion to my noble Friend.
Mr. J. Hynd: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether his attention has been drawn to the statement by the Minister of Transport in the debate which took place last Friday on working conditions on the railways and the implementation of the Gowers Report? How soon will the promise made some time ago by the Leader of the House, that legislation will be introduced within the lifetime of the Government, be fulfilled? As the sands are rapidly running out, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when such a debate is likely to be held, if not next week?
Mr. Butler: I read with great profit the whole of that debate, but I can hold out no hope of a further debate, although I express satisfaction that it was possible to air the issue at some length on Friday.
Mr. Diamond: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as he was leaving the Chamber on Tuesday he turned his back on his hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald), who was asking whether he would find time for a debate on the important statement on the aircraft industry which the Minister of Supply had just made? Will the right hon. Gentleman provide time for his hon. Friend and those of us with important constituency interests—the whole country is interested in this important matter—to debate the question?
Mr. Butler: The wishes of my hon. Friend were brought to my attention. I cannot give an undertaking that such time will be provided before the Whitsun Recess. No doubt this is a matter which may be available to discuss on a further Supply Day.
Mr. Ernest Davies: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is intended to arrange for a debate on a White Paper on the testing of vehicles? Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that it would be advantageous to have a debate before the regulations are laid, so that the views of hon. Members might be taken into account?
Mr. Butler: I should have to investigate the exact date of laying the regulations and the amount of time available before seeing what could be done.
Mr. Osborne: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to consider

615
whether, in the near future, time can be found to debate the problem of immigration, in view of its urgency and the facts that 100,000 men will be made redundant in the aircraft industry and that, if the railway modernisation plan is to be successful, we shall have to envisage a great deal of redundancy on the railways? May we have time to discuss this problem, since it will affect our people very seriously?
Mr. Butler: That is obviously a matter of growing importance, but I could not promise a day before Whitsun to debate it.
Mr. Dugdale: Further to the question raised by the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) may the rest of the House be informed, or is only the noble Lord to be informed? May the House be informed tomorrow if a statement is to be made about the Lebanon?
Mr. Butler: I cannot give any undertaking that that will be possible, but I shall certainly see that the usual channels are informed as a result of my consultations.

DIVISIONS AND COUNTS (BELLS)
Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make to the House about Division bells.
Difficulty has been experienced in distinguishing between a Division and a Count. The following system has, therefore, been arranged as an experiment.
616
For a Division, the bells will ring continuously for 55 seconds, followed by a pause of 10 seconds, followed by another continuous ring of 55 seconds.
For a Count, the bells will ring intermittently for a period of one minute. Each ring will be for four seconds, followed by a pause of two seconds. This new system will take effect next Monday, 19th May, 1958.
Demonstration rings of a Division and a Count will be made at 1 p.m. on Monday, 19th May, and Tuesday, 20th May.
I should like to express my thanks to the Post Office engineers who made the experiments and constructed the apparatus.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is this experiment the result of representations from the Government, Mr. Speaker, because so few Government supporters are present to support their main speakers? That is why I have sometimes to call a Count.
Mr. Speaker: I may say that I attended a demonstration in a room downstairs, when the "usual channels" were present as auditors. I had the approval of both sides of the House to this experiment being made. I hope that hon. Members will listen to the demonstration rings, and convey any comments to me which they desire to make if those comments are unfavourable. Otherwise, I will understand that there is no objection to it.
Mr. Hughes: Why is a demonstration of a Count needed downstairs? Is not the demonstration in the Chamber?
Mr. Speaker: That is quite another matter.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND MISCELLANEOUS FINANCIAL PROVISIONS (SCOTLAND) (RECOMMITTED) BILL
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 14th May].
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND MISCELLANEOUS FINANCIAL PROVISIONS (SCOTLAND) (RECOMMITTED) BILL

    Clause 12.—(EXTENSION OF MAXIMUM PERIOD FOR REPAYMENT OF SUMS BORROWED FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.)
    3.40 p.m.
    Mr. John Rankin: On a point of order. May I have some guidance, Sir Charles, as to the intentions about proceedings? My information was that yesterday had to be devoted to recommittal of the Bill, and that half of today had to be devoted to the Report stage and other half to Third Reading. Does it not now seem likely that the Recommittal stage will endanger the Report stage? If so, does that mean that the period originally set aside for the Report stage is to be diminished, or that the period set aside for Third Reading will be diminished?
    The Chairman: The period set aside for Third Reading will not be diminished. At 7 o'clock tonight, when the Committee stage finishes, we go on to Report, and there will be no debate. We shall then go on to Third Reading.
    Mr. Rankin: Do I understand from that, Sir Charles, that the Report stage may possibly be almost non-existent?
    The Chairman: Yes; that is to say, except to take Government Amendments.
    Mr. Rankin: What about Opposition Amendments?
    The Chairman: The House has already decided that. Under the Guillotine, they fall.
    Amendment moved [14th May]: In page 8, line 37, leave out from "authority" to end of line 28 on page 9 and insert:
    "for purposes authorised by statute shall be such period not exceeding sixty years as may be sanctioned by the Secretary of State".[Mr. Willis.]
    Mr. E. G. Willis: When we adjourned last night, I was in process of moving this Amendment, Sir Charles. I had explained its purpose, and I had pointed out that I thought that purpose was in accordance with what the Government keep on telling us is their purpose. I was hoping, therefore, that the Amendment might have been accepted, but there seems to be some doubt about that. I also indicated that I felt that this was a sphere in which the local authorities could quite well be left with the freedom to do what we want them to do. I pointed out that most of the local authorities—in fact, I think all of them—have officials competent to do this.
    I would also point out that, in any case, whatever is done has to be sanctioned by the Secretary of State, so that the Secretary of State is always in the position of safeguarding any particular national interest that may be involved, though I do not know what are the interests that are involved here. It seems to me that this Amendment would give the right hon. Gentleman that power. I do not want to take up a great deal of time, because, owing to the Government's Guillotine, we are in a difficulty in not having enough time to debate this point adequately. However, in view of what I have said, I trust that the Government will have had second thoughts since last night and will accept the Amendment.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne): I think that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) will be reassured when I have briefly explained the position to him. The principle behind the Sixth Schedule of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, is that the period of repayment should have regard to the life of the object. It is not, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East has said, that the Government know best. It is simply a question of sound finance.
    We have already made Amendments to Clause 12, and they are much welcomed by the local authorities, but I do not think they would—in fact, I am certain they would not—welcome a reduction to sixty years from the eighty years' repayment period which can now be applied to the acquisition of land and for housing. Neither would they welcome a fixed maximum period in

    619
    place of the present provision in some fields where there is no fixed limit at all. Among these are harbours, piers, and ferries, and certain projects under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts.
    I am sure, also, that the hon. Member did not intend that his Amendment should have another effect, but the Amendment as drafted would leave district councils with their position not defined. To reassure the hon. Member further, may I tell him that since Clause 12 was drafted we have been having discussions with the local authorities, and that we hope to put down in another place Amendments proposing increases in the maximum borrowing periods for crematoria, for land not included in another provision of this Schedule and also for homes for old people? We appreciate the hon. Member's arguments, and we are most anxious to meet, as far as is possible, the needs of the local authorities.
    3.45 p.m.
    Mr. Willis: Will the hon. Gentleman specify some of the things for which the period is less than sixty years?
    Mr. Browne: I would not wish to weary the Committee, and I have not got a copy of the Act with me.
    I was going on to say that all these matters have been discussed with the local authorities, and that we have met all their wishes on this matter. We believe, and I think that the local authorities agree with us, that it is wiser to take each case on its merits, and that it is certainly not wise to reduce any period that is now over sixty years or to limit to sixty years periods that now are not defined. This Clause extends five headings about which we have talked to the local authorities, and three more headings will be extended in another place. We therefore hope that the hon. Member will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.
    Mr. Willis: I certainly agree that we do not want to reduce the period where it is over forty years, and I quite accept the argument that there are certain works for which the period would be longer than sixty years. I should also like to express my appreciation of the fact that the matter has been looked at again,
    620
    and that at least some extension is being made in respect of certain other services.
    What I would have liked to know, and what the hon. Gentleman has not told us, though I think we are entitled to know, is what are those services for which the period is less than sixty years. We know the general principle, that it is less than sixty years because of the fact that the capital work involved will not last for a longer period, but surely the local authorities are able to judge that. The local authorities know that equally well as the Government, and if a local authority does not know it, this Amendment still leaves the Secretary of State with the final word, so that he still has power to refuse an extension of the period of sixty years if he thinks the local authority is doing something unwise.
    Therefore, the essence of the matter has not, in fact, been answered by the hon. Gentleman. Why should not this be left to the local authorities? I know quite well that the hon. Gentleman or the Department has been having conversations with the local authorities about this, but I understand that the local authorities would have liked rather more than they got. Obviously, they agree with the Government in getting some extension, but the hon. Gentleman has not told us whether they agreed with the Government in refusing certain extensions. I would ask him to come to the crux of the matter, and tell us why, in certain places, the period is less than sixty years and why it is felt that the local authority is not able to decide the period for itself.
    Why does the hon. Gentleman assume that the local authority knows less about the possible length of life of the capital works than the Government, and why, even if the local authority did make a mistake and we permit the Secretary of State to have the final say, the Government could not give the local authority this particular power?
    Mr. Browne: I can only assure the hon. Gentleman that all this has been discussed with the local authorities; that we have increased the period where the local authorities have wished it; that it is simply a question of sound finance, and that there is no disagreement whatever between the local authorities and ourselves. The Sixth Schedule is so very

    621
    long and complicated that it would take up far too much of the time of the House to go through it, but I can assure him that he has not got the point on which the local authorities would support him.
    Mr. Willis: I cannot accept as an argument that when we raise matters here we can be prevented from discussing them just because the hon. Gentleman says to us, "I have discussed it with the local authorities." That is not a good enough answer. We are entitled to discuss these matters. If we ask questions, we are entitled to a reply. Whilst we are very pleased that the Secretary of State did discuss the matter with the local authorities, it does not take the place of discussion here. The hon. Gentleman is really doing an injustice to his own Government in putting forward an argument like that. To permit that argument to pass unchallenged would undermine the authority of the House. We are entitled to discuss these things, and to have an informed reply on them.
    Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman is speaking of an Amendment which would have the effect of reducing the borrowing periods. It would not be in the interests of local authorities for us to accept that Amendment. He is now raising another point, not covered by his Amendment, on which I have sought to reassure him. I have a long list of the details here, and I will give him one or two examples. They include such things as clinics and occupational centres, coast protection, parks. Such things, are, by their very nature, limited to thirty years. That is a policy with which the local authorities agree, but it is not relevant to the Amendment.
    Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman must come to the Committee better prepared for a Scottish debate. All he does is to come here with a brief that is inadequate and expect us to accept it. I object to that practice very much. It is not the fact that the Amendment deals only with those objects in respect of which the period of borrowing is over sixty years. The Amendment deals with them all—under and over sixty years. Whilst I accept his argument that it would be wrong to diminish the period where it was over sixty years I have still not been told why the period below sixty years
    622
    should not be increased to that figure. The Under-Secretary said, "I have a long list, and I do not want to go through it all", but he mentioned one item. He mentioned certain centres which, I presume, are buildings. Why are they less likely than other places to last for longer than thirty years? Why? I do not know. Let him tell us.
    Mr. Browne: It is not a matter of the Secretary of State saying why. It is a matter of the estimated life of the object for which the borrowing takes place.
    Mr. Willis: This is really becoming more fantastic than ever. The hon. Gentleman says that it is not for the Secretary of State to decide this, but the present legislation gives him that final word. This Bill gives him that final word, and my Amendment seeks to do the same. Of course, the Secretary of State is responsible for this. I am surprised at the inept and foolish argument now seriously advanced by the Under-Secretary. I could understand it if, as he said last night, he was having a bit of fun, but he advances this argument seriously.
    It is, of course, the Secretary of State who decides it. That has been decided by the House in legislation, but, as we are now changing the legislation, we have a right to know why the Government refuses to accept the alterations that we propose. The hon. Gentleman cannot escape according us that right by saying that he has discussed it with the local authorities. The right of the House of Commons cannot be dismissed in that fashion. It would be very foolish and dangerous to do so. Let the hon. Gentleman give us one or two examples where the period is less than sixty years, and let him tell us why it is not possible to extend it.
    I had thought, Sir Charles, that we could get past this quickly, but we cannot let the matter go in this way. Once again, I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to show that at least he understands what we are talking about, and try to give us an answer. He may be unable to do so, but, at least he should, let us see that he is intelligent enough to know what we are trying to do.
    Mr. Browne: One example is parks and gardens, for which the borrowing limit is thirty years.
    Mr. Willis: Why not extend it? Parks may last for hundreds of years.
    Mr. Browne: I quite agree with the hon. Member. One can extend the time to any period at all, but one has to consider the life of the object. The very fact that we have extended—I think I said seven headings—shows that all these have been looked at. All those which my right hon. Friend and the local authorities think need extending have been extended. The hon. Gentleman wants to extend further, but he does not know what his Amendment says. It is to that Amendment that I was speaking, and I cannot accept it.
    Mr. Willis: The Under-Secretary produces an unintelligible argument in the abstract. He said that we should not borrow for periods longer than that for which the object is likely to last. I asked, for an example, and the example he gave was a park. He could not have given a worse example. A park can last for two or three hundred years. It does not wear out, or fall down or collapse. It does not become out of date. Admittedly, the local authority might decide to put the land to a different use, but a park, as a park, may last for an enormous length of time.
    The complete ineptitude of the Government in considering the simplest matter intelligently is typical, and I must register my most violent protest at this off-hand manner of dealing with a serious argument. If the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend have treated local authorities and electors in Scotland in this way, no wonder the Government are losing votes right and left.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 15.—(TRANSITIONAL ADJUSTMENTS.)
    4.0 p.m.
    Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to move, in page 11, line 7, to leave out "not exceeding four".
    In the Standing Committee many hon. Members were concerned about possible hardship to local authorities in the transition from percentage grants to general grants. That position was summed up by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), in spite of his apparent lack of understanding of
    624
    what we have just been discussing, in a very moderate speech.
    Mr. Willis: All my speeches are moderate.
    Mr. Browne: He said:
    "If the hon. Member says, 'If we find that there are difficulties, we can extend the time by introducing fresh legislation,' why should he, if that is in the Government's mind, have tied himself down so rigidly in the Clause, where it says: 'such subsequent years, not exceeding four ….' That is very definite. More flexibility ought to have been provided in the Bill."
    To which I replied:
    "… our mind as to what the right period should be is as open as the minds of hon. Members, and … I am prepared to look at the matter again before Report in the light of the speeches which have been made."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 24th April, 1958; c. 667–8.]
    When the Bill has been amended, we will be able to spread the time of the transitional periods to suit the circumstances of the time, and I am sure that the Amendment will be welcomed.
    Mr. Willis: I am bound to express my satisfaction that at least occasionally a glimpse of understanding seems to penetrate the mind of the Joint Under-Secretary. I am glad that one of the occasions on which there has been such a glimpse of understanding has been in respect of an Amendment which we moved in the Standing Committee. I thank him for accepting it. I am sure that this is an improvement to the Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    New Clause.—(POWERS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO CONTRIBUTE TO WELFARE SCHEMES OF VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS.)
    Notwithstanding provisions in any other Act a local authority may with the approval of the Secretary of State make a scheme to give services or grants to voluntary organisations providing amenities which in their view contribute to the physical and psychological wellbeing of ageing and handicapped persons.—[Mr. Hoy.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. James Hoy: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    I hoped to cover this point in the Standing Committee, but after considerable discussion the Chair thought that the whole thing was out of order. The Chair having given that Ruling—you will know

    625
    the Scottish Committee well enough, Sir Charles, to know that we would not come into conflict with the Chair—we accepted it. I thought that in the circumstances the best way to deal with the matter was to put down a new Clause on recommittal.
    This will not involve the Government in any considerable expenditure. By the expenditure of what one might regard as a small sum of money, the Government could do infinite good; indeed, in the long run, my proposal might save money, something which might appeal to the Government. In the Standing Committee I used the example of an elderly people's club in my constituency which has done much good during the past two years. It is the type of club which might well be emulated in other parts of Scotland.
    It came about after a campaign dealing with tuberculosis. It was felt that the campaign was very successful among elderly people and that we might do something further for that section of the community. A band of workers was gathered from all sections of the community, including doctors and members of co-operative women's guilds, and the club was brought into existence.
    Since that day, at least 100 elderly men and women have met every day and have had a three-course lunch for 1s. This is a service which is not provided in any other part of Scotland, but it has proved of great benefit to that section of the community. All the work undertaken is done voluntarily.
    The arrangement is that the food is supplied to the club by the Edinburgh Corporation, which receives payment from it, although I should not like it to be thought that this is merely a business deal. The club is grateful for the co-operation of the corporation and its officials. The food is taken to the club, which is manned by voluntary workers from the women's guild under Miss Sinclair, who has given great service to the old people of Leith. The service has brought not only good health but companionship to many people to whom it had been denied.
    In addition, the club has set up a chiropody service. A chiropodist attends to the old folk for a merely nominal sum. Other services include advice and the completion of forms, and so on, all undertaken in the club. One great drawback, however, is that there is no place
    626
    to meet, other than during the lunch hour. We are indebted, and we should put it on record, to the local Co-operative society for granting these premises free of charge for the last two years.
    Many people have had a hand in the growth of this club and as a consequence more than £2,000 have been raised—none from the local authority and none from the Government—in an endeavour to build a permanent club for the continuation and extension of these services. Here is a record of voluntary service in this sphere which is unsurpassed. The very fact that such a considerable sum has been raised is a proof of the earnest of these workers to continue to do this work.
    The Government could help to make the plan for the permanent premises a reality. If those permanent premises could be established, no doubt someone will have to be engaged on a full-time basis. All we are asking in the Clause is that in that case a local authority should be empowered to make a grant towards the running expenses of a club of that kind to see that these voluntary services are maintained.
    What I want is an assurance that these people will be encouraged to carry on with their work and that the Government will do nothing to prevent it being carried through. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not only pay lip-service to the work being done, but accept the new Clause, because I am certain that in that way we can best render a service to the elderly.
    Mr. Cyril Bence: I support the new Clause and what my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) has said about a very important aspect of local government work, especially today, when, in some of the small communities, and even in some of the larger ones in the distant parts of Scotland, especially in the west, much voluntary charitable work is done by people of the sort to whom my hon. Friend referred. However, the people who are doing this work are finding it increasingly difficult to provide money as well.
    Some people I know recently attended a meeting of a handicapped children's association. They were teaching those children and adults who had passed out of the hands of the education authority, since they were between the ages of 15 and 30. Those handicapped children

    627
    and adults were being taught knitting, sewing, basket work and weaving. At the meeting, the people doing that work were asked to pay an annual subscription towards the cost of the work they were doing—there was equipment to be bought and appliances to be paid for, appliances used by the handicapped to encourage them to get their limbs back into use.
    These people were giving their time—and I know some ladies on Clydebank who are giving as much as 20 hours a week in service to handicapped children and adults—and were also being asked to provide money. The local authority has been very generous within the limits in which it can be generous, but that generosity is not sufficient. When they see people doing very good charitable and voluntary work in our society, some of them trained nurses who help in their spare time, the Government should do what they can to assist.
    Only last week I attended a function at Kirkintilloch where, at a cost of £300, raised from a sale of work and a grant from the National Playing Fields Association, some volunteers have built two tennis courts, a bowling green and a putting green with their own labour. The estimated cost of what they have done is £2,000. That was voluntary labour. The Government should go a very long way to encourage people in that sort of work.
    In Clydebank, we have three fine voluntary organisations, one similar to that which my hon. Friend mentioned, the Women's Voluntary Service, and the Association for Handicapped Children. They are doing a tremendous amount of good work, but it is very hard for working-class housewives not only to put in a great deal of hard work, but to provide money, very often even though their husbands only have low incomes.
    Recently, some of these ladies were asked to provide a trolley shop service in a hospital. They agreed to do so, but they did not have a trolley, and it was suggested that there should be a whip round among these ladies to buy a trolley for the service which they were to provide. That sort of thing is a bit hard. The Government should encourage local authorities to help in matters of that kind by giving them power to help recognised voluntary organisations who can do so much to help the handicapped.
    628
    It does not matter what legislation we have at the centre, or which party is in power, no legislation or administrative organisation at the centre will ever replace what can be done voluntarily within the community, or what can be done by human contact and association with handicapped people and with the aged, to make their lives a little happier.
    I shall be very surprised if this new Clause is turned down, especially in view of the hon. Gentleman's background. There is every justification for accepting it, because we all want to encourage those who are prepared, in their middle years, to give up some of their leisure to help to ease the suffering of our unfortunate brothers and sisters.
    4.15 p.m.
    Mr. J. N. Browne: I believe that with the new Clause the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) was also discussing his Amendment to my right hon. Friend's Amendment in Schedule 1, page 16, line 18, since his new Clause gives powers and his Amendment provides for contributions by local authorities to voluntary organisations to count as relevant expenditure.
    The new Clause is unnecessary, because powers already exist to make grants to voluntary organisations providing services which contribute to the physical and psychological well-being of aged and handicapped persons. Briefly, I will quote the sections of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947, which enables local authorities to make arrangements, with the approval of the Secretary of State, for the prevention of illness, the care of persons suffering from illness or mental deficiency or the after-care of such persons. These are very wide powers and are used, for example, for chiropody services for the old, to which the hon. Member for Leith referred.
    Under Section 27 and 28 of that Act, the local authority has power to help voluntary organisations to provide many services, such as domestic help, which includes laundry services, and so on. All expenditure by local authorities on these services is "relevant expenditure" under paragraph 2 of the First Schedule.
    Turning to the National Assistance Act, 1948, under Sections 29 and 30 the local authority can make arrangements

    629
    through voluntary organisations for promoting the welfare of handicapped persons, the blind, deaf or dumb and others
    "substantially and permanently handicapped by illness, injury, or congenital deformity."
    From the point of view of grant, the development of these services for handicapped persons under Section 29 of the National Assistance Act, will, because of the way the Bill is framed, now be treated as "relevant expenditure" under paragraph 10 of the First Schedule so far as it exceeds such expenditure incurred before May, 1959. That development is now grant-aided. Where the local authority, under Section 30 (1), which is embraced by Section 29, employs a voluntary organisation under a scheme as its agent such expenditure is also "relevant expenditure" and ranks for grant.
    Now we come to services that are not grant-aided. Under Section 31 of the National Assistance Act, a local authority may contribute to a voluntary organisation providing or including in its activities recreation or meals for old people. That was the type of organisation to which the hon. Member for Leith referred. This contribution is not now grant-aided and is not "relevant expenditure" under the Bill. The hon. Member will appreciate, however, that the Bill as now amended—and when we include a later Amendment to Schedule 1 which proposes to give grant to local authorities who contribute to voluntary organisations providing residential accommodation—goes at least some way, although I admit not all the way, to meet the wishes of the hon. Gentleman.
    So far as grant-aid under the National Assistance Act is concerned, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that paragraph 10 of the First Schedule of the Bill goes a long way further than the present position. We cannot count as "relevant expenditure" all the grants that the local authority now gives without grant-aid; nevertheless, under general grant, expenditure by local authorities on grant-aid to voluntary bodies will be taken into account so far as it is referred to in paragraph 10 of the First Schedule as amended by a proposed later Amendment. The hon. Gentleman will remember that there is nothing to prevent a local authority making payments or continuing such aid as it now gives, and local
    630
    authorities under general grant conditions will have greater freedom to increase their payments.
    Mr. James McInnes: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's difficulty in trying to explain the differences between those services which are not grant-aided and those which are grant-aided and, on the other hand, the power of local authorities to give grants themselves. There is considerable doubt among local authorities about their precise powers in these matters. Will the hon. Gentleman, apart from what is incorporated in the Bill, make available to hon. Members details of the powers possessed by local authorities in this field, not necessarily in respect of grant-aid, but with what they themselves can do in the matter?
    Mr. Browne: So far as powers are concerned, the local authority has power to make contributions to voluntary organisations over a very wide field indeed. It would be hard to find a voluntary organisation to which local authorities cannot contribute. So far as taxpayers' aid is concerned, under the National Health (Scotland) Act that is "relevant expenditure". Although we have extended the National Assistance Act in two directions even since the Bill was brought in, and although I am sure that we would like to if we could, we do not feel that we can grant-aid all types of payments made by local authorities to various organisations.
    Mr. Hoy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for at least attempting to explain the different forms of assistance under the various Acts. The point that he made about assistance in providing living accommodation is, of course, in no way connected with the new Clause that I have moved. That is a quite distinct and separate point.
    On the question of the supply of food to elderly people, it is difficult to understand what the hon. Gentleman has been saying in view of the fact that recently, because of an increase in the price of food, this had to be borne not by the local authority, but by the old people themselves. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman might have gone a little further today, although I am prepared to admit that certain adjustments have taken place. I hope that through discussion of

    631
    this proposed new Clause voluntary associations, together with the local authorities, will be better aware in future of what powers they possess.
    In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    First Schedule.—(RELEVANT EXPENDITURE.)
    Mr. George Lawson: I beg to move, in page 14, line 27, at the end to insert:
    (e) in making grants towards the provision of special schools for spastic and other handicapped children.
    I wish to make a plea for special treatment for the handicapped child. I am aware that as the Bill stands we shall be told that any expenditure on behalf of handicapped children will be treated as "relevant expenditure" and that in consequence the local authority will be paid a certain amount for each, child under the age of 15. No doubt, we shall get the answer that the handicapped child, like the normal child, will be covered by "relevant expenditure" and that in making the general grant, which would include all children under 15, the central authority will be discharging its responsibility for the handicapped child just as it will be discharging its responsibility for the normal child.
    The mere fact that a child is handicapped imposes a large burden upon those who care for him. If he is educable it will cost more to educate him than it will to educate the normal child. I am concerned with all handicapped children, but I am particularly concerned with spastic children. It is only within the past few years that people have become aware of the number of spastic children. Only a few years ago in my constituency, because of what amounted almost to despair among various parents that their children would not be admitted to any educational institution, those parents, with others who were very much concerned with the subject, formed a voluntary organisation to set up an institution that would cater for spastic children. I am mentioning my constituency because this might be taken as the heart of the effort, although it extends over Lanarkshire.
    632
    An institution was set up in Lanarkshire which was aided by the borough. The borough gave to the association the house in which the school was set up. I am happy to say that the education authority, recognising the value of this work, gave assistance. The position now is that the running expenses of this institution, Glenview, such as the provision of teachers and other costs, apart from heating, lighting, and the rent of the building, have been taken over by the education authority. In turn, the authority receives from the State a grant of 60 per cent. of the cost of running this very worthwhile institution.
    It is a small venture which handles only a small number of children, but the Lanarkshire education authority is extending this work, and there is a similar institution at Auchinraith, where a more complete school has been brought into existence. When this venture at Auchinraith is completed, Glenview will be used as the centre to test children to find whether they are educable, in which case they will be sent there.
    The 60 per cent. grant which is paid by the Department towards the expenses of this effort to deal with the spastic child should not be jeopardised. But as I see it, the 60 per cent. grant will disappear. It emerges from the Bill that the Lanarkshire education authority will be told that what is spent on Glenview and Auchinraith will be "relevant expenditure" and that no more will be paid. That is my understanding of the position, and I hope that something better can be done. This is one of the reasons why we are seeking to insert into the Schedule a provision which would enable this type of school to be excluded from the items classified as "relevant expenditure".
    I want to make another point about a venture which is going further than Glenview, which, in effect, has been taken over by the education authorities. Glenview and Auchinraith will deal with those who are classified or considered to be educable spastic children. This will still leave many spastic children not provided for. The number of spastic children, happily, is relatively small compared with the number of children in the area. I understand that if Lanarkshire has the same average percentage of spastic children as other areas, there will be about 135 spastic children there.

    633
    I understand that the people who run the association have discovered and registered 90 of those children, of whom about 57 are being dealt with in one way or another. Some of these children must be hidden away. We do not know where they are. That much is evident if we assume that the same averages for these children apply to Lanarkshire as elsewhere. Possibly their parents are ashamed to show them.
    4.30 p.m.
    The Lanarkshire Spastic Association, which set up the Glenview venture, has gone further and started a similar venture in a house which was gifted to the association and is known as the Alexander Anderson Home for Spastics, situated at Wishaw. It caters not only for Wishaw and Motherwell, but for the whole of Lanarkshire. This is an entirely voluntary venture, yet the association based upon this home that was gifted to it in Wishaw, is handling 27 spastic children. The home is unable to take in all the children on any one day and at present handles 14 or 15 of them a day. There will be accommodation for more children when certain alterations are made, but at present the home is handling the 27 children and taking in 14 or 15 of them on three days a week. An idea of the area covered by the association can be gained from the fact that the special bus which the association itself has bought and mans spends six hours a day collecting the children, bringing them to school and taking them home again. Very wide areas in Lanarkshire are covered on this basis.
    I recently visited the home. I was not able to visit when the children were present, but I hope to visit and see them soon. I was told what was being done for the children and the kind of response they were making. The association is trying to do for them what the education authority is not doing. It is trying to deal with the children that the education authority rejects. If the home can bring a child to the stage where the education authority accepts it as educable, it will be happy for the education authority to take it over.
    The association's approach is that any spastic child should have such treatment as can be given. It does not confine itself to the term "educable" as meaning the acquisition of knowledge or reading
    634
    or writing but prefers to use the expression "trainable". The association thinks in terms, for example, of the child which can be brought to feed itself or to attend to its own toilet arrangements. It is argued that if a child can be brought from a state of utter helplessness to the stage where it can attend to its own toilet arrangements and feed and wash itself, when the child grows to adult age it will not require the same service that the child must at some stage have given to it. When, say, a child's parents die, it is better for the State to take over an individual who can at least perform these minimum services, if nothing else. From that viewpoint, the association does not confine itself to the word "educable" but thinks in the wider sense of training.
    One little boy was described to me by the matron of the home. She said that when simply lying with his eyes closed, which is almost all he does, he would be regarded as a beautiful little boy, sound asleep. When his eyes are open, however, they are vacant and void. He cannot see and it is exceedingly doubtful whether he can hear. It is now thought that he might, perhaps, hear a little, but for most of the time he simply lies with his eyes closed.
    The home has not said that it can do nothing with that child and is taking him about three times a week. According to the matron of the home, the child's mother has expressed the view that the child is now sleeping and eating better and in some ways is thought to be more contented and happy.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): It might save the time of the Committee if I were to point out to the hon. Member that his Amendment covers only schools—that is, education institutions. Unless the child is educable, it does not go to an educational institution, but becomes a Health Service responsibility.
    Mr. Lawson: I see no reason why the Alexander Anderson Home for Spastics, which is at present on a day basis but will be turned over to a full-time basis when alterations are completed, cannot be regarded as a school. Why cannot we think in terms of training instead of merely whether a child is educable? Surely, the function of a school is not merely to teach reading and writing. If

    635
    it can be extended to teach someone to feed and wash himself and to do other things, that also is education. If the spirit is willing, there should be no difficulty in including this type of institution and others of a like character which could be set up. My plea is not simply for Lanarkshire and this one institution.
    This is a service which should be rendered but is not being rendered, except in one or two isolated instances, of which I have quoted one. This is the sort of thing that cannot be left to voluntary effort. I understand that the group of people who are running the home are meeting the cost of £7,000 a year for wages alone. There is a large staff to handle this small number of children.
    We cannot leave this kind of service to voluntary effort. We cannot pass this over to the education authority on the basis that it is covered as relevant expenditure. If the Under-Secretary is telling us that it is the responsibility of the Health Service, I must tell him that the Health Service is not carrying out the responsibility. This is a job that requires to be done.
    If the hon. Gentleman cannot accept the precise form of the Amendment but will consider it and try to do what can be done, we will rest content and be prepared to withdraw the Amendment. I do not want the question merely to be passed by and for us to be told that this is nobody's responsibility or, at best, that it is the responsibility of the Health Service. Without the kind of institution which I have described, children of this sort will be hidden away and when they have grown up, when their parents and those who care for them have died, a much heavier responsibility must be undertaken. Let us do what we can now. This is a small thing to ask. Let us show that a venture of this sort can be taken up by the State and that we will do as much as can be done. My plea is that we should consider what this institution is doing and see whether we can make provision to cover this kind of service.
    Sir James Henderson-Stewart: No one can have listened to the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) without feelings of the utmost
    636
    sympathy for the case he has made. Those of us who have had some contact with these spastic schools are filled with admiration for the work they do and their compassion for the children. Therefore, with the general objectives of the hon. Member I am in complete sympathy.
    My only doubt is whether the hon. Member is right to raise the matter here, or whether we would be doing the best service to these unhappy children by incorporating his Amendment in the Bill. My recollection is that the Education (Scotland) Act already makes adequate provision for what are accepted as being spastic schools. If I am wrong, no doubt somebody will correct me. Special grants are permitted and special duties are laid upon the authorities, and so on.
    Whether the institution that the hon. Member described should properly be called a school or should be regarded rather as something that the Health Service deals with, I do not profess to know. I would have thought, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary seemed to confirm, that this was more properly a Health Service matter. It may be, as the hon. Member said, that the Health Department should be tackling it. If that is what the hon. Member is asking for, I should support him. I simply want to make it plain that though one might not be able to support the hon. Member in pressing the Amendment, because I do not consider this to be quite the right way of getting what we want, the fact that he has made this appeal is important.
    I hope that in replying, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will recognise, as I am sure he will, the broad sympathy that exists in the Committee for this general proposition and indicate to us in what way the State, in some of its Departments, will be able to succour these unfortunate and unhappy children.
    Mr. William Hannan: The interventions of the two hon. Gentlemen opposite have emphasised the importance of the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson). In saying that this was not the occasion to deal with the matter, the Under-Secretary has stressed the necessity for the whole of this problem to be examined. When the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart) says

    637
    that provision is made within the Education (Scotland) Act, he is probably right. The point with which my hon. Friend and those of us who support him are concerned is that this is a service which should be kept outside the sphere of the general grant. We believe that this new method of financing local authorities will mean only detriment to their services.
    We on this side want this aspect of education kept outside the general grant. Schools of this nature require extra equipment simply because of the handicaps from which the children are suffering. Is it not the case that in the Glasgow School for the Deaf, for example, which happens to be in my constituency—we can all quote our own particular cases—more than the normal amount of equipment is needed to help the children? Visual and aural aids, for example, are some of the things which are evidence of the necessity for the action which my hon. Friend's Amendment seeks.
    This is not a new topic. The hon. Member for Fife, East was a member of the Advisory Council for Scotland which published excellent Reports in 1951. I hasten to add that it was in 1951 that these Reports were printed and it cannot therefore be argued that the Labour Party did nothing about them.
    4.45 p.m.
    No more noble language has been used than the terms in which those Reports have been printed. There were Reports concerning pupils defective in hearing, handicapped in speech, maladjusted, physically handicapped, epileptic and, perhaps most important of all, the final Report, "Administration of education for handicapped pupils," which summed up all the Reports.
    If the Committee will bear with me I will quote a paragraph which reveals the problem. I hope that the Government today will give a ray of hope to suggest that they will take some action and give some answer to the special pleading which has been used. The Report reads:
    "In the course of our inquiries we have been much impressed by the need for vigorous action to ensure that handicapped pupils are given the educational opportunities that they require if they are to develop their own powers and make their service to the community as effective as possible. They are at least as much entitled to share in facilities for education and training as children more favourably placed."
    638
    I draw special attention to the last paragraph:
    "We have seen many examples of devotion and generosity in the provision of education for these disabled children by voluntary as well as statutory bodies but we have also seen evidence of failure and neglect."
    This was in 1951, and much has been done since then, but we seek to ensure that some regard will be paid to the difficulties which local authorities face in providing this accommodation and the necessary equipment to assist them in education. In that Report we read that 40 per cent. of the mentally retarded children were not receiving the educational attention which they required. I hope that the Under-Secretary will at least give some indication that this problem is exercising the Government's mind and that even now, following a hurried word with his right hon. Friend before he replies, he will indicate that at a later stage he will be prepared to consider the Amendment favourably.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: The Committee always pays special attention to the needs of the less fortunate and particularly to the needs of the physically handicapped, but I am bound at the outset to stress the form of the Amendment. It seeks to exclude from the purview of general grant the provision of special schools for spastics and other handicapped children. It is excluding the provision by local authorities of special schools for spastics and other handicapped children, because the Amendment would not affect the grant-aided voluntary residential schools, of which a list was given to the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) by my right hon. Friend in reply to a Parliamentary Question on 9th May. There were seven schools on that list and three more have been added in the course of the present year, making ten in all. Those schools would not be covered by the Amendment, as the arrangements for them will not be affected by general grant.
    Special schools form part of the educational provision for an area under Section 1 (4) of the Education (Scotland) Act. They are designed to meet the special requirements of pupils who suffer from a disability, whether of mind or body, such as to make it undesirable for them to be educated in ordinary classes. That is the definition.

    639
    I should make clear to the Committee how this is dealt with administratively. Such children may attend special classes in ordinary schools or they may attend day or residential special schools provided by their own education authority, and most of them in fact attend day schools. Alternatively, they may attend day or residential schools provided by another education authority, in which case the education authority from which they come reimburses the education authority which provides the school to the extent of a share of the net cost for that pupil—the net share after the Government have contributed the present percentage grant. That will continue to be relevant expenditure. The only difference will be that, instead of contributing the net share, the education authority which sends a pupil to a school in the area of another education authority will be contributing its share of the gross cost, because it will be receiving its share of the general grant in respect of those children under the formula. We should bear in mind those various categories. The present arrangements for co-operation between local authorities are working well and should certainly continue to do so under the new arrangements.
    Where children suffer from a handicap which affects relatively few—the blind, the deaf and so on—it is obviously more economical for most authorities to send them to a school provided by another authority on a regional basis than for each authority itself to attempt to meet the needs of such children. There need be only a few such schools in a country the size of Scotland.
    By far the largest proportion of such handicapped children are the mentally handicapped. They account for over 70 per cent. of the total of the handicapped children. Of them, all but a very small fraction—25 out of just over 7,000—attend day schools. Most education authorities have their own day schools or day classes for mentally handicapped children. There are nearly 400 classes for them out of a total of 650 special school classes. These classes are comparable with classes for ordinary pupils, and the Committee will agree that there is no case for dealing with those who are mentally handicapped separately and differently from either ordinary or extraordinary pupils.
    640
    I turn now to the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Motherwell, which always arouses the greatest sympathy in the House—that of the spastics. They form the next largest category. Of the thousand or so who are physically and mentally capable of being educated or trained, nearly half are in ordinary day schools, over 300 in day classes at special schools and 80 in the residential special schools. There are 70 for whom training other than education is needed, and they are in occupational centres, and 40 for whom tuition at home is provided by education authorities either because they can best be looked after at home or because their parents do not wish them to leave home. Those for whom no education has yet been provided represent a very small proportion—rather less than two dozen—and in many of these cases arrangements are at present in train.
    The hon. Member suggests that there may be other cases which have not come forward, but I am sure he will agree that in the last three years great progress has been made in this matter, and I think that today the need to do the best which can be done and the possibility of doing something for these children are becoming clear.
    The fact that we cannot accept the Amendment does not mean that we are in any way unsympathetic, but I cannot accept the underlying suggestion made by the hon. Member that where vigorous action is needed it can be taken only by the Government. Vigorous action can be taken by the local authorities. These children are a local responsibility—the responsibility of the community in which they live. The hon. Member says that there is evidence of failure and neglect, but that was some time ago, and I am quite certain that everybody is much more alive today to their responsibilities in this matter than they were in the past. In any case, any such failure would be a failure in a duty imposed by the Education Act just as much as any of the other duties imposed by that Act.
    While we will certainly look at the special case which the hon. Member has mentioned, we cannot accept the Amendment. During his speech he used words to the effect "if Lanarkshire has the same proportion of spastics as other areas". In saying that he made it clear that this is a problem which by its nature

    641
    is spread throughout the country. It is for local authorities to deal with spastics in their own areas. They can deal with them either by providing education themselves or by making arrangements with neighbours or by making such voluntary arrangements as they think fit in the best interests of the children, but it must be for the local authority to make that decision, naturally in consultation with the parents.
    Since such a large proportion of handicapped children are dealt with by education authorities under existing arrangements within the framework of the Education Act, since these arrangements are working and will continue to work satisfactorily, and since the education of these children is the responsibility of the education authority in exactly the same way as the education of normal children—indeed, even more than the education of normal people—this is eminently a case which should be covered by the responsibilities of local authorities and should not be made an exception by taking it out of the general grant.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. William Ross: The last point made by the Under-Secretary was that a large number of these children are being dealt with under existing arrangements, and he feels that we should rely on such existing arrangements to continue this good work. Does he not appreciate that the purpose of this Bill is to change the existing arrangements? After the Bill is passed, whatever finance is incurred by a local authority in respect of the special schools for the handicapped will be merged with everything else, not just for its own area but all over Scotland.
    Therefore, in telling us to rely on existing arrangements the Under-Secretary is making the argument for us. If he wants to continue the existing arrangements he must accept our Amendment. The hon. Baronet the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart) has shown an interest in this matter with my hon. Friend in the past, and I am sure he will agree that if there is one field of education in which there were gaps, this is it. I do not think any of us could say that all those gaps have been closed. From that point of view, because of the existing arrangements and because local
    642
    authorities knew they would get specific grant from the Government for what they spent, they could go ahead. What guarantee is there that when these arrangements are made the progress will not stop, and indeed that the progress we have been trying to get going will not now take place?
    There is no doubt that there are still gaps, that the progress has been uneven. To that extent any further progress will be equally uneven, and therefore this runs contrary to the argument in relation to the general grant, that we are all progressing together and that in the apportionment of expense everyone gets his share. Where a special job is being done that is where we require these special arrangements whereby these items are exempted.
    The speeches made have shown the sympathy we all feel in respect of many of these cases. The parents have shown courage, they have shown ability, they have made a tremendous effort to get everything done that was possible, not only by themselves but by the local authorities, and to my mind the local authorities are now just catching up with the need. It is because we do not want any thought of progress being endangered that we ask the Secretary of State to have yet another look at this matter. I feel that in the case of the spastic schools, if progress is being made under the existing financial arrangement, the one thing we should not do is to change them.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: While we will certainly continue to look at this matter, I could not give the Committee any assurance that we will find it possible to make an alteration in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman is setting too great store by the form of the assistance which has been given by the Exchequer so far to local authorities as an encouragement to them to go ahead. We have had this argument throughout the Bill. The hon. Gentleman is ascribing the progress made to the fact that the Government have been paying 60 per cent. of the cost. That is not the main reason for the progress, and I do not think that the substitution of general grant for the giving of a specific grant will have the effect he considers it is likely to have.
    In any case the hon. Gentleman admitted that progress has been uneven despite the 60 per cent. Even though

    643
    there has been a specific grant, some people have not taken advantage of it. That is not because of the grant. If the grant had been the sole inducement, they would all have gone ahead. It is simply because the authorities concerned may not yet have become as fully alive as other authorities to their duty in this respect—and this is the duty of the local authorities. So, whilst we will continue to look at this matter with the sympathy which the Committee demands of us, I cannot give any assurance that at a later stage it will be possible to accept an Amendment along these lines.
    Mr. Lawson: While I am grateful for the assurance that this matter will be looked at, and the case mentioned will be followed up, I want to reiterate our point of view.
    The Under-Secretary has told us that, even with the 60 per cent. grant, progress has not been as rapid as we could wish, and that gaps must clearly exist—and I would say there are considerable gaps in the country—despite that 60 per cent. grant. I suggest that when the 60 per cent. grant is taken away that is exactly what will happen. The 60 per cent. grant is earmarked for this particular institution, this particular school, this particular effort. That will cease, and it will be merged in a total general payment. When that goes there will be less inducement for special effort.
    In many cases there must be an effort to seek out the child. In other cases we know of parents who have for a long time sought to get the children into schools but have been unable to do so. I will repeat the example of the Glenview House in Motherwell, a Lanarkshire venture. That was taken over only a little over three years ago, because the need which this venture came into existence to serve at that time was not being met. Now the local authority has taken it over, and happily the central Government have been paying a grant of 60 per cent. That will finish, and it is regrettable.
    I repeat that this happened only a little over three years ago and therefore there was a gap then. The other venture of which I have spoken was that of the twenty-seven children at present within the compass of the Alexander Anderson Spastic Home. So there is a gap in Lanarkshire—twenty-seven children being
    644
    drawn from all over the county. There must be others of which we do not know, but at any rate there are twenty-seven children in Lanarkshire for whom there are not facilities except those provided voluntarily.
    There must be some children in Renfrewshire, there must be some children in the Midlothians, there must be some children in Fifeshire and in Roxburghshire and in the other counties of Scotland. As the hon. Gentleman has himself said, this deplorable and regrettable ailment is spread evenly throughout the country and as we have a gap in Lanarkshire there must be similar, perhaps worse, gaps in different parts of the country.
    I plead again for this matter to be looked at. The Amendment, if accepted, would put it in a special category. If the hon. Gentleman cannot accept the Amendment, then let us see that much more looking at is done than has been done. Whilst I want the institution I have spoken of looked at specially, I hope the whole country will be looked at closely. In the meantime I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The Temporary Chairman (Mr. S. Storey): It will be for the convenience of the Committee if we discuss together the next two Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser).
    Mr. Thomas Fraser: In view of the shortness of the time, Mr. Storey—there are less than two hours now before we reach the Third Reading of the Bill—I think it would be better if we on this side of the Committee were to forgo the next nine Amendments. This will enable us to make some progress with the rest of the Bill. I am sorry about it, but there is not time to discuss all those Amendments.
    Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to move, in page 16, line 18, after "1948", to insert
    "or in the making of payments or contributions under section twenty-six of that Act to voluntary organisations".
    Expenditure by local authorities on the provision of residential accommodation for the elderly and others in need of care and attention, not otherwise available to them, is now grant-aided and

    645
    will rank as relevant expenditure under Clause 10.
    This Amendment makes it clear that the same consideration applies where a local authority has already arranged, or proposes to arrange, with a voluntary organisation to help that organisation by making a grant towards capital expenditure on premises acquired for the purpose. This Amendment therefore ensures that the present position is maintained.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

    Second Schedule.—(APPORTIONMENT TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES OF AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF GENERAL GRANTS.)
    Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 16, line 23, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 33 on page 18.
    I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to take with this Amendment the proposed Schedule standing in my name, "Apportionment of General Grants".
    The Amendment takes out the existing Second Schedule and the proposed Schedule is in substitution of it. I hope that the Secretary of State will accept our proposal and will say "Thank you" to the Opposition for taking him out of a very embarrassing position. The right hon. Gentleman has discontinued the specific grants payable up to now, against the wishes of the local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman set up a working party of officials who had the unenviable job of producing a formula under which the new general grant might be distributed.
    The hon. Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) said yesterday that we had better accept the advice of the working party. Perhaps I should tell her that the members of the working party themselves were put in a most unenviable position. They did not wish to do the job. They believed that they were given an impossible job to do. They realised that there were no principles to guide them in the production of a formula for the distribution of this money. I understand that they looked at 12, 15 or even 20 different formulæ.
    They all had a shot at working out a formula for the apportionment of grant that would look to be reasonably fair to all the local authorities of Scotland. It was an exceedingly difficult job because,
    646
    as I say, they were relying completely on expediency. They were not guided by any principle, so, even with the best will in the world, they have produced a formula which will result in some local authorities in Scotland suffering considerable loss. Aberdeen is one local authority which will do so.
    The Secretary of State wanted the general grant to get rid of all the administrative inconvenience of paying specific grants in all cases. It was all this to-ing and fro-ing between the town hail, the county hall and St. Andrew's House which they wanted to get rid of. I thought that he made too much of that. I did not think that it was the great inconvenience which the Secretary of State made it out to be.
    5.15 p.m.
    Having got this far with the Bill, let us accept for the moment that the specific grants have to be discontinued and that a general grant has been created which would be in round figures broadly equal to the amount of money that the local authority would have got anyway in specific grant. Whether it is £1½ million less or £750,000 more does not matter for the time being; it is a sum of money made available to the local authorities similar to what the specific grants, if they had been retained, would have amounted to.
    The new system for the apportionment of the total amount of money according to our proposed Schedule is that each local authority shall, in the first year, get the same share of the total amount as it would have had of the total amount of specific grants had there been no change. That seems to be equitable. There is no need to have a close link between the local authority and the Secretary of State's Department to measure the amount of expenditure on each service.
    It will be realised that from year to year the increase in expenditure of all the local authorities in Scotland will not be even. It is inevitable that it will be uneven. We have today discussed the provision of schools for spastics and other handicapped children; some authorities provide this service and others do not. It would be the wish of all of us to do our utmost to secure that local authorities achieving a very high standard should get a higher grant in consequence of the

    647
    additional service they provide for their people.
    Consequently, in our proposed schedule we seek to provide that in determining the grants for future years—not the first year—the Secretary of State shall take into account the expenditure incurred in providing expenditure for the relevant services in the year just finished, or the last year for which accounts are available, and calculate what proportion that is of the total amount of general grant. That will show the proportion of the general grant which should be given to the local authority for the ensuing year.
    There is some principle behind our proposed formula. There is no principle whatsover behind the formula which we seek to delete, because it is pure expediency. I can tell the Joint Under-Secretary that the members of the working party have told me that it was pure expediency and that it could be nothing else, and they are not very proud of their work. Some of them told me that they had an impossible task. Those with whom I have discussed our alternative scheme have said that the proposed Schedule is at least based on some principle. It seeks to give each authority in Scotland a sum in general grant which corresponds to what it has done in providing services the expenditure on which counts as relevant under the First Schedule.
    I will not labour the matter any more, for the time is short, and we have scrapped a great many Amendments to the First Schedule to enable us to proceed with some of the matters which are to be raised when we reach the Report stage.
    What we have proposed is fair. If the Secretary of State rejects it, he will be insisting upon a formula which is manifestly unfair. Hon. Members whose constituencies will suffer have pointed out that it is unfair and have asked that some means shall be found of overcoming the disadvantage which their authorities will suffer.
    For the purpose of this discussion we have accepted the general grant. We now assume the general grant. The only question now is how the general grant shall be distributed. I honestly believe that under our formula a great deal less calculation will be needed than would be
    648
    necessary under the formula in the existing Second Schedule. The existing formula is so difficult that the Secretary of State, in making the calculations which he sent to us to give us some idea how it would work out, had to tell us that no reliance could be put on the figures. It is so complicated that town clerks and county clerks have said that it is beyond them to make a calculation on the basis of the Second Schedule formula. They will not be in any such difficulty if our proposed Schedule is accepted. I trust that it will be accepted by the Secretary of State without too long a discussion.
    Mr. J. Grimond: I hope that the formula, from my point of view, will be improved by the next Amendment which we shall discuss. However, as the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) has said, it remains profoundly unsatisfactory and very alarming to certain Scottish local authorities.
    I do not intend to argue again the whole principle of the general grant. However, as far as can be seen, if the Bill had been in operation last year Shetland would have lost about £32,000. When I wrote to the Joint Under-Secretary a long time ago about the effect of the Bill, he kindly pointed out that the position may be altered in the next two or three years and that the exact future effect of the equalisation grant is rather difficult to calculate. However, I do not think it is denied that for a year or two, at any rate some counties—including my own, some in the North-East and some in the South—and some burghs will suffer very badly under the Bill.
    My contention is that these authorities will be suffering almost entirely by chance, that there is no rhyme, reason or logic about it. If the Government had said that Shetland, Banff, or Aberdeen were getting too much, and that there was a case for reducing the grant, we should have listened to it. I do not say that we should have agreed with it, but it would have been a point of view. However, it seems to be entirely a lottery, and some counties and burghs have come off badly and some have come off well. The unfortunate thing is that I do not think anyone could maintain that the ones which will be worse off under the Bill are the ones which deserve to be

    649
    worse off or can afford to be worse off. The authorities in my counties have a very small rateable value, and a small reduction in the grant will mean a very heavy extra financial burden for them. They and others all over Scotland which will be hit by the new system are among those which need help in special ways more than the average.
    We cannot argue again the whole principle of the Second Schedule and the formula, but I would ask the Secretary of State to consider whether it is sensible to bring in a formula which, it is admitted, works out in unexpected ways, in ways which he himself does not desire, and to the detriment of some of the poorer counties which need help. I do not know whether the suggested new method is ideal, but it seems at any rate a little more logical, defensible and fair than the one proposed by the Government, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give it serious consideration.
    Mr. W. S. Duthie: I find myself in agreement with the hon. Members for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). I sincerely trust that my right hon. Friend will accept the Amendment, for I intend to support it.
    Since the Second Reading debate last December, I have been seeking some light upon the Second Schedule, but I have failed. I was speaking during the Committee stage when the Guillotine operated. I will not reiterate the arguments that I was using, but I would point out that I have had no explanation of the Schedule from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or my hon. Friends the Joint Under-Secretaries, despite numerous approaches.
    I wanted an explanation for the fact that my county fared so badly in the guiding figures with which we were provided. If no credence is to be given to the figures, why were they issued? We must accept them as being something in the nature of a guide. According to those figures, Banffshire will come off very badly. All kinds of conflicting statements have been made by the Joint Under-Secretaries. One said that there would be no loss to any local authority because of the distribution of the £750,000.
    Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson),
    650
    another of the Joint Under-Secretaries, contemplated with equanimity the fact that some local authorities might be impoverished for some time, stating that when their impoverishment became evident there might be a revision of the Schedule. I cannot accept that. The figures of the weighted populations and the results of the application of the formula shown in the document which was distributed to us indicate to me, as a businessman, that the Second Schedule is utter nonsense and cannot be accepted.
    If the present Second Schedule comes into operation, my county will suffer a very severe loss in the second year, and it is wrong to say that that will not be translated into a lowering of education standards and standards in the other services which are provided. A method of allocation of this nature must not only be fair but be obviously so; and the Schedule is anything but that.
    It is implicit in the proposed new Schedule that local authorities would produce a budget which would be scrutinised, presumably, at St. Andrew's House and an allocation of funds made in terms of the gross amount available for distribution. That seems to me to be a businesslike way to proceed. I am sure that the method implicit in the present Second Schedule would outrage the business ethics of the Secretary of State and the members of his family, for there is nothing businesslike about it, and I cannot accept it as a basis of allocation. It is argued that it is the best that could be devised. All I can say is that it is a very poor best and one that I cannot accept.
    I will not reiterate the arguments which were previously used. I merely say that I support the proposal of the hon. Member for Hamilton, and that if we go into the Lobbies I shall vote for it.
    5.30 p.m.
    Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: No doubt the document issued by the Secretary of State showing how he thought we should all suffer or benefit under the proposed arrangements was well based in that it employed the ancient principle of "divide and rule" to a large extent. However, many people have had second thoughts about it. The almost metaphysical nature of the formula is such that those who appear

    651
    to gain may now lose if one weighs up different factors. My own burgh council has looked into the matter again. It is inclined to think—not that it wants to be too suspicious of the Secretary of State—that instead of being, as it is supposed to be, a gaining authority under this formula, it may, in fact, lose.
    I ask the Secretary of State to be good enough to turn his mind to this question tonight. Will he be good enough to try to justify the formula as it stands at present? If it is not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) says, a formula designed solely on the basis of expediency, or, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said, a formula which turns out, in effect, to be a lottery, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the basis of principle upon which it is founded?
    Very few of us can quite understand it, and few of those who work in local government and have done so for a very long time can appreciate what it is. The formula reminds me very much of the definition we had in the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956, which no valuation expert, so I understand, could fully appreciate. Perhaps this is something out of the same stable. If it is not, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what are the main pillars of principle which support the formula.
    Mr. J. N. Browne: I do not want to be involved in an argument with the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) about what his Amendment actually means, because he did explain what he means by it. I can assure him, nevertheless, that his Amendment would not be a workable proposition if it were passed into law.
    Mr. Willis: It would double the amount. It is a very good one.
    Mr. T. Fraser: Since we discussed the matter in Committee, I have discussed it with local government officials who tell me that they understand my schedule but not the one which is in the Bill.
    Mr. Browne: Then I think that the best thing is to leave it for the hon. Gentleman's friends, who are officials, to discuss it with my right hon. Friend's officials.
    652
    The Amendment ignores, as I am sure the Committee knows, several very important considerations. First of all, it reverts to payment by results. It maintains the principle of grant distributed according to relevant expenditure——
    Mr. Willis: What is wrong with that?
    Mr. Browne: —instead of distributing according to physical and objective factors, not metaphysical factors, as the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) suggested.
    Mr. Willis: But surely the hon. Gentleman——
    Mr. Browne: I really must not give way.
    Mr. Willis: What a local authority spends is not metaphysical.
    Mr. Browne: I really must not give way to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). On looking at the report of my speech yesterday evening, I was astonished at the number of times he had interjected.
    I have been asked to explain the principle on which the formula was based. Population is the main factor. The main subsidiary factor is pupils and roads—number of pupils per mile of road. The aim is to attempt to provide a uniform set of tools to do the job, having regard to all conditions in each locality. We believe that these objective factors will become accepted in time. I agree with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) that the local authorities, especially those who, on the hypothetical calculations look like being losers, are quite naturally alarmed. If anyone produces a set of figures to indicate that any local authority will show a loss, of course people are alarmed.
    We shall have practical experience of this formula, especially in the second year, before it starts to hurt anybody, and we must have new legislation before 1963 for the equalisation grant. I do not believe that because we have not yet been able to devise a formula which has pleased everybody we cannot devise a formula, perhaps with some alterations in it, which will give a greater measure of justice and also a greater measure of encouragement to those local authorities which are at present lagging behind.

    653
    To all those who worry about the formula, I say that now is not the time to worry. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No, it is not. Now is not the time to worry. The first thing is to get the general principle at work. The next thing is to make a token payment on gains and losses and see what actually does happen before it hurts too much. After that, we can look at the formula and say. "Wherein is the formula wrong?"
    My hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) said that I had said there would be no loss. If he looks it up, he will see that I said, quite truly, there would be no loss to any authority in the first year but that there would be a gain of £750,000. Although he said that he has received no explanations, I think that he will do me the courtesy of admitting that he and I, and my officials, have had two or more talks lasting either side of three-quarters of an hour in which we have given him all the information and explanations for which he asked. It is not right to say that he has been denied any information or explanation.
    Mr. Duthie: I have asked for an explanation of why Banffshire comes out so badly. I have had no explanation of why Banffshire fares so badly in relation to the two adjacent counties.
    Mr. Browne: The explanation was that that was the way the formula worked.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: There must be some reason.
    Mr. Browne: Another weakness of the proposed Amendment is that it will not give to local authorities any freedom at all to spend any general grant on other than relevant expenditure. If, according to the proposal of the hon. Member for Hamilton, the more one spends on relevant expenditure the more grant one receives, there will be no encouragement to local authorities to use any fraction of general grant on other than relevant expenditure, because it will not qualify in the next year for grant.
    Mr. Fraser: But surely, the local authorities are not going to look at their budgets in future years and say that this or that comes from general rate fund and this or that comes from general grant, and that they will do A, B and C out of rate fund and D, E and F out of general grant. They will go on providing the
    654
    services, not deciding how much of the services will come out of general grant or out of general rate. The hon. Gentleman is imagining a situation which never does exist in local government.
    Mr. Browne: I took down what the hon. Member for Hamilton said in relation to future years. He said that they will take into account the expenditure incurred in providing relevant services——
    Mr. Fraser: Certainly.
    Mr. Browne: —and, therefore, they will not take into account expenditure incurred in providing other than relevant services.
    Mr. Fraser: No.
    Mr. Browne: Yes, because the general grant is based on objective factors, and if they want to spend a proportion of their share of the general grant on other than relevant expenditure, that does not affect the issue at all.
    Another weakness is that there will be competition between all local authorities to outspend each other on all services in order to get a larger share of the cake.
    Mr. Fraser: Nonsense.
    Mr. Browne: These are serious considerations.
    Mr. Fraser: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that local authorities will go out of their way to spend money quite unnecessarily, putting up the local rates, because they know that by so doing they will get more money from central funds? This is the craziest idea I have ever heard expressed.
    Mr. Browne: When the local authorities are competing against each other for a slice of the hon. Gentleman's cake, I submit that they will tend to do that.
    Mr. James McInnes: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that Glasgow will be moved to spend money on something simply because Edinburgh has done it, or conversely? As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton indicated, the first consideration of a local authority is to provide the essential services within its own area.
    Mr. Browne: But, under our proposals, Glasgow and Edinburgh will each have a bag of gold of a certain size, whereas, on

    655
    the hon. Gentleman's proposal, if Glasgow sees Edinburgh spending a great deal of money on something, it will say, "If we do not spend a great deal of money on relevant expenditure, Edinburgh will get relatively more than we."
    Another weakness of the suggestion made is that a local authority qualifying for its share of general grant by basing it on its relevant expenditure for the previous year would tend, I submit, to spend its money in the last year of the two or three year grant period in order that that expenditure should qualify for a maximum grant. The result of all this necessity for qualification would, I believe, tend to make planning more difficult, in that a local authority would never know what share of the grant to expect.
    The Government's view is that it is essential to base the grant on objective factors and not on current expenditure. Under the Bill, there are objective factors throughout. Stage one, down to a county, is on weighting. Stage two, to burghs, is on rateable or standard rateable value, which is an accepted yardstick and an accurate measure of resources. The whole proposal in the Amendment is contrary to the conception of general grant, and we cannot accept it.
    Mr. McInnes: I am amazed at the suggestion which the hon. Gentleman has just made. In response to an invitation by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mahon) he went on to state the nature and the make-up of the formula. He said that the broad outline of the formula was designed to deal with sparsity of population, the road mileage, the number of children under 15 years of age attending school, and so on.
    That was the formula which was introduced in 1929 under the block grant arrangements of that year. It is the formula which is in operation in respect of the equalisation grant. Does the hon. Gentleman seriously contend for one moment that the distribution of the equalisation grant is on an equitable basis? He knows that even the very city which he himself represents has not had a single penny since the introduction of the equalisation grant. Yet
    656
    he commends the formula to us as being fair, equitable, and doing justice to local authorities.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has a "smart Aleck" method, if I may say so, of trying to dispose of our Amendments—he has done it at least a dozen times—by saying that the Amendment cannot be accepted because he understands that it is not workable. The strange thing is that quite a number, if not most, of the Amendments which we have put down have been at the behest of people experienced in local government.
    Mr. J. N. Browne: I know that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to misquote me. He will wish me to say that no one in a Government would say that an Amendment was not workable unless that was the advice of the Law Officers. We should never say that an Amendment was not workable in that context unless it was so.
    Mr. McInnes: I hope that the hon. Gentleman, in claiming that credit for himself and for those in Government circles, will at least have the decency to extend the same attitude to those of us on this side who are frequently guided by local government officials who are dealing with these matters from day to day. At the first meeting of the Standing Committee, I think it was, I told the Secretary of State that I had put down an Amendment actually at the behest of a member of the working party which suggested the formula to the Government.
    What astonished me most of all was the statement of the Joint Under-Secretary, in dealing with the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), that he was disturbed because the Amendment made no provision for expenditure other than relevant expenditure. He does not seem to realise that he has introduced a Bill which makes no provision for expenditure other than relevant expenditure. Indeed, he has been compelled to produce certain Amendments to the Bill to remove its application to relevant expenditure and make it apply to specific grants.
    We had an illustration of that in respect of town and country planning matters. There are still one or two other illustrations in respect of the police and fire services. There is no use his trying

    657
    to condemn the Amendment on the ground that it makes no provision for expenditure other than relevant expenditure. The Joint Under-Secretary is either not using effectively the ammunition provided for him by the Scottish Office or he does not understand it. It must be one or the other. I cannot imagine the officials in the Scottish Office giving him a brief on the lines of his recent contribution to the debate.
    5.45 p.m.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: I do not wish to go over all the arguments which have been put forward. I merely want to take this opportunity to do what is done in many Continental assemblies, to explain my vote or, rather, the lack of it.
    Mr. Willis: Not again.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: I have listened with the greatest attention to the debate, and have been considering very carefully whether or not I should support the Amendment.
    As far as I can make out, neither formula will be very successful. I realise that the formula contained in the Bill as it stands will benefit some local authorities—although it will not benefit mine. I feel that if I were to vote against the whole Schedule I should be seeking to remove the kernel of the Bill, and supporting a substituted formula which is not so good as the existing one, bad though that one is. Therefore, I shall have to rely upon the assurance which has been given that all the calculations will be made again.
    I was not very happy to hear the Joint Under-Secretary say that everything will be all right in the first year, and that the Government will wait to see how much the formula hurts before they do anything about it. I suggest that, as it has been shown quite plainly that the formula will hit some local authorities, the work should be started straight away, because this is a complicated matter; it takes a lot of time and study, and I should think that the intention of the Secretary of State not to hit local authorities who have done well should not have to wait until the second year before it operates. If he cannot get a proper formula devised in time, I suggest that something should be arranged in the transition period. I regret that I cannot support the formula as it stands.
    Mr. Ross: We are now quite accustomed to seeing the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) dodging the issue. If she had followed up in Committee the speech that she made in the Second Reading debate we should have been given some evidence of her concern about the matter, but during the eight sittings we had in our discussion of it the noble Lady said never a word. Such was her concern. Now that we come to the question of the actual Schedule she is faced with the fact, as shown by the evidence of her hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie), that it is inexplicable and not workable. We have no evidence of what will happen under it, but we know that it will be manifestly unfair to local authorities on the basis of what they are doing.
    She has heard the Joint Under-Secretary condemning our suggested Schedule—and why did he condemn it? He said, "This will be payment by results," which is exactly what she wants for Aberdeen. She wants Aberdeen to be rewarded for what it has done and is doing. How on earth can she object to that and say that when a decision is taken on this point she will sit in her seat and support her own Government?
    Lady Tweedsmuir: As I believe the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) said earlier, the formula suggested by the hon. Member is too simple, and it does not answer the very difficult questions involved in applying a general grant.
    Mr. Ross: That is just exactly what it does—and it does it so well that the only condemnation that we can get from the Joint Under-Secretary is that it does something that the hon. Lady herself is asking for.
    Did the Joint Under-Secretary make any effort to explain his own formula? My hon. Friend said that it was very difficult to read. I would say that it is quite easy to read, but it is difficult to understand—and very much more difficult to justify. The Joint Under-Secretary said, "We want to replace metaphysical considerations by physical ones. We want to have an objective study of the matter and an objective formula." Let us examine the Government's delightfully objective formula. Local authority

    659
    expenditure on services such as education has suddenly become metaphysical. That is typical of the slick phrase-making and the smiling way in which the Joint Under-Secretary hopes to get away with this kind of thing.
    Paragraph 5 contains the best phrases. It says:
    "the weighted population … shall be the sum of the following …"—
    then comes the real phrase—
    "calculated by the Secretary of State …"
    I hope that he will calculate this personally, because we shall then never see him back in the House.
    Now let us examine the various objective considerations. First, there is the total population, then the number of children under fifteen years of age, and then there has to be a calculation of the proportion of the number of pupils to the miles of road—and the man who calculates the miles of road is once again the Secretary of State. He will be a busy man.
    Having decided that proportion, we translate it into a percentage. No justification has been offered why a proportion of under 2·5 to 1 should be called 50 per cent. No one has attempted to tell us why that percentage has been decided upon, or whether it is right. That percentage has to be added to the other two matters, and then we have to consider the landward population as a proportion of the total population, and that proportion is again translated into a percentage. We therefore have the total population and the number of children under fifteen years of age, to which we add a percentage, and yet another percentage. The formula has missed out the number of mountains——
    Mr. Gerald Nabarro: On a point of order. I beg to draw attention to the fact that less than 40 Members are present.
    The Temporary Chairman: Standing Orders do not permit a count when a Business Resolution is operating.
    Mr. Rankin: Further to that point of order. Is it not disgraceful that an hon. Member who has shown absolutely no interest in the proceedings of this Committee should simply walk in and draw
    660
    attention to the number of Members in the Chamber?
    Sir Peter Agnew: Is there any reason why a count is out of order?
    The Temporary Chairman: No dilatory Motion is allowed when a Guillotine is operating.
    Mr. Rankin: They do not know that; they are too ignorant.
    Mr. Ross: The intervention of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) proves once again what has been proved before in other matters raised by him—that a little learning is a dangerous thing.
    It would have been far better if the Joint Under-Secretary had attempted to justify this strangely objective formula. [Interruption.] It is rather strange that hon. Members who are anxious to raise points of order should so consistently be out of order themselves.
    I was saying that the formula deals with the number of miles of roads, and all the rest, and I was wondering why mountains were not included. At least, if a later Amendment is accepted, it may be possible to consider the question of sea routes served by certain ferries and by public transport vessels. That would obviously be something to consider in certain areas. It only shows the difficulties of this complex and unjustifiable formula. It could be justified only if it worked, and we have already been given proof by the hon. Member for Banff that it does not work. Not only that; no explanation could be given to the hon. Member why it did not work. I am sure that if there had been a satisfactory explanation one would have been given, even by one of what I am now beginning to regard as the "Maclayzy Gang" opposite.
    Another strange reason put forward for rejecting our formula was that since it provided payment by results it would lead to competition between local authorities in the spending of money. I should have thought that everybody knew that local authorities had limited resources, quite apart from the meagre grants that they will receive in future, and that they would have some concern for their ratepayers. Would the hon. Gentleman apply that same competition principle to his own formula? What would he think of

    661
    me if I were to suggest that since it is obvious that the greater road mileage an authority has the more that authority will get under the formula, all the authorities will start building roads like mad?
    There is another way of getting something out of his formula. A local authority can increase its population. Does he suggest that there will be competition among Scottish local authorities to stimulate an increase in their populations in order to get more under the formula? That is the kind of argument put forward by the hon. Gentleman. I suggest that no politician or statesman should be proud of saying to us, "Here we have a formula. Quite frankly, it does not work; we know it does not work. But do not worry about that. You are just Members of Parliament. Do not worry about the fact that it does not work." It is just like the Tory Government; it does not work. They say, "Just carry on; it will be all right. In the first year we shall make some changes and see what we can do after that."
    6.0 p.m.
    Is there any businessman on the benches opposite or anyone at all with any consideration of the practical aspects of financial accountancy who would be prepared to accept such an explanation? This is an insult to hon. Gentlemen on the Government back benches as well as to hon. Members on these benches. But the hon. Gentleman says—this is the best argument of all—"I have been assured by the Scottish Law Officers of the Crown that our formula will not work." We have had experience of the Scottish Law Officers before, and we have had reason to doubt their judgment and their pro-
    nouncements regarding the law of Scotland. Here, we are dealing with a matter of very complex accountancy. Why throw the Law Officers at us? [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] Yes, where are they? I consider that the Law Officers are the last people who should be brought into an argument of this kind.
    I understand that this Government formula was brought into being by a certain committee or working party. Did that body have the benefit of the attendance and the local authority and accountancy experience of the Law Officers? I am sure it did not. Here we are faced with the choice of two formulæ. The Government formula is incomprehensible; cannot be justified; does not work. Indeed, our intelligence is insulted by being told, "Don't worry about that. We might put that right in two or three years' time."
    The alternative formula is put forward in this Amendment. It is one which can be understood, which is eminently fair to the local authorities in respect of what they are doing and what they have done, and it gives them a guarantee that they will get a share of the aggregate amount in accordance with their share of the amount of work done in relation to education and other relevant services. That is the choice before the Committee, and I sincerely hope that the hon. Member for Banff will not be the only hon. Member opposite who will join us in the Division Lobby.
    Question put, That the words proposed to be left out to the end of line 35 on page 17 stand part of the chedule:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 194, Noes 152.

    Division No. 127.]

    AYES

    [6.4 p.m.

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Deedes, W. F.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Braine, B. R.

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Burden, F. F. A.

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

    Ashton, H.

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

    Duncan, Sir James

    Atkins, H. E.

    Campbell, Sir David

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Channon, Sir Henry

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

    Barter, John

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Cooper, A. E.

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Beamish, Col. Tufton

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Freeth, Denzil

    Bingham, R. M.

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Gammans, Lady

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Dance, J. C. G.

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Black, C. W.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Gibson-Watt, D.

    Bossom, Sir Alfred

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Glover, D.

    Glyn, Col. Richard H.

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Redmayne, M.

    Godber, J. B.

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Gower, H. R.

    Leavey, J. A.

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Leburn, W. G.

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Grant, W. (Woodside)

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

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

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

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Green, A.

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

    Russell, R. S.

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Sharples, R. C.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    McAdden, S. J.

    Shepherd, William

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

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

    Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

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

    Maddan, Martin

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    Marshall, Douglas

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

    Mathew, R.

    Teeling, W.

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Mawby, R. L.

    Temple, John M.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

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

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Thomson, R. (Croydon, S.)

    Hornby, R. P.

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Nicholson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Ch'ch)

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Hurd, A. R.

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

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

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

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

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

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

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

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Hyde, Montgomery

    Osborne, C.

    Webbe, Sir H.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Page, R. G.

    Whitelaw, W. S. I.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Partridge, E.

    Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Peel, W. J.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Woollam, John Victor

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Keegan, D.

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Mr. Finlay and Mr. Bryan.

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Rawlinson, Peter

    NOES

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Balfour, A.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

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

    Fletcher, Eric

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Benson, Sir George

    Foot, D. M.

    Janner, B.

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

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

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

    Blackburn, F.

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

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

    Bonham Carter, Mark

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

    Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

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

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Boyd, T. C.

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Lawson, G. M.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Grimond, J.

    Ledger, R. J.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Hale, Leslie

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Lipton, Marcus

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Champion, A. J.

    Hannan, W.

    MacDermot, Niall

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Hastings, S.

    McInnes, J.

    Clunie, J.

    Hayman, F. H.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Healey, Denis

    McLeavy, Frank

    Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

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

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Cove, W. G.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

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

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Holman, P.

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)

    Holmes, Horace

    Mellish, R. J.

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Holt, A. F.

    Messer, Sir F.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Diamond, John

    Hoy, J. H.

    Monslow, W.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Moody, A. S.

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

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Moyle, A.

    Duthie, W, S.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Mulley, F. W.

    Dye, S.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Oliver, G. H.

    664

    665

    Oram, A. E.

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Orbach, M.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Oswald, T.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Wigg, George

    Owen, W. J.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Willey, Frederick

    Paton, John

    Sparks, J. A.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    Pearson, A.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

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

    Proctor, W. T.

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

    Rankin, John

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

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Redhead, E. C.

    Swingler, S. T.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Reeves, J.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Reid, William

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Woof, R. E.

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Thornton, E.

    Zilliacus, K.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Viant, S. P.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Ross, William

    Wade, D. W.

    Mr. J. T. Taylor and Mr. Deer.

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Weitzman, D.

    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: I beg to move, in page 17, line 35, at the end to insert:
    (3) The Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, determine that any sea route between two places in a county, being a sea route served by a ferry or by public transport vessels and specified in the determination, shall be treated for the purposes of this paragraph as if it were a road in the county; and in any calculation under this paragraph any such determination shall be taken into account.
    The Amendment gives effect to an undertaking that I gave in Committee on behalf of my right hon. Friend in response to an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) and another Amendment bearing the name of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond).
    The question of special treatment for counties containing or consisting of islands was considered at the time the formula was being devised, but it was thought that the weighting given for remoteness and sparsity of population was adequate. Indeed, there was only one loser among the counties concerned, which were Argyll, Inverness, Orkney, Shetland and Ross and Cromarty, and that was Shetland. This case was considered at the time but it was felt that the formula should be kept as simple as it could possibly be made, and should not be disturbed without good reason.
    The Amendments that were tabled in Standing Committee were not put down when there was very much time for us to give them the full consideration they needed. When I undertook to reconsider the matter I warned the Committee that we might not be able to reach a decision by Report. We have been able to reconsider the matter, and we have come to the conclusion that it would not be unreasonable that an additional weighting should be added for sea routes and ferries.
    666
    Where communications within a county consist largely of sea routes we agree that it is not unreasonable to take the mileage of these routes into consideration in allowing a weighting for sparsity of population, based on the principle of pupils to miles of communicating roads. Inclusion of mileage by sea will enable us to take account of the additional cost of transporting children by sea to school or where they are transported only at the beginning and end of the period, of putting them up in hostels or lodgings during term.
    The Committee will observe that the new sub-paragraph gives the Secretary of State discretion to decide which sea-routes should be treated as if they were roads, and limits his discretion to these joining places within the county. Under the Local Government Act, 1948, the roads to be taken into consideration are roads for which the local authority or the Secretary of State for Scotland are responsible.
    I would add a word about the effect. So far as we can estimate, it will give these counties an extra £60,000 among them. This would be offset by a reduction of the Exchequer Equalisation Grant, which would amount to about half. All the other counties except Shetland are already gainers and they will be slightly more the gainers as the result of the passing of this Amendment. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland might well wish to know the effect on Shetland. So far as we can see, it will give Shetland an extra £2,800, the equivalent of a rate of 9d., when the Bill is in full operation.
    Mr. Grimond: I am grateful to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for bringing forward this Amendment. I always hoped that he and his colleagues underestimated their ingenuity when they said originally that they could see no way to offset the hardships which have been

    667
    done by leaving out the sea routes between islands. To give discretion to the Secretary of State for Scotland seems a fair way of doing it. I suggested that myself in the Amendment I had down in Committee. He is given discretion to treat certain sea routes as roads.
    It will be very satisfactory to everybody to know that at last there is some disposition on the part of the Government to acknowledge that sea routes are roads or the equivalent of roads between some parts of our island counties. In regard to the discretionary power, I take it that there is no question about the Secretary of State using his discretion. He is presumably going to include all Shetland sea routes, as he has given the figures for Shetland which seems to take into account all the sea routes. The other special problems from which Shetland suffers is its high percentage of old people and the predominance of the town of Lerwick, with its affect under the present formula.
    I understand that there will be at least 130 miles of sea route taken into account in Shetland. The weighting under the first part of Table I will go up from 30 to 37½ per cent. and the gain to the county will be about £2,800 as the Joint Under-Secretary has said. I take it that that is after taking into account the equalisation grant.
    I also assume that there is no great significance in the words:
    "by a ferry or by public transport".
    This means that the route from any island in the county, which is not a private island owned by one family, and from which there is some vessel which can carry general passengers, will be included. Children from all these islands may come to hostels even if they do not come to school daily across the sea and, therefore, I assume that they will be included.
    I welcome this Amendment as giving effect to something which is obviously fair and just. It will afford some small amelioration to a hard-hit county.
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I would join with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) in expressing my gratitude to the Secretary of State for the consideration which he gave to the Amendment in
    668
    the name of myself and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland in Standing Committee.
    This argument about sea routes is very old; it goes back for many years. My predecessor in my constituency, and no doubt the predecessor of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, wanted this reform. The matter was raised when we annually discussed the MacBrayne contract and Western Isles transport over the years that have passed.
    Always we have been arguing that sea routes should be regarded as the equivalent of main trunk roads on the mainland. We now have a compromise recognition, or a partial recognition, of the principle, which will be extremely important in the years to come although it may seem small in this context. It is a welcome recognition of a problem which has so far been avoided.
    I can express my gratitude best of all by finishing my speech in a few words. I am extremely grateful to the Secretary of State for taking the trouble to put this Amendment down in this form. I have always said that he has done his homework with blood, toil and sweat in Committee. We can at least say that his name, like that of the poet Keats, will be remembered because his epitaph will be written in water.
    The Amendment is very much appreciated. Now that the Government has recognised the principle, I hope that they will apply it a little more widely when we discuss the Western Isles in the future.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Schedule as amended agreed to.
    Third Schedule agreed to.
    Bill reported with Amendments; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), considered.

    Clause 1.—(GENERAL GRANTS TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES.)
    Mr. N. Macpherson: I beg to move, in page 2, line 1, after "payable", to insert:
    "otherwise than under section thirty of the Police (Scotland) Act, 1956".
    This is a drafting Amendment. It ensures that the expenditure on police road traffic patrols will continue to be eligible for police grant. At present, this expenditure is grant-aided twice, first

    669
    under Section 57 (4) of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, where it attracts an allowance towards running costs and depreciation, which varies in amount with the type of vehicle and the mileage run. Secondly, under Section 30 of the Police (Scotland) Act, 1950, the balance of the expenditure after deduction of the grant under the 1930 Act, ranks for 50 per cent. police grant.
    Expenditure on police traffic patrols is included in relevant expenditure by paragraph 7 of the First Schedule to the Bill. The specific grant under the 1930 Act will be discontinued. The intention is to pay police grant on the whole of this expenditure in future but to take account of the increase in police grant in the weight given to road traffic patrol expenditure in fixing the amount of the general grant.
    The Government have, however, been advised that, as the subsection stands, the effect of the words
    "in lieu of the grants paid in respect of relevant expenditure"
    would be to remove the authority for paying police grant, because the police grant is one of the grants payable in respect of police patrols. The Amendment puts this right.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to move, in page 2, line 35, after "concerned", to insert:
    "shall be laid before the Commons House of Parliament together with a report by the Secretary of State explaining the considerations leading to the provisions of the order".
    This Amendment gives effect to an undertaking which I gave in Standing Committee to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson). It ensures that the general grant order shall be accompanied with a White Paper giving the various considerations and a reasoned explanation of any increase or decrease. This is what the Committee wished.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: I thank the Minister for carrying out the undertaking he gave me during the Standing Committee sittings on the Bill. I am most grateful to him.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 36, leave out "the Commons House of Parliament" and insert "that House".—[Mr. J. N. Browne.]
    Mr. Rankin: I beg to move, in page 2, line 39, after "two" to insert, "or more than three".
    Time is now so precious that I do not want to waste it. Nevertheless, it should be put on record that we have about 35 minutes for the Report stage of the Bill. One solitary back bencher is proceeding to the Government side of the Chamber at the moment and we give him a hearty welcome. The reason for the widespread absence on the Government benches is that there is some sort of political discussion going on in the Tory Party in some other part of the House. Because of the action of the Government in guillotining this Measure, we regret that we have only a little more than half an hour for one of the most important aspects of the passage of a Bill.
    Hon. Members on this side will recollect that we had a prolonged discussion in Standing Commitee whether the period of the general grant should be one year, two years, or three years. The Amendment is put forward to try to reach a compromise on the matter. Compromise may be the art of politics, but the compromisers are apt to be kicked around by all sides. If we can have general agreement on this matter we might as well try to attain it. The Amendment reflects the White Paper, wherein it was laid down that the grant would normally be fixed for periods of two or three years in advance. When the White Paper was tabled there was very little opposition to that proposal.
    I had been led to believe that the Government view this compromise Amendment with favour and that they are prepared to accept it. If so, they will have a definite period of not less than two years and not more than three years for the duration of the general grant. The period is not unlimited, a fact that was expressed in many quarters by those who also said that the Government were being given much too great a power for an almost unlimited period to fix the operation of the general grant.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State did me the compliment in Standing Committee of saying that my Amendment was realistic. I am glad that at one period during the proceedings the hon. Gentleman has been realistic enough to face the

    671
    fact that our Amendments are realistic and that the Government are now prepared to accept it.
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I do not intend to delay the Joint Under-Secretary or the House, but I very much welcome the indication we have had that the Government are favourably disposed towards this Amendment. The other purpose of my saying anything at all is to show that it is at least possible to find a seconder from this side of the House for an Amendment.
    Mr. J. N. Browne: These occasions on Report stage are very pleasant. They are rather like a husband and wife discussing past squabbles over a cup of tea. There is no cup of tea here. Hon. Members on both sides in Committee upstairs criticised the Government for leaving what my hon. Friend the Member for Pollok (Mr. George) described as an open-ended period of grant. I brought some criticism on to my head by saying that we were following the English Bill, although I said, as will be seen from column 164 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Standing Committee, that I did not rest my case on that fact.
    We have considered the arguments made in Committee and the speech of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin). We appreciate the need to remove any unnecessary doubts on the part of Scottish local authorities and to strike a small blow for Scottish independence. As I said three times in Committee, it was very unlikely that Orders would be made for longer periods than three years. The hon. Member for Govan said that if that is unlikely, why not limit the period to three years? We accept that and accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 2.—(FIXING OF ANNUAL AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF GENERAL GRANTS.)
    Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to move, in page 3, line 18, to leave out "change" and to insert "increase".
    This Amendment is, as agreed in Committee, because "change" can only mean "increase".
    Mr. Rankin: Once again I should like to congratulate the Government, as I have
    672
    done on one or two occasions, on following the excellent lead set by the Opposition. This, again, is an Amendment which we moved in Committee. The Government at that time refused to accept it, but evidently even with this Government there are periods when they have second thoughts. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or second sight?"] I wish they had that, but if so, they do not reveal it. During the short recess between termination of the Committee proceedings upstairs and continuation of proceedings here, they have thought about this matter and agreed to accept the Amendment we pressed on them on that occasion. Once again I congratulate them, but I regret that they do not follow our example more often.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 4.—(CERTAIN GRANTS TO BE DISCONTINUED.)
    Mr. McInnes: I beg to move, in page 4, to leave out lines 18 to 20.
    During the Committee stage we directed the attention of the Secretary of State to the question of discontinuing certain grants, particularly to the one to which this Amendment relates, namely the question of Section 17 (2) of the Transport Act. The Secretary of State indicated that he would have another look at the matter between Committee and Report. I am hopeful that he will accept the advice we then tendered, because here he is discontinuing a grant which in volume amounts to £44,000 and which, in a way, gives him a degree of control over the appointment by local authorities of engineers and surveyors dealing with roads.
    The proposal to discontinue the grant would mean that local authorities would have freedom and liberty, as it were, to appoint anyone they cared to appoint, even those with no qualifications of any kind. We believe that today that is very undesirable. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will show his willingness to delete this part of the Clause.
    Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Although my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) hoped the Joint Under-Secretary would accept the Amendment and delete this provision, we would feel equally happy if the Joint

    673
    Under-Secretary could say that the Secretary of State has given this matter the fund of thought he promised during Committee stage and will ensure that road engineers employed by local authorities will, in fact, be competent and qualified engineers. These appointments have been made with the approval of the Minister of Transport, and this function in Scotland was transferred to the Secretary of State last year. One of the justifications for getting the approval of the Minister to the appointment was that part of the salary was paid by grant out of public funds.
    This kind of control by local authorities over the appointments they make has been to the advantage of local authorities and allowed them to appoint qualified men, whereas in other circumstances qualified men would not have been appointed. In Committee, I gave examples without naming persons concerned, for obvious reasons. We are all anxious that our roads should be in good repair, properly aligned and well constructed in the interests of road safety and of traffic movement. All these things can best be seen to when there are fully qualified engineers. I wonder if the Secretary of State can say what result there has been to the consideration given this matter by his right hon. Friend.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: I would not for an instant dissent from what the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) said, and certainly I agree that it is to the advantage of everybody that qualified persons should be employed as road surveyors. That was the purpose of the grants provided for in 1919. I can also tell the hon. Member that we gave very careful consideration to this matter.
    The reason for introducing the grants in 1919 was the need to reconstruct the highway system to meet the requirements of increasing motor traffic. In fact, all important highway posts are held nowadays by fully qualified men and even in the smaller localities—where, I would remind the House, one official may have to take charge of highways as well as other functions of the authority—a fund of experience in road maintenance and construction has been built up over many years. There is little doubt that forty years later the object of Section 17 (2) of the Act has been achieved and the decision to abolish the grant is justified.
    674
    The hon. Member asked whether there would be any other means of ensuring that highway authorities employ only qualified persons. I am bound to tell him that at present—I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) was fully aware of this—there is no compulsion on local authorities to appoint qualified persons. They do not get the grant if they do not do so. The House might like to know that, of the 232 road authorities, a considerable number, 148 authorities, are at present applying for and obtaining grants. In practice, many of the smaller Scottish authorities do not consider the small amount they would get would be worthwhile, and some of the most important do not apply for the grant because they prefer to retain full control over the appointment and dismissal of their officials. We are quite satisfied that the highway authorities are fully aware of the need to ensure that their officials are fully qualified.
    As a matter of practice, it is doubtful whether it would be possible to draft regulations in suitable terms. Scottish highway authorities are the county councils and all burghs. The range of responsibilities of individual surveyors is very wide, because in many cases they have other responsibilities as well as those for roads, and while it would perhaps be possible to prescribe qualifications for the largest authorities, it would be very difficult to prescribe qualifications to meet all circumstances. As I said at an earlier stage of the Bill, the salary scales for surveyors are negotiated nationally, and it is in the interests of each council to appoint a qualified man if one is available. Under the national agreements they could not pay an unqualified man less, so obviously it is to their advantage to appoint a qualified man rather than an unqualified man.
    Mr. McInnes: I could not follow the hon. Gentleman on one point. If, as he indicated, the purpose has been achieved over the past forty years, how is it that in 1956 we still expended the sum of £44,000? I realise that that amount was to encourage local authorities to appoint fully qualified individuals.
    Mr. Macpherson: I think the answer is that we did not get round sooner to considering whether the purpose had been

    675
    achieved, and there was an entitlement to the grant if the qualifications for the grant were fulfilled. We do not feel it is now necessary. But, as has been pointed out already, the grant will be built into the general grant in the first place. I do not think the House will expect me to explain that again. In those circumstances, I do not think the Opposition would wish to press the Amendment.
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: A rather extraordinary statement was made by the Joint Under-Secretary. He explained that the 1919 reason for the introduction of the grant was the need to reconstruct roads and associated services up to the requirements of increasing modern motor traffic. He ended his speech by saying that that purpose had now been achieved and that was the basis for the withdrawal of the grant. Surely he does not suggest that the purpose has been completely achieved throughout all the counties of Scotland? Perhaps I was mistaken; if so the hon. Gentleman could interrupt me.
    Mr. Macpherson: I did not mean to say that the highways all over the country had been brought to perfection. What I meant to say was that the purpose of appointing qualified men in general has been achieved. That was the purpose, to ensure that qualified men were appointed in order that the quality of the roads might be improved.
    Mr. MacMillan: Only one consideration prevents me from entering on to a very long and detailed argument with many local examples. That consideration is that time is running short. It was an extraordinary statement and perhaps it explains some other things about the Government and transport, but I shall not enter into that question at the moment.
    Mr. McInnes: The Joint Under-Secretary indicated that today it is compulsory on a local authority to pay the same salary for an unqualified man as for a qualified man. That in itself might achieve the result we desire in Scotland. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 5.—(ABOLITION OF EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) FUND.)
    6.45 p.m.
    Mr. Lawson: I beg to move, in page 4, line 41, at the end to insert:
    Provided that payment of grants in aid under subsection (12) of section seventy of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, shall be paid only after consultation with the local authorities.
    Our desire here is to try to inject a little fairness into what we consider a very unfair Bill. This Amendment deals with the schools which are receiving very special treatment, direct grant-aided schools. They are, in fact, to be taken out of the Bill altogether and to continue to receive the grants that they have received in the past. On an average, those direct grant-aided schools will be receiving 60 per cent. of their total costs.
    Our feeling is that, at the very least, the manner of handling this question of these direct grant schools should be such that, before any payments are made at all, there should always be consultation with the local authority concerned. If I may illustrate the position by taking the case of Edinburgh, perhaps the point which we are seeking to bring out will emerge. At present, according to the information that we have been given, Edinburgh has a number of direct grant schools, but actually that number is to be increased, because another three schools are to be added to the existing number.
    According to my calculations on the figures given to us at present, these direct grant schools in Edinburgh received from the central Government, in 1956, £378,801. They are receiving substantially more than is being paid to the Burgh of Kirkcaldy, which is quite a large burgh, so that here is a very great advantage to Edinburgh, and this sum will be increased when three other schools are added to the number.
    These direct grant schools are concentrated in certain localities, and Edinburgh is particularly rich in them. Our view is that, at the very least, the policy of these schools should be a matter for the local authority, and that they should be treated on a regional basis, so that Edinburgh should not reap all these advantages. It is true, also, that Edinburgh will receive the general grant, roughly on the basis per head of the population, but Edinburgh

    677
    will be receiving, in addition, this large sum spent on these special schools.
    It seems to us that the local authority should be taken into consultation as to what the policy of these schools should be, and it seems to me, and I think my hon. Friends agree with me, that these schools should be treated as regional schools, and not as covering the City of Edinburgh alone. I know that in some measure they are partly regional, but they should be made much more widely regional than they are now, and should be operated on a regional basis.
    This question of the payment of a 60 per cent. grant to these schools should be a matter to be decided after consultations with the local authorities concerned. If these schools are to go on receiving 60 per cent. grants, it would seem to me to be very unfair that they should be treated on a percentage basis and should be the only schools to be treated on that basis, while in the case of all the others this advantage should be wiped out.
    We should have liked to have had the time to speak much more strongly on this matter, but at this stage, we say that the very least that the Government should do is to put these schools on a semi-regional basis. On those grounds, we hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will accept the amendment.
    Mr. Thompson: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I should like to say a word or two in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), who moved it. Perhaps I may put this argument to the Minister who will reply. One reason which might compel the Government to accept this Amendment is that it is very modest, and perhaps also the warning from this side of the House that we feel tempted to go a great deal further than this. Consultation with the local authorities seems to be the very minimum of control of this form of expenditure that we have a right to expect.
    For my part, I feel that the Government ought to have taken the opportunity on this Bill to rationalise these schools. The parents who send their children there do so under the impression that they are paying for their children's education, but the figures which my hon. Friend has quoted show that, in fact, 60 per cent. comes from the Minister and the Govern-
    678
    ment, and, indeed, in most cases, a very substantial proportion of the rest comes from the local authorities. The proportion which, in fact, is paid by the parents is between 25 and 30 per cent.
    I should have thought that in logic there was something to be said either for making parents pay the whole cost of the education of their children if inclined to do so, or for placing these schools completely within the public sector. We have not attempted to be quite as ambitious as that. At this stage of the proceedings on the Bill, I hope that the Minister may feel able to accept such a modest proposal as that made by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: I think I can give hon. Gentlemen opposite some satisfaction in this matter, but, first, I should say that the Amendment goes perhaps rather wider than they appreciate—than merely dealing with grant-aided schools. It would also cover the expenditure of education authorities not being relevant expenditure for the purposes of the Bill. In other words, it would also cover school meals, milk, the removal of air raid shelters and the Youth Service.
    Hon. Gentlemen opposite are anxious to ensure that no more preferential treatment will be given to direct grant secondary schools than is given to the education authorities. I would point out to them that there is already consultation with the local authorities, because the Secretary of State already has to have regard to any representations made by an education authority on the draft regulations governing these grants. These grants are made under regulations under Section 59 (1) of the 1946 Act, and the draft regulations have to be sent, as the House will know, to each authority and time has to be given for the authority to comment on them before the regulations are made and laid before the House. This provision will still operate, so that the Amendment, in fact, is unnecessary.
    The regulations broadly provide that grants will be made, not for 60 per cent. of the expenditure, but for 60 per cent. of the maintenance expenditure or the revenue deficiency, whichever is the less. The Answer which my right hon. Friend gave to a Question by the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), on 6th May, shows that the direct grants to these

    679
    schools were estimated at nearly 60 per cent. of their maintenance expenditure at the highest and 49 per cent. at the lowest in the year 1956–57.
    Grants from the Scottish Education Department to education authorities overall amounted to 63 per cent. of their total expenditure, as opposed to maintenance expenditure of the grant-aided schools, so that the voluntary schools are in a less favourable position in that they get no grant in respect of capital expenditure. I hope that this assurance will enable the House to see that there is no discrimination in favour of direct grant schools.
    Mr. T. Fraser: I do not feel altogether satisfied by what the Joint Under-Secretary has said. Indeed, I could not follow him when he said that the Amendment went much wider than my hon. Friend perhaps appreciated. I was sitting with a copy of the Statute in my lap looking for a reference to school meals, milk, and so on, and they do not appear in subsection (12) at all. The main thing for us to bear in mind is that the Secretary of State is taking power to pay a grant direct to the——
    Mr. N. Macpherson: The operative words are
    "and of other persons providing educational services approved by the Secretary of State."
    Mr. Fraser: I do not think that the provision of milk or meals is included in that. The important thing is that the Secretary of State is giving up his responsibility for looking at the cost of the provision of education by a local authority in determining the amount of money to be given by way of grant to that local authority. Consequently, he is abolishing the Education (Scotland) Fund, while adhering to his right to make grants to the managers of these other schools—specific grants to specific persons, who are providing specific kinds of education for specific pupils.
    We do not like this discrimination against the vast majority of the youngsters of our country who attend the schools provided by the education authority. We regret very much that the Joint Under-Secretary could not be more forthcoming than he has been. However, there is no time at this hour of the night to argue these things at any greater length, and I can only advise my hon. Friends to support the Amendment in the Division Lobby.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 131, Noes 181.

    Division No. 128.]

    AYES

    [6.56 p.m.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Fletcher, Eric

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Balfour, A.

    Foot, D. M.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    King, Dr. H. M.

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

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

    Lawson, G. M.

    Benson, Sir George

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

    Ledger, R. J.

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

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Blackburn, F.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    MacDermot, Niall

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

    Hale, Leslie

    McInnes, J.

    Boyd, T. C.

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    McLeavy, Frank

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Hannan, W.

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Hastings, S.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Hayman, F. H.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Healey, Denis

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

    Champion, A. J.

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

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Clunie, J.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Messer, Sir F.

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Holman, P.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

    Holmes, Horace

    Moody, A. S.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Moyle, A.

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Hoy, J. H.

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

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Deer, G.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Oram, A. E.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Orbach, M.

    Diamond, John

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Oswald, T.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Owen, W. J.

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

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

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Paton, John

    Dye, S.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Pearson, A.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Popplewell, E.

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Janner, B.

    Rankin, John

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

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

    Redhead, E. C.

    Reeves, J.

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Willey, Frederick

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Swingler, S. T.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Sylvester, G. O.

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

    Ross, William

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Thornton, E.

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Woof, R. E.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Viant, S. P.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Sparks, J. A.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Mr. Short and Mr. J. Taylor.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Aitken, W. T.

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Arbuthnot, John

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Ashton, H.

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

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

    Atkins, H. E.

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

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

    Barter, John

    Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

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

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Osborne, C.

    Beamish, Col. Tufton

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

    Page, R. G.

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    Partridge, E.

    Bingham, R. M.

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Peel, W. J.

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Pitman, I. J.

    Black, C. W.

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

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Bonham Carter, Mark

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

    Holt, A. F.

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Hornby, R. P.

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Braine, B. R.

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

    Redmayne, M.

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

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

    Hurd, A. R.

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Channon, Sir Henry

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

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Chichester-Clark, R.

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

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Cooper, A. E.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Russell, R. S.

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Sharples, R. C.

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Shepherd, William

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

    Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Keegan, D.

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

    Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Deedes, W. F.

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Teeling, W.

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Leavey, J. A.

    Temple, John M.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Leburn, W. G.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Doughty, C. J. A.

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

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

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

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Thomson, R. (Croydon, S.)

    Duncan, Sir James

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

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

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    McAdden, S. J.

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Finlay, Graeme

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Webbe, Sir H.

    Glover, D.

    Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

    Whitelaw, W. S. I.

    Glyn, Col. Richard H.

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Godber, J. B.

    Maddan, Martin

    Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

    Gower, H. R.

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Marshall, Douglas

    Woollam, John Victor

    Grant, W. (Woodside)

    Mathew, R.

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

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

    Mawby, R. L.

    Green, A.

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Grimond, J.

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Mr. Bryan and Mr. Gibson-Watt.

    It being after Seven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forwith the Questions on the
    682
    Amendments moved by a Member of the Government of which notice had been given.

    Clause 13.—(EXTENSION OF TRUSTEES' POWER TO LEND MONEY TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES.)
    Amendments made: In page 9, line 39, after "board", insert:
    "the council of any borough included in a rural district, any parish council, the Metropolitan Water Board".
    In line 43, leave out "and".
    In line 44, at end insert:
    "and the Belfast City and District Water Commissioners".—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

    Clause 15.—(TRANSITIONAL ADJUSTMENTS.)
    Amendment made: In page 11, line 44, at end insert:
    (10) Regulations made under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the Commons House of Parliament.—[Mr. J. N. Browne.]

    First Schedule.—(RELEVANT EXPENDITURE.)
    Amendments made: In page 15, line 7, after "enactment", insert:
    "other than sections thirty-five or thirty-seven of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947".
    In line 12, at end insert:
    "or land of the National Coal Board to which the Fifth Schedule to that Act applies by virtue of regulations under section eighty-six of that Act".
    In line 14, leave out "or" and insert:
    "other than action in respect of such land of the National Coal Board as aforesaid, or the taking of action".
    In line 19, at end insert:
    Provided that the expenditure specified in heads (b) and (f) of this sub-paragraph does not include expenditure incurred in connection with the acquisition of any building excepted by direction of the Secretary of State as being a building of outstanding historical or architectural interest, or the carrying out of any work of restoration, repair, maintenance or adaptation on or in the case of such a building.
    In page 16, line 10, after "incurred", insert "by local authorities".—[Mr. J. N. Browne.]

    Third Schedule.—(ADJUSTMENT OF GENERAL GRANTS.)
    Amendments made: In page 19, line 28, leave out second "the" and insert "such".
    In line 29, leave out from "question" to end of line.—[Mr. N. Macpherson.]

    Fourth Schedule.—(CONSEQUENTIAL MODIFICATIONS OF ENACTMENTS.)
    Amendments made: In page 20, line 45, leave out from "subsection (1)" to the end of line 46 and insert:
    "for any reference to a local authority there shall be substituted a reference to a district council".
    In page 22, line 27, leave out "paragraphs (b) and" and insert:
    "in paragraph (b), after the word 'compensation' where it first occurs, there shall be inserted the words 'in respect of land of the National Coal Board to which the Fifth Schedule to this Act applies by virtue of regulations under section eighty-six of this Act, being compensation payable', and for the words from the first 'twenty-two' to the end of the paragraph there shall be substituted the words 'twenty-three or twenty-four of this Act in respect of such land of the National Coal Board as aforesaid', paragraph".—[Mr. J. N. Browne.]

    Fifth Schedule.—(REPEALS.)
    Amendments made: In page 27, leave out lines 18 to 21.
    In line 34, column 3, leave out "paragraphs (b) and" and insert "paragraph."—[Mr. J. N. Browne.]
    7.8 p.m.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    I should like, first, to thank my hon. Friends the Joint Under-Secretaries and the Solicitor-General for Scotland, as well as a great many others on both sides of the House for the great assistance they have given in bringing this Bill to this stage of its development.
    Since the Bill was introduced, it has received a great deal of careful consideration both in the House and out of it, and I think it is fair to say that the standard of debate has been very high and very clear cut, especially, as I think it will be agreed on reflection, during its later stages when we have been working to a reasonable time-table. As I say, there has been a very high standard of debate, and all the essential points have been covered with great clarity and speed without losing anything of value in the discussions. The principles have been most fully debated, and I must confess to some admiration last night for the very successful way in which hon. Gentlemen opposite contrived to re-debate the principles

    685
    by very ingenious and carefully-put Amendments.
    I do not think that it can be fairly claimed that the Government have been unaccommodating towards the Amendments proposed. Where there have been proposals that would improve the Bill and did not conflict with its basic principles, we have accepted them. We have, for example, decided, I think rightly, to exclude from relevant expenditure that incurred by district councils under the Physical Training and Recreation Act, 1937, so that those councils will still get this direct grant. We have also agreed to provide in the distribution formula for some abstruse nautical calculations which, we hope, will benefit the island counties. For suggestions on this and a number of other points we are very grateful.
    During the proceedings in Committee, on Recommittal and on Report, a total of 157 Amendments have appeared on the Order Paper. So far as I have been able to make out in the time at my disposal, their fate has been as follows. Forty-eight have been accepted, 95 have been rejected and 14 have been withdrawn on an undertaking to consider the matter. Further, the 48 Amendments that have been accepted include seven moved by the Opposition and 12 which were moved by us to meet points raised by the Opposition. The others came largely from points which developed during the discussion and which we thought would improve the Bill. It is reasonable to say, therefore, that there has been careful and meticulous consideration of the Bill and that the Government, while keeping in mind the principles, have gone a long way to meet the feelings expressed in debate.
    It would be wrong to disguise or to attempt to disguise the fact that there has been no compromise on the two most important provisions—the re-rating of industry to 50 per cent. and the introduction of the new general grant. In view of the detailed discussions that have taken place, it is not necessary once again, to go over the arguments on the main principles of the Bill. We are all agreed that some form of re-rating is desirable, and the argument has centred on its extent. That is obviously a matter of judgment, but we on this side are quite certain that in current economic circumstances the decision we have taken is the right one.
    686
    Here, I would like to correct something that got on the record last night and which it would be a pity to leave uncorrected. I think it was the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Hubbard) who last night suggested that four tenants of local authority houses were paying more in rates in that district than was the Burntisland shipyard——
    Mr. Thomas Hubbard: I must say that I myself was worried about that figure last night, and I have since confirmed that it is wrong. I did, however, say that I based it on information given to me by the Burntisland Town Council. Nevertheless, the figures are wrong, and for that I apologise to the Government and to the hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George), but at least it is well to think that we have been wrong only this once, having in mind the number of times the Government have been wrong.
    Mr. Maclay: That was handsomely done, if I may say so. In fact, the figures are very different, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would have wanted to put them right. On the basis of 25 per cent. re-rating, the shipyard has a rate-able value of about £1,400, which will be increased under Clause 7 to £2,800, and the value of the four representative houses, even if we take the latest and most highly-rated, would be £160——
    Mr. Hubbard: A total value of £180, but I say nothing more than that the Burntisland shipyard is still being relieved of rates to the extent of £3,800, which represents 1s. 5d. in the £ of the rates of a small burgh.
    Mr. Maclay: I am quite certain that, having tidied up any misunderstanding about figures, the hon. Gentleman will agree that the Burntisland Shipbuilding Company is a very great asset to that part of Scotland, and that it is important that it should be able to carry on its admirable work to the greatest extent possible.
    I will not pretend, after all these weeks, that the general grant has not had its critics, but we stand by the proposals which we first announced more than a year ago. In our view, it is definitely preferable to do away with the meticulous scrutiny of claims for ad hoc grants and provide instead for the lump sum payments which local authorities in their wisdom can spend as they think fit.

    687
    There is nothing in the Bill to support the allegation that the introduction of the general grant is a shield to cover a furtive attack on the finances of local authorities. We have stated explicitly the considerations which will be taken into account in determining the amount of the general grant, and I do not believe that any, Government could have given a fairer undertaking.
    Many hon. Members opposite have expressed concern about the disappearance of the Goschen formula. I recognise the genuineness of their concern in this matter, because some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen appear to believe, quite sincerely, that the sheet anchor of the Scottish Office has been abandoned. That is getting the matter out of proportion and is a very distorted way of looking at things.
    In the first year, the general grant will be closely related to the existing level of expenditure on the relevant services, and I am sure that the local authority associations, when we come to discuss the general grant order, will have a very close eye on the sum of the existing specific grants. Of those, the largest by far is the education grant, which is at present determined according to the Goschen formula. It is clear, therefore, that the general grant for the first period will have built into it a large element fixed according to Goschen. Thereafter, as hon. Members know, the general grant will be fixed in accordance with the provisions of Clause 2 and the needs of the times.
    It would not be practicable nor desirable to try to apply the Goschen formula to the new system. In future, there will be no exact English equivalent to which the fraction could be applied and the fixing of the general grant in accordance with the objective factors and the various considerations set out in detail in Clause 2 could hardly be reconciled with an arbitrary arithmetical formula. However, I repeat that the product of the Goschen formula is built into the initial stages as it is at present.
    This is also a convenient moment to look into the future and consider what will require to be done if, as the Government hope, the Bill receives the Royal Assent before the Summer Recess. I have already referred to the consultations
    688
    which we will have with the local authority associations before the general grant order is laid before the House. Very soon after the Bill is through we shall have to ask local authorities for their latest estimates of expenditure for 1958–59 and their estimates of what they expect to spend in the next two years.
    When we have assembled that information, it will have to be processed and we will then start discussions with the associations. I am certain that we can look forward to their active co-operation in this very important job that has to be done. When the first general grant order is laid before Parliament, there will be plenty of opportunity to discuss what it contains, along with the White Paper which, as the result of a very useful Amendment which was discussed yesterday, I am required to lay before the House.
    I do not think that it is fully appreciated that this procedure will give Parliament a better chance to discuss and to express its views on the Government's contribution to local government expenditure, particularly on education services, than has existed in the past.
    I want to make only a short speech to permit the maximum time to right hon. and hon. Members who wish to sneak. In conclusion, the provisions of the Bill are a clear indication of the Government's determination to give local authorities more freedom to manage their own affairs, and I emphasise that. The financial provisions, which have been discussed at length, will give local authorities a much bigger say in deciding how best to spend their own revenues, whether they are increased rate revenues provided from re-rating, or the general grant which will be paid without any strings attached.
    I repeat what I said yesterday. I know that the Bill has been criticised and the general grant, in particular, has been criticised. Nevertheless, I felt confident that in a few years, when this procedure has had a chance to get going, it will be recognised that the Bill represents yet another very important and useful move forward in the history of local government in Scotland.
    7.20 p.m.
    Mr. T. Fraser: The right hon. Gentleman said that under the provisions of the Bill, whereby he is to present a White

    689
    Paper with each general grant Order, a better opportunity than has existed hitherto will be provided for the House to discuss the expenditure of public money on services in Scotland, especially on education. I do not know where he gets that idea, because until now we have had annual Estimates for education and annual debates on education. There has been a debate on Scottish education, in the House or in the Scottish Committee, every year since the right hon. Gentleman first came to the House.
    He now tells us that because of the presentation of a White Paper at intervals of not less than two years and not more than three years we will have more frequent opportunities to discuss Scottish education. I do not understand that, unless he is saying that the Government intend to provide special occasions to debate those White Papers and general grant orders. It will be interesting to hear what the Joint Under-Secretary has to say about that.
    If we are to discuss the White Papers only in the time alloted to the Opposition for Supply Days, then the opportunities will be fewer and not more than hitherto. Until now, we have been able to have those debates on the Estimates every year; in future, we will have this information given to us not less than once every two years and not less frequently than once every three years.
    There is one point on which I want to thank the right hon. Gentleman. He was ultimately able to make a concession to district councils. I worked hard on this issue and I thought that I was working in vain, but I am grateful to the Government for ultimately promising to give the matter further consideration and for then putting down an Amendment which, unfortunately, we were not able to discuss because of the operation of the Guillotine.
    The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the number of Amendments which had been tabled—157. He referred to the number accepted and rejected. Perhaps in making those calculations he was getting into training for the calculations which he will have to make under the Second Schedule, but I am bound to say that this was not much of a test for those calculations. He might have given the impression that the number of Amendments which he said he had accepted was the number offered by the Opposition and
    690
    accepted by the Government. If he had given that figure, that would have been very small.
    Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member possibly missed what I said, because I gave the figure. I said that 48 Amendments were accepted and that they included seven moved by the Opposition and 12 moved by the Government to meet points raised by the Opposition, a total of 19. I added that many of the other Amendments had been put down by the Government, but had arisen out of the general discussion.
    Mr. Fraser: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and apologise for having misconstrued what he said. When he refers to the number of Amendments accepted, it is assumed that those are Amendments which the Government were pleased to accept. But most of the Amendments in question were Amendments which the Government were pleased to offer and which the Committee accepted. It made up a total of 19 out of 48—seven from this side and 12 concessions from this side. About another 30 of the accepted Amendments were offered by the Government with the backing of a majority in the House to force the Amendments through if the Opposition chose to challenge them.
    It is as well that we should get the position clear. Of those 48 or 49 Amendments which were accepted, 14 were ultimately accepted this evening after the Guillotine had fallen, when even the Government were not able to tell us why they were offering the Amendments. The right hon. Gentleman said that he appreciated that there was still a bit of disagreement about the general grant as such. Of course, there is much disagreement about the general grant as such. During all this time, the White Paper having been published in July last year, the Bill having been anticipated in the Queen's Speech, during the Second Reading debate, the Committee stage and right through to the Third Reading, during all this time so far as we can judge the opposition of local authorities in Scotland to the introduction of the block grant has not eased at all. The local authorities are just as much opposed to it as they were in the first place.
    The Secretary of State thinks that the Bill is essentially fair. It sets out the considerations which the Secretary of

    691
    State will take into account in fixing the aggregate amount of general grant. The Secretary of State has reached the point at which he has started to mislead himself. In the Bill as it is now drawn the Secretary of State has merely told us the matters he will think about before he produces a sum of money as the aggregate amount of general grant. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that under the provisions of the Bill, quite apart from promises made in the White Paper and in speeches, after three years the aggregate amount of general grant under the Bill could be £30 million, £40 million or £50 million, irrespective of the amount of relevant expenditure that the Secretary of State takes into account. That is true. If the Secretary of State says that as relevant expenditure increases so will the general grant increase, he will have destroyed his case for the general grant.
    The Under-Secretary explained that the trouble with specific grant was that payment was made by result and he wanted to get away from that. Payment by result was payment having regard to the amount of relevant expenditure, but the notion is being put that, under the provisions of the Bill, as the amount of relevant expenditure increases, so will the amount of general grant increase. There is no such provision in the Bill. Yet the Secretary of State says he thinks that the Bill is essentially fair.
    The Bill removes from the Statute Book all the provisions which oblige the Government at present to make specific percentage grants to local authorities in respect of the services which are now included as relevant expenditure. As I put it yesterday, I think, local authorities have been carrying out those services for the betterment of their communities under a contract made with the Government whereby the Government would meet one proportion and the local authorities another proportion of the cost.
    The Government have ended this arrangement, despite the almost unanimous opposition of Scottish local authorities, and the Secretary of State asks us to believe that his new arrangement is fair he hopes that in time it will have become more acceptable. It might, but it will become acceptable
    692
    only if the amount of general grant keeps in step with the increase in the amount of relevant expenditure. It will become acceptable only if the local authorities in Scotland continue to enjoy from central funds approximately the same proportion of the cost of local services that they enjoy at present.
    If the Governments' share of the cost of local authority services diminishes, which I think is the Governments' intention, then the system will not be acceptable. If the Government ensure that the provision of those local services will not be impeded by the stinginess of the Exchequer or by an unwillingness on the part of the Exchequer to pay its due proportion, and if they treat local authorities reasonably, then the proposal might be accepted.
    But if this or any other Government treat the local authorities reasonably and continues to pay, broadly speaking, the same proportion of costs of local authority services as at present, then the whole case for the Bill will have fallen to the ground and the objection that was offered to an alternative Second Schedule will have fallen to the ground, because the case for the retention of the Second Schedule was that the Government would not undertake to match with increased grant the increase in the cost of services being provided by the local authorities.
    The hour is late and the time is short in which to discuss the Third Reading, and so I must draw my remarks to a close. In offering the Bill to us the right hon. Gentleman has taken refuge behind the fact that he has been given certain advice by working parties. He offers us the Second Schedule, which nobody has ever sought to justify, on the ground that it was offered to him by a working party. It would have been interesting if we could have been told what the working party thought about what was given to it. It would have been interesting if we could have had the report of that working party; but we have not had it. We have only the result of its endeavours.
    As the right hon. Gentleman commended the Bill on Second Reading, he told us that it would ease the administrative difficulties that exist between central Government and local authorities, and he was setting up a working party to inquire into the recommendations to be made to him. I wish he had told us

    693
    tonight that he would let us have the report of that working party. The right hon. Gentleman has told us in answer to Questions that it is not normal practice to publish those reports.
    Let me offer the right hon. Gentleman two recent examples of the publication of reports of working parties of a similar character. He published the Report of the Working Party on Housing Subsidies in Scotland, 1956, because he thought it would help him with certain legislation. The Report of the Working Party on the Operation of Exchequer Equalisation Grants in Scotland was published because it was calculated to help the Government in legislation that they were introducing to Parliament. If the right hon. Gentleman could publish the reports of those working parties of almost identical composition with the working party which has been advising him on these other matters recently, let him also offer it to us at an early date and before the Bill completes its journey through another place.
    When the Secretary of State does that, we will see how hollow is this promise of greater freedom to the local authorities resulting from this change in the law. We will see that local authorities are no more free than they have been before and, because of the right hon. Gentleman's insistence on putting through Clause 11 in its present form, we will see that local authorities will be substantially less free than they were before the war. I hope that even now the House will reject the Bill.
    7.37 p.m.
    Mr. William Hamilton: We have listened this afternoon and in the closing stages of the proceedings to what I can only call a scandalous negation of democracy. Nobody wants the Bill. Not even Members on the Government side really want it. Educational bodies throughout the country do not want it. Local authorities do not want it. Nobody on the Opposition side wants it. There is no mandate for it. For all these reasons, the Government, in view of the fact that they have forced it through on a Guillotine Motion, represent the complete negation of the country's democratic processes.
    The first alleged purpose of the Bill—the Secretary of State will correct me
    694
    if my assumptions are wrong—is, presumably, to introduce a stabilising influence in the central Government's contribution to local expenditure. Am I correct in saying that this is an attempt to stabilise the Government's contribution to local authorities? Since I am not interrupted, I assume that that is correct.
    Mr Maclay: The hon. Member must not make the type of speech in which he expects an answer to every precise question and, if it is not answered, assumes that he is correct. That is a technique which most of us dropped a long time ago, because it is not a reasonable one.
    Mr. Hamilton: I simply asked the right hon. Gentleman to intervene on the specific point of whether that was the declared object of the Government. Is one of the declared purposes of the Bill to stabilise the central Government's contribution to local authority expenditure?
    Mr. Maclay: I am not making any comment. I have given my statements, on Second Reading and on Third Reading and at other stages, on the purpose of the Bill. The hon. Member is entitled to make his own assumptions, but I am not standing up on every one of them to argue it out in detail. My silence does not necessarily mean assent to everything.
    Mr. Hamilton: It is quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman is treading on very thin ice. The former Chancellor of the Exchequer himself said that that was the purpose of the Bill. On 19th February last year, he used precisely those words. If the Secretary of State is not prepared to back up the former Chancellor of the Exchequer and his own Government, it is a pretty poor show. It shows us that there is another split within the Tory Government.
    The second purpose of the Bill is that the Government are determined that local authorities shall bear a bigger proportion of their educational expenditure and that this will increase the interest in local authority affairs. The Secretary of State—I took down his words; he can correct me if they are wrong—said that it was an untrue allegation that the Bill is a furtive attack upon education.

    695
    I presume that the Tory Central Office weekly Newsletter has the right hon. Gentleman's backing. I have with me the Newsletter for the week ending 23rd February last year. It refers to the Bill and it states:
    "One of the unpleasant, but inescapable facts of life is that he who pays the piper can, and almost invariably does, call the tune. It is that more than anything else which has tended to diminish the importance of local government in recent years."
    That was the gist of the right hon. Gentleman's argument. The Newsletter then asks what are the two main purposes of the Bill and it states that the second is
    "To reduce"—
    not even to stabilise, but to reduce—
    "the total of what is paid in State grants …"
    That is the Government's own propaganda. If the Secretary of State is prepared to get up and say that he refutes it and does not believe his own party's propaganda I, for one, would not blame him. The exercise can have no other objective. Indeed, I go further and quote the former Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who, at the Tory Party Conference at Brighton, on 9th October last year, included the block grant proposals among the economy measures being taken by the Government to meet the perennial Tory Government crisis.
    I believe, and local authorities and local education committees believe, that this attack on education is, none the less, wicked and stupid for being conducted behind a smokescreen. It is not like the specified 5 per cent. cut which we had under a former Minister of Education a few years ago, which was bitterly attacked by public opinion precisely because it was specific. The Government have been more careful this time. The attack has been conducted in a fog. The team at the Scottish Office could not be better selected for making that fog a real pea-souper. That is what we have had in the successive stages of the Bill.
    It is no good the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends getting up and repeating their vigorous denials that there is such an attack. I am reminded of the Suez episode, when we had the Government mouthing peace and dropping bombs. That is exactly what they are doing here. They are cutting the arteries of the local government authorities and
    696
    then mouthing the virtues of a good circulation.
    The Government are doing that because the Treasury likes to be neat-minded. It wants a specific sum allocated for an expanding service, because it is much neater to have a specific sum all the time. That point of view is argued on the ground that education should not be divorced from the general economic policy of the Government. Indeed, the Bill makes nonsense if we try to divorce it from the Government's general economic policy. At the moment, that policy is, if not stagnation, something worse. What I call these fools, these knaves and these deceivers are jeopardising the future of education and, perhaps, the future of our national survival by this false economy.
    Perhaps I might quote Lord Hailsham, the bell ringer, again at Brighton, on 8th October, 1957, when he said:
    "It is not part of my argument to say that education either should be or can be insulated from the general condition of the economy. My argument is that it should not also be subject to the pressures of a false public parsimony."
    Alas, his Lordship had to go. Making that kind of speech was extremely dangerous to the idea of Treasury neatness, and he had to go and to seek to gather in the wavering Tory voters.
    I believe that this is a Treasury Bill. It is the Treasury's baby, the right hon. Gentleman is its wet nurse, and it is an ugly infant and he is an inefficient nurse.
    I want to concentrate on the educational aspect. The Bill shows gross contempt for education in this country, and if the right hon. Gentleman still holds to his contention that it is not an attack on education, let me again quote a Government spokesman, this time the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education, on 29th July last year. This time I can quote the exact words, which I had not with me on a previous occasion. They were:
    "… if a local authority embarks upon a deliberate expansion of the education service as an act of local policy it is the deliberate intention of the Government, and it is inherent in their proposals, that this should in future be the local authority's own affair, in the matter of finance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1957; Vol. 574, c. 1023.]
    What does that mean? It means that if a local authority chooses to expand its educational development, that is its own

    697
    affair and it will have to find the money. The Government wash their hands of any expansion which takes place in education.
    I believe that this is a hated and unwanted Bill produced by a hated and unwanted Government, and both will be thrown out very soon.
    7.48 p.m.
    Mr. Duthie: I find myself in an extremely difficult and somewhat unenviable position because I must oppose the Bill and apply to it the final sanction which remains to me by voting against the Third Reading.
    I am sorry to do this, because basically the Bill is a good idea. A block grant combining all the various sums allocated to a local authority for expenditure is a very good thing, and I wonder why it has not been done before. But where we are considering the provision of such a grant, the amount to be provided for the ends in view becomes a paramount consideration, whether it is in the home for the household expenses, in the running of a business or in the provision of funds for a local authority.
    In this case, my quarrel is with the financial end, the method of allocation in the Second Schedule. My quarrel begins and ends with the Second Schedule. I am astonished that anyone should offer such a hotchpotch and that responsible people could accept such a hotchpotch and defend it. I do not know the Minister's rôle in this matter, but I have had some experience as a civil servant and I fancy that although the words were the words of the Minister the hand was the hand of someone else.
    The Bill gives an opportunity to focus attention upon the mysterious formulae which from time to time creep in from the Scottish Office. We have had an admission by the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) that it is generally accepted that these formulae are not understood, but that they are accepted. The formula here is apparently among them. That is something against which all hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies, irrespective of party, should set their minds, and we should endeavour to have it removed.
    Any plan, financial or otherwise, which is produced from the Scottish Office
    698
    should be crystal clear. It should be capable of immediate analysis, its pros and cons weighed and a proper decision taken. That is denied us in this case because we do not know and we are given no light.
    I make no apology for being parochial in this matter. I must point out that Banffshire's standards cannot be upheld during a second year with the heavy loss which is inevitable under the Bill. Our educational standards, in particular, are bound to fall. I cannot stand aside and see that happen without making all the protest which it is possible for me to make.
    My right hon. Friend is sure to get the Bill despite anything I can do, and I hope that he will soon be busy on plans to prevent the standards in my county and those similarly situated from being assailed in the second year, when these authorities are bound to suffer losses.
    Party loyalty is a great thing, and I yield to no one in my loyalty to the party to which I belong, but there are times when loyalty to one's constituency must be transcendental. This is one of them. I must, therefore, consider the Bill as it stands in respect of Banffshire. I cannot accept the Second Schedule, therefore I cannot accept the Bill, and I must go into the Lobby and vote against its Third Reading.
    7.53 p.m.
    Mr. Hubbard: There is little doubt that at the end of the debate the Bill will be given a Third Reading and be sent to another place, and to that extent the Government will have achieved something on which they have set their minds. Judging from the Secretary of State's closing words, one would have thought that he was presenting to the House and the country something for which they were hungry and of which they were likely to approve. I suggest that there is a big difference between passing the Measure through the House and the reception which it will receive in Scotland.
    The Government already know that with the possible exception of Edinburgh—and even in that case there are some Amendments—no local authority in Scotland wants the Measure. No educational organisation in Scotland wants it. Never has a child been born under such difficult

    699
    circumstances. We are all happy to allow the Secretary of State to be the father, and although I cannot add to the adjectives about the nursing of the baby which were used so lucidly by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton), there is no doubt that this is an unwanted child.
    It could not have come at a worse time. Never has it been more important that the standard of the education of the people of Scotland should be raised. There is always some local authority and education committee in the van of advanced educational facilities. I represent one of the constituencies of Fife, and I look back in pride on the work of the Fife Education Committee, which has been very progressive. It was the first to introduce free books at a time when that was not very popular. The Fife Education Committee, made up of the large county burghs of Kirkcaldy and Dunfermline and the county council, has built some wonderful schools since the end of the war and is still in the process of building wonderful schools under the most difficult circumstances.
    We do so because we believe in education. We believe that the success of our country depends more on education than on anything else. Indeed, the example set by a good education authority is often followed by others. I can remember when the Education Bill was going through this House the comment being made that in England they would like to attain the standard of education existing in Scotland because she has led in education for so long, and we have been proud of that fact.
    What will happen as a result of this Bill? The initiative will be removed from education authorities. They will be told that if they want better than the average, they can have it provided they are prepared to pay for it, and according to the Scottish Office they can claim that it is all their own work. But how can they? The Government have already made sure that it is more and more difficult for local authorities to carry out their functions in the way they would wish. They have carried a heavy burden since the end of the war but progress has been made, as we can see, in the new schools being built, and on plans for technical schools, because they recognise
    700
    their importance in this age of automation. Indeed, at this time technologists are more important to the country than are highly skilled tradesmen. Yet at this time the Government introduce this Measure which discourages the expansion of education by limiting the local authorities.
    It is all very well saying they are free to spend if they have the money to do so. The Government make sure in the first instance that they will not have it, and so it will be more difficult for them to carry out their functions. The other expenses accruing to the running of a local authority have already been increased by legislation now on the Statute Book and introduced by the same Government, so they have had a succession of discouragements.
    Therefore, the judgment—whether it is the judgment of tomorrow, when this Bill reaches the Statute Book, or the judgment of 1959 when the Act comes into operation—in the future will be that the Secretary of State, far from being proud of himself tonight, should be ashamed of the introduction of this Bill at this time. Whatever justification there may have been for it at some other time, this is the worst time to do anything which fails to encourage the local authorities and local education authorities to provide better education.
    Lip-service has been paid to a slogan. I do not understand how the Government can justify their attitude when I think of the new schools that have been built or are in the process of being built, and the difficulties which confront local authorities, because although there were no new schools built during or immediately after the war, children were still being born and children must be educated. The backlog has had to be caught up by the local education authorities but in many cases this has not been possible. It is beyond me how the Government can justify anything which may retard the expansion of education, and then brag about it—in fact, gag the Opposition into accepting Amendments without debate.
    It is true that I made a mistake last night, perhaps a justifiable one, regarding the Burntisland shipyards' figures, but it is nothing like the mistake the Government are making by putting this Measure on the Statute Book. It is an even greater mistake, because for years now every

    701
    local authority has been clamouring for re-rating, and the Government have neglected to take the opportunity provided by the Bill of letting industry take the same responsibility as every citizen in the country has to take.
    When I said that the company would have to apply for national assistance, I meant local national assistance, for it has been enjoying national assistance for far too long. An ordinary individual who has to pay the full rates, and finds that for reasons outside his control he is unable to meet them, can go to the National Assistance Board and can get assistance to pay his rent or rates, but there is a full investigation made before such a thing happens.
    When it comes to the question of whether industry can afford to pay rates or not, there is no investigation. It is immediately assumed that industry is helping the town in which it is situated. Because that is the assumption it is believed that industry is making the town. I have grown up in Kirkcaldy and I have seen industry developing there. Industry could not develop in Kirkcaldy or elsewhere in Scotland, England, Wales or anywhere else in the world except for the people who work in industry, the people who put their skills into industry. Industry advances because of the skilled men and women employed in it.
    Why anybody should think it wrong to ask industry, as we did in our Amendments, to pay 75 per cent. of the rates, I cannot understand. Moving about as I do, as an honorary official of the Old Age Pensioners' Association, I see all the difficulties with which they are confronted. I see investigating officers going into their houses if they apply for a new pair of trousers. I see how thoroughly their affairs are investigated before any assistance is given.
    Since 1929 fortunes have been made in some industries. Some shareholders have become millionaires because industry has been enjoying this national assistance without any investigation whatever. Yet no attempt has been made during the passage of this Bill to justify a small increase to 50 per cent. of valuation as against the 75 per cent. which I think we were modest in demanding.
    The Bill has nothing to commend it. I was wrong in the figures I gave about the Burntisland shipyards last night, as I
    702
    explained when the Minister quite rightly pulled me up. Burntisland, a local small burgh, is being relieved of £3,800 in rates, which is equal to 1s. 5d. in the £ there. Again, when the old-age pensioner wants some relief of rates, there has to be a thorough investigation. The Government try to tell us they are doing something for us, but it is just another typical example of the Government legislating for one section of the community only and all the time. This can be proved every year in the Budget.
    It is true that we had many difficulties immediately after the war, and that there was probably far too much legislation passed in the following six years, but, at any rate, every part of it applied equally to everyone in the country. There were no special benefits given under National Assistance, National Health Insurance, or anything else.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): Order, order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that this is the Third Reading of the Bill and that the debate is confined to the Bill.
    Mr. Hubbard: I subject myself to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
    I was attempting to give another illustration of how unfair the Government are in trying to get this Bill passed through the House. I was trying to show the injustice as regards some people in the country. I was trying to make the point that everybody in the country must make a joint effort to overcome our economic difficulties. Today, we ought all to carry a like burden and no one should have more favourable terms than another. Everyone should have the best possible education. I am satisfied that the Bill does nothing to ensure that we shall share an equal burden and all enjoy the best possible education.
    I end by congratulating the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) upon having the courage of his convictions. It takes some courage to take the stand that he has tonight, for he is a very loyal member of his party.
    Mr. McInnes: Will the hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George) follow suit?
    Mr. Hubbard: I am sure that it is not the first time that the hon. Member for Banff has done that, but whether he

    703
    will go into the Lobby again against the Bill is another matter. We must wait and see what happens. It has been my good fortune to speak in his constituency. I bestowed some praise upon him, and I found that that was the only part of my speech which was reported in the Banffshire newspaper. Now that I am praising him again tonight, I hope that his local Press will publish what I say.
    I compliment the hon. Member upon his courage. I hope that his hon. Friend the Member for Pollok (Mr. George) will follow his example. It is a remarkable thing that the only hon. Members sitting on the benches opposite at the moment are the two who have been critical of the Government over this subject, and I am content that that should be my last comment.
    8.6 p.m.
    Mr. J. C. George: It is always a great pleasure to follow in debate the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Hubbard). On this occasion I welcome him on his return to the House. I am pleased to see him looking so well, and I trust that he is fully recovered and refreshed. His speeches are always worth listening to. They are always filled with sincerity. Unfortunately, it is always the same speech. Similarly, we always get the same type of speech from the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton)—a bitter, vicious and unreasonable speech. We can always depend upon that.
    The Bill has had a long journey through this House, and it is right that it should have had a long journey and should have been given lengthy consideration. As I said on Second Reading, it was at that time a Bill without friends in the country. I said that we must be at pains to prove our case, and that I thought that we could prove it, and now I have not the slightest doubt that we have proved it. I shall not be going into the Lobby to oppose the Bill, for I welcome it, and I will give my reasons for that.
    A feature throughout all our discussions has been that the good arguments which the Opposition have put forward have been destroyed by being overstated again and again. Hon. Members opposite have this evening—no one worse than the hon. Member for Fife, West—painted a black, gloomy and dreadful picture of our education system. The
    704
    hon. Member for Fife, West said that fools, knaves and deceivers were behind the Bill, and he presented to the country the picture of a scheming, mercenary Tory Government devising fetters and halters to handicap our dynamic and expanding education system. It is, indeed, a dynamic and expanding service. In his speech the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs spoke about the schools which were going up and how education was moving forward, That is what has been happening under the present Government during the last seven years.
    Hon. Members opposite have also conjured up for the benefit of the country a pair of miserly twins running the financial side of the Bill—Scrooge at the Treasury and Daniel Flint at the Scottish Office. They say that the Government's purpose is to grind down the local authorities until our cherished system is destroyed. I believe that our system is as deeply cherished by the Opposition as it is by my hon. Friends and myself. I have every reason to cherish the education system in Scotland. I did not get what little education I had the easy way. I had to work hard for it, attending classes five nights every week and travelling eight miles every night in order to get my education. Consequently, I value what I have, and I am determined to support advance in education, and it is because I believe in my heart that the Conservative Party will advance our education system to meet the needs of the times that I support the Bill.
    The picture which the Opposition are presenting to the country is a dangerous one. The hon. Member for Fife, West said that we were cutting the arteries of education and it would bleed to death. Yesterday the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) said:
    "Therefore, the general standard that is achieved at any given time in Scotland might be well below the level of the code …."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th May, 1958; Vol. 588, c. 446–7.]
    That is the picture which hon. Members opposite are trying to paint for the country. They know that that is a travesty of the truth. It is contrary to their real beliefs, and, above all, it does a distinct disservice to the cause of education in Scotland.
    Mr. T. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman has been describing the dynamic and

    705
    expanding education service that we have in Scotland and has spoken about the new schools which are being erected. All that has been happening under existing legislation and under existing financial arrangements. Why does he want to change all that?
    Mr. George: The hon. Member has had a very good share of our time for discussion during the progress of the Bill, and he might at least allow me to make my own speech in my own way. I shall deal with that point at the right time.
    The black, gloomy and dreadful picture which hon. Members opposite have painted during our proceedings on the Bill has done a great dis-service to education. That sort of thing scares teachers, alarms parents and hinders recruitment to the teaching profession. All these things are arising because of the false propaganda of hon. Members opposite against the Bill. The truth is that they know, as we all know, that the Scottish education system will be an expanding one in the years ahead.
    I believe that the general grant system is a sound conception. Having examined it thoroughly, I believe that it is adequately safeguarded. I do not share the view of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs that the Bill has been born at the wrong time. I believe that it has been born in the best possible circumstances for success. I believe that it has been born at a time when throughout the country there is a deep realisation of the urgency and importance of expansion in our education system, a deep realisation of the tremendous challenge to us on the education front from outside our shores. I assert that the Conservative Party will not betray our people and will not in the slightest degree hamper or halter our education system in the years ahead.
    The safeguards are well worth looking at again. There are adequate safeguards which ought to be well known in the country. During the short time that I have been a Member of Parliament, hon. Members opposite have made great play about "may" being changed to "shall", because they believe that if we have "shall" something will be done but if we have "may" it may not be done. On this occasion we have "shall" and there is no need for hon. Members opposite to
    706
    seek an alteration. The first safeguard is:
    "… the Secretary of State shall take into consideration …"
    Mr. T. Fraser: It says that the Secretary of State "shall think"; that is all.
    Mr. George: The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) loves to intervene. In this case his intervention does not help in the slightest.
    The first safeguard is:
    "… the Secretary of State shall take into consideration—
    (a) the latest information available to him of … relevant expenditure …"
    That means that the level of expenditure at the given time shall be the starting point of his consideration.
    The next safeguard is:
    "… the current level of prices, costs and remuneration, together with any future variation in that level which can, be foreseen …"
    If we take the trend of affairs, either upwards or downwards, in respect of prices, costs and remuneration, we can readily and easily forecast with a degree of exactitude what the cost of education will be for one year or two or three years ahead.
    The Secretary of State must also take into consideration:
    "… any probable fluctuation in the demand for the services giving rise to relevant expenditure …"
    That is, more schools and more facilities of other kinds. He has also to take into consideration:
    "… the need for developing those services …"
    He has also to review any unforeseen changes of great magnitude.
    All these things are laid upon the shoulders of the Secretary of State to ensure that every financial assistance is given to the education system so that it may progress. Also, once a general grant has been reviewed, the matter must come here for scrutiny. More than that still, the Secretary of State has an overriding responsibility to see that education is maintained according to certain standards in Scotland, and he has his inspectorate to help in this respect. Under the general grant, adequate provision will be made to keep faith with the people of the country and keep faith with their need to face the challenge coming front the outside world.

    707
    We have heard both criticism and praise of the system, but we have, in our country, reached a remarkable degree of efficiency in our education system. Consider for a moment what we are doing on the technical side alone. Professor Gunn, of Glasgow University, took time last Saturday to tell us exactly what the situation is in technical and scientific education today. We have seen tremendous advances by Russia, and we know that America is overhauling her whole system of scientific education. It is good to know what Scotland is doing and to have a true appreciation of our system. Scotland is producing scientists and technicians far beyond her own needs, training her sons and daughters to serve Scotland, in so far as she needs their service, and to go to other countries taking with them their technical and scientific skill. Last year, we had 60 Ph.Ds. in Scotland, of whom, unfortunately, only two stayed in Scotland. We had 130 B.Sc honours degrees. Only 50 of these stayed in Scotland.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: Why?
    Mr. George: I cannot go into that; this is the Third Reading debate. The population of Scotland is 10 per cent. of the population of Britain, yet we trained 14 per cent. of the scientists and engineers last year. This is not stagnation. It is a sparkling record. We should be praising our education system and presenting to the people a totally different picture from that painted by hon. Gentlemen opposite. We have the greatest numbers ever in our universities and technical schools and in our day-release schools. Every year, more and more people seek education. I believe that the new system will ensure that the demand and need for education will be fully met.
    We have been told so often that this system will be run down into decay by the general grant. Not only is there a new climate in the country in technical and scientific education, but there is a new interest in education on the part of a wide group of people. For instance, the Press is ready at all times to urge the need for education. We are continually exhorted by all the organs of the Press to meet the challenge of the times. Our Press will remain as a watchdog
    708
    over what is done. Parents are now exhibiting an increased interest in the welfare of their children in education. We know that teachers are alive to the need and urgently wish to see it met. The students themselves also are aware of the challenge of the times. In these groups, we have a guarantee that neither national Government nor local authorities will be allowed long to neglect the education system of our country.
    I believe that the Bill will ensure that the education service will expand and improve to meet the challenge of our day. I believe also that it will help in arresting the decline in the local authorities of Scotland. We have discussed this matter many times. It is my belief that the impact of the Bill on the local authorities will be wholly beneficial, that it will instil a new interest and a new purpose into local government life. I have served on finance committees under the specific grant system for many years, and I have found the committees to be nothing more that rubber stamps. They did not have the time to investigate all that was done or all the recommendations which came forward. Under the Bill, finance committees will have a new life. All the contending services will put their case in the finance committees and there will be a new vitality in this side of local government.
    A great deal will be done to restore the prestige of local government. This new prestige and life in local government will attract candidates. All of us who have been active in local government know the tremendous difficulties we have had in attracting anybody at all—let alone the right type of candidate—to come forward. I have gone knocking at doors up to midnight the day before nomination day to try to persuade candidates to stand for election. This applies not only to my group but to the group led by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite also. This new interest will reach the electorate and, perhaps, induce more people to come out and better the terrible record of voting that we have today.
    I believe that education in Scotland has a future brighter than its bright past. With only minor reservations, I welcome the Bill, and I congratulate the Minister on having brought it to this stage.
    8.20 p.m.
    Mr. McInnes: What I admire in the hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George) is the way in which he jumps to conclusions with acrobatic ease and then jumps to the opposite conclusions with equal agility. He began by indicating that he welcomed the Bill. He did not say that he welcomed it 100 per cent.; he was far too cautious to make that confession. He knows very well that he does not welcome the Bill 100 per cent. The hon. Gentleman proceeded then to attack those of us on this side who had painted, so he said, a black and terrible picture of education. We did no such thing.
    Our picture was even brighter and more noble than the picture he himself painted. But our picture was a picture of the effect of the Bill on education in putting things into reverse. What the hon. Gentleman did was to praise the existing system of education.
    Mr. George: And the future.
    Mr. McInnes: No, not the future. The hon. Gentleman did not see into the future, not even through the crystal ball. He praised the existing system and, in the process, he indicated that he thought that the Bill would continue, as it were, to create expansion and progress in the development of education. He really ought not to erect his own dollies for himself to knock down as he did this evening. Somehow or other, he was not up to his usual form. Perhaps, the reason is that he recognises that he is not 100 per cent. behind the Bill.
    We were told by the right hon. Gentleman that the underlying purpose of the Bill was to give local authorities greater independence and greater freedom, and to encourage electors—the hon. Member for Pollok said this too—to take a greater interest in local government. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State went further and indicated that local authorities today were having little or no say in the spending of their own revenue and they had, indeed, become merely agents of the central Government.
    One of the purposes of the Bill, the Secretary of State told us, was to do away with the meticulous scrutiny involved in checking ad hoc grants. I thought that during the Committee stage we had entirely disposed of the fallacy
    710
    about the tremendous volume of work in checking ad hoc grants. In Glasgow about 320 hours are involved. That is the extent of the saving in that city. After the many difficulties which were revealed in Committee, I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman should advance that as a reason for the introduction of the Bill.
    In order to achieve this freedom and independence for local government, the Bill provides a system of general or block grants in respect of a variety of services which previously enjoyed specific grants. I am unable to appreciate how we can give local authorities greater independence or freedom by introducing a Bill which, in effect, imposes economy measures. The Bill is designed to reduce the Government's financial responsibility to local government; there is no doubt about that. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman genuinely believes that the Bill confers upon local authorities the freedom and independence that he has mentioned.
    If the Bill does confer this freedom, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why every local authority and local authority association is violently opposed to it? One would assume that if a local authority were going to have conferred freedom and independence upon it it would take the first opportunity of congratulating the Government for conferring that honour. The reverse is the case. In all my experience in local government—and I suppose that this applies to other hon. Members—I have never known local authorities to give a more hostile reception to any Bill than they have to this one. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) and the hon. Member for Pollock himself indicated during the Second Reading debate, the Bill has no friends outside this House. The Secretary of State ought to recognise that it has no friends in local government circles, and it has no friends among the industrialists. We have also realised, since the elections were held recently, that the Bill certainly has no friends among the electorate.
    It is all bunk and nonsense to suggest that this Measure will confer freedom and independence, when it contains numerous Clauses which restrict the power of local authorities and a particular Clause which has created a revolt among hon. Members opposite—a Clause which restricts the

    711
    borrowing powers of local authorities. I could go on and deal with many other Clauses which are, in a sense, restrictions and impositions upon local authorities.
    How can we give freedom and independence when, for example, instead of giving local authorities something we take something away? In their rerating proposals the Government have adopted the niggardly attitude of taking unto themselves two-thirds of the product of the rerating. For every £300 involved in the rerating provisions £200 goes to the Chancellor and only £100 to local authorities. The problem confronting local authorities today is a financial one, and the Bill will in no way help them to face that problem.
    Mr. Willis: It will make it worse in the long run.
    Mr. McInnes: It will aggravate the situation, until the whole financial structure and machinery of local government is in grave danger of breaking down.
    The problem of local government today arises because the basis from which it obtains its revenue is far too narrow. The Bill will also aggravate that situation. Local authorities depend upon the system of valuation and rating, which even the Sorn Committee confessed was far too narrow to meet the demands that are now being made of local authorities. We all recognise that the present system of local taxation is regressive and that numerous Government commissions have concluded that it is utterly inadequate to enable local authorities to face their responsibilities.
    In Committee we ventured to make one or two suggestions which, in our submission, would improve the situation confronting local authorities. We suggested that instead of rerating only by an additional 25 per cent. the right hon. Gentleman should have rerated to the whole 100 per cent., and should have accepted Amendments dealing with the question of a local income tax, the argument for which was so well put by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). We took these opportunities of suggesting alternative sources of revenue, but the Secretary of State flatly rejected them without any rhyme, reason, or logic. Out of 157 Amendments, only about seven Opposition Amendments were
    712
    accepted, and another 12 from the Government side, making 19 in all.
    Mr. Willis: Some of those were drafting Amendments.
    Mr. McInnes: I imagine that quite a number were of a drafting nature, one following upon another.
    The Bill is a fraud. It will in no way help local authorities to meet the difficulties of the present situation, and I shall have the utmost pleasure in voting against it.
    8.33 p.m.
    Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley: Many of us did not trouble the Committee very much with speeches because we liked the Bill. We have never hidden the fact that we think that the Government were courageous in introducing it, and had very sound reasons for doing so. Contrary to the opinion just now expressed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), in our constituencies we have not found any great dislike for the provisions of the Bill.
    The hon. Member made play with the allegation that no one outside the House likes the Bill.
    Mr. Willis: That is very true.
    Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I have not found that. It may be that in East Edinburgh or Central Glasgow the Bill is not liked, but that does not apply in my constituency.
    Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: It is very well liked in Edinburgh.
    Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. M. Clark Hutchison) supports what I say. There has been a great deal of talk about the unpopularity of this Measure. I believe it to be a good Measure, and that the Government have done a good service, not least to local authorities, by introducing it.
    Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman forgets that Edinburgh is the single exception; that Edinburgh expects—though I understand from people in authority that there is considerable doubt about this—to be better off by £750,000 at the expense of other districts.
    Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: Not only will the ratepayers of Edinburgh be better off, but local authorities as a whole will be better off financially as a result of this Bill.
    Let us look at the need for this Bill against the background of affairs in Scotland since the war. First, as in other parts of Great Britain, we see increasing financial responsibilities on local authorities. Almost everything done by the House of Commons has added to the financial responsibilities of the local authorities. More and more have they had to undertake detailed and necessary work which costs money. Against that, there has been the loss of very profitable gas and electricity undertakings which were taken from the local authorities by the party opposite when they formed the Government of the day.
    Mr. Cyril Osborne: They were stolen from the local authorities.
    Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: My hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) uses the word "stolen", and that is not an exaggeration. It is absolutely true that the profitable gas and electricity undertakings of local authorities were filched from them as a result of the nationalisation plans of the Socialist Party.
    Certainly, there is an increased reliance by all local authorities on Government grants, and there is a tendency for the Government to concern themselves more and more with local affairs. That may, or may not, be a good thing. But whenever the Government make a grant to local authorities, it is accompanied by detailed supervision to see that the money is spent in the right way. Under the new system we believe that there will be a great deal less of the irritating, pettifogging, day-to-day inspection of the details of local authority expenditure than there has been in the past.
    As has been said many times—it bears repeating, in the face of the criticism which this Bill is receiving—at present about two-thirds of the total grant aid to local authorities is given in the form of specific percentage grants. Those percentages vary. There is no rhyme or reason about the figures. In some cases, it is 25 per cent. as for the fire service. For the police service it is 50 per cent.; for the health services, 50 per cent.; for
    714
    education, 60 per cent.; for school meals and milk it is 100 per cent.
    The effect is that local authorities have tended all too often to feel that they can go in for a little extra expenditure, because a large percentage of the cost has not to be found by the ratepayers but comes from Treasury sources.
    In Scotland as a whole, the percentage of grants provided by the Government varies from 75 per cent. in the case of Zetland and 79 per cent. in the case of Ross and Cromarty—I think I am right, I have the figures here—and in the rural areas particularly, a high proportion of the total expenditure is provided in the form of Government grant.
    Mr. McInnes: Does the hon. Gentleman object to that?
    Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I do not object to that, but I think the Government are improving the system.
    Miss Margaret Herbison: The hon. Gentleman has said that because of the grant system, some local authorities have, perhaps, spent more than they ought and have been a little extravagant here and there. The most important subject dealt with in this Bill is that of education. Will the hon. Member tell the House where he feels that any local authority in Scotland has been extravagant in its provision for education?
    Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I should like to deal with the whole subject of education in a later part of my speech. I wish now to deal with the general background. I promise the hon. Lady that I will not forget the matter of education.
    The disadvantage of the present system of percentage grants, as I see it, is twofold. First, there is no encouragement to a local authority to save money, if it knows that 60 per cent., 50 per cent., or 25 per cent. of the amount of its expenditure on certain services will, willynilly, be met from Government sources. Secondly, it leads to excessive scrutiny on the part of officials at St. Andrew's House. All these grants have been accompanied by inspection, by the calling for reports, the exchange of letters, and by a great deal of work which could be avoided, and will be in the future.
    It is true that no one has yet been able to think of an alternative source of

    715
    local revenue. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) said that the basis on which local government revenue is collected is far too narrow. During the Committee stage discussions the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) advocated some form of local income tax. I should certainly be out of order were I to go into those matters during this Third Reading debate. In a Second Reading debate one might have developed the objections to a local income tax, where people would be taxed, as I understand it twice over, once for national purposes and once for local purposes.
    We must face the fact that no satisfactory alternative means of raising local revenue has been found to replace the present system of raising a local rate and securing some help—or, in the case of the Scottish rural areas, a large percentage of help—from Government funds. Towards this large amount of money which is to be found by local authorities the Government have decided to rerate industry to 50 per cent. of the net annual value.
    Mr. Willis: More money.
    Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: The hon. Member for Edinburgh. East (Mr. Willis) really must not make these sedentary interjections. I gave way to him, but he had nothing much to say. He should not sit in his place and squawk away like that. I will give way to him again.
    Mr. Willis: I was only trying to suggest to the hon. Member that if he wants additional money for local authorities he should have supported us when we wanted to rerate to 100 per cent. The hon. Gentleman said that no other satisfactory method had ever been found. Is he aware that we are the only country which exacts a local tax on such a narrow basis and that every other country has found other means?
    Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: The Chair would not give me an opportunity to develop that point, because on Third Reading the subject is clearly out of order. One can only talk about what is actually in the Bill. There is no proposal in it to raise a local income tax.
    Mr. Ede: When did any hon. Member introduce the subject of local income tax into his speech?
    Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: If the hon. Member had been here when his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) was speaking——
    Mr. Ede: I was.
    Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: Then he will have heard him say that the basis of local taxation was far too narrow and that he had a good deal of sympathy with his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East, who had advocated a local income tax. That put the idea into my head. I did not think that one out.
    Mr. Ede: I did not accuse the hon. Gentleman of having any ideas of his own.
    Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: Certain specific grants are to be continued. I have heard speeches implying that all the grants were to be collected together into one general grant, but, in fact, the housing unit grant, the highway, school meals, school milk, and police service grants are to be continued.
    The whole basis of this scheme stands or falls by the arrangements made for the determination of the amount of the grant.
    Mr. Willis: I am not sitting down to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. In deference to him, I thought I would like to get up to point out that when we discussed this matter he was not in the House.
    Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I challenge hon. Gentlemen to find, in the record of our prolonged Committee proceedings, a day when I was not there.
    Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman was not present here when we had a prolonged discussion on the subject this afternoon.
    Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: That is perfectly true. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee, which was considering a rather important matter. I am sorry that I did not hear the hon. Gentleman's speech.
    Mr. Willis: I did not speak. I made a few sedentary interjections.
    Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: Extraordinary care has gone into ways of determining the amount of the grant. The

    717
    Government have to take into account the latest information available about relevant expenditure, possible fluctuations in demand, the need for developing services and the extent to which, having regard to the general economic conditions of the country, it is reasonable to develop those services. It is also reasonable that my right hon. Friend should be required to consult the associations representing the local authorities in Scotland before making the grant order, which has to be approved by the House of Commons. All these are useful safeguards.
    The formula for distributing the grant has been carefully drafted, as have the weightage for the number of children under 15 to the ratio of total population, the ratio of the population of landward areas to the total population, and so on. There will be proper weighting given in determining all these grants.
    Mr. Ross: Will the hon. Member tell us where the Bill mentions the ratio of the school population to the total population?
    Mr. Osborne: It is in his notes.
    Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I am surprised that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) does not know the Bill as well as I do. What is to be the effect of this new proposal on the equalisation grant which is to be given? The right hon. Gentleman explained to the House earlier that the amount of the equalisation grant was fixed only recently and remains unchanged, but there is a guarantee that if this produces less than the Goschen formula Scotland will receive the Goschen amount.
    Mr. Osborne: Who will provide it?
    Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: There are other transitional arrangements, one of which is that for the first year no local authority will be worse off than it is under the present system and for the second year no local authority will receive more than 10 per cent. of the difference. After that a review will be held in the light of the revaluation which is to take place in 1961.
    Mr. Hannan: The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) should not seek information, or assent or consent from his hon. Friends around him. Will he go
    718
    back a little in the brief from which he is reading and explain exactly what he means by this difference which is to be more, or less, than 10 per cent.? I am trying, through the Bill, to follow his remarks. I am making a sincere effort to follow his speech. I should be grateful to him if he would go over that part of his brief so that I could better follow his speech.
    Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: It is not a brief. It is some notes I have prepared at various stages during the passage of the Bill. If I am wrong about it I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary, when he replies, will say that I am wrong, but I do not think I am. I think that these are the facts.
    This is very important for all county councils in Scotland. Transitional arrangements have been made as a result of which, for the first year of its operation, no local authority will be worse off under the new arrangement than it is at present. In the second year no local authority will be more than 10 per cent. worse off than at present, and after that there will be a review of the new conditions in the light of the revaluation in 1961.
    Mr. Willis: What does the hon. Member mean by "more than 10 per cent. worse off that at present"?
    Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: Mathematically, I mean that if, in the second year, a local authority receives less than 90 per cent. of its previous receipts the difference will be made up. That seems to be a straightforward mathematical proposition, which I should have thought even the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East would understand.
    It seems to me that, in future, local authorities will have full discretion to spend the money granted to them as they think wise, subject only to the maintenance of reasonable standards of service to the public within the framework of Government policy. I welcome that, because I think it will give local authorities greater freedom in determining how they should spend the money which is available to them. It will, as I have tried to suggest, reduce the amount of central checking and control of detail which is essential in the taxpayers' interests when money is granted for specific purposes on a percentage basis. I believe it will

    719
    give a far greater interest in the work of local authorities.
    I know that the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) is a great local authority man. We all know and respect the long services which he has given to county council work in England, and it is very nice to see him here taking an obvious interest in what is said from both sides of the House on a Scottish Bill.
    Mr. Ross: My right hon. Friend has served for longer than the hon. Gentleman.
    Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: Certainly; a great deal longer.
    Mr. Osborne: He is willing to learn.
    Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: It is very nice to see the right hon. Gentleman doing so, and I am sure that he has found the same thing in England as we have found in Scotland—that there is far too little interest taken in local authority elections, far too little competition by people to become members of county councils, and that far too often we find that, when vacancies have occurred for elections to local authorities, it has been very difficult to get anyone to come forward, and then, almost always, elections have not been contested.
    I do not think that that is a good thing. What we want to see is people competing to get on local authorities. I have often wondered why it should be that in county council elections the percentage of people going to the poll is between 25 and 30 per cent., or something like it.
    Mr. Ross: It is not so.
    Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: It is, unfortunately, true in many places.
    Mr. Osborne: Would my hon. Friend allow me to tell the House that in Leicestershire recently, in a county council election, only 7 per cent. of the people voted at all.
    Mr. Ross: Not in Scotland. We get 82 per cent.
    Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: Our astute fellow countrymen are now realising that real life will be given to local authority administration; and there could not be a better example than the percentages of the polls given in today's Scottish Press,
    720
    which is just what I thought would happen. People are realising that local authorities have a decent job of work to do, that they are now to be treated as adults, and not have money lashed out to them from a beneficent central authority on a percentage of their expenditure. They are now to be given general grants and treated as adults. They will be able to spend their money as they think wise, within the framework of Government policy and in the interests of their electors. That is a very good thing.
    I promised the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) to give her my views on education. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] Well, I did promise. The basis of the educationists' objection to the Bill is that they really do not trust the local authorities. They are inclined to say that the man in St. Andrew's House knows best. They do not believe that the local authorities can be trusted to spend sufficient money on education if they are given a general grant, instead of a grant earmarked for every specific thing, and instead of being promised that 60 per cent. of their expenditure on education will be met from Government funds.
    That seems to me to be a most extraordinary thing, when a very large percentage of the local government electors have children at school. It seems to be extraordinary that anyone should say we cannot trust these people because they really do not believe in education, that we cannot trust them to spend enough money on it, when the electors send to the county councils people who are parents themselves, who are keenly interested in the education of their children and personally interested in seeing that proper educational facilities are provided.
    I just do not believe that local government electors will allow recalcitrant local authorities which are not interested in education, and which do not push forward educational development, to carry on in that way, or that parents of school children will allow their local elected representatives to get away with it. At any rate, these people will not survive another election if they take that line, and I am sure that the healthy stimulus of the elections for local authorities will ensure, in future, that the local authorities pay proper regard to education.
    Miss Herbison: I waited most patiently through the hon. Gentleman's rather confused statement to find the answer he promised me. I was not questioning him at all about education in general. I was questioning his statement that local authorities have been extravagant here and there. What I wanted to know was where, in education matters particularly, local authorities had been extravagant.
    The hon. Gentleman also spoke of local authorities lashing out with the money that came from a beneficent central authority. Will he tell us just where the local authorities have squandered money, particularly on education?
    Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I really would take quite a long time if I were to give examples——
    Mr. Willis: Just give one.
    Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: Very well, I will. Not long ago I went to a school in the north-east of Scotland. It was a magnificent new school. I do not say that the money was wasted——
    Mr. Willis: Let us have the example where money was wasted.
    Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: The school rooms were beautifully panelled, the colour schemes were perfect, the central heating was as good as it could be. I do not regret that a bit——
    Mr. Willis: We want the example.
    Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: The hon. Gentleman, with his sedentary interventions, must wait——
    Mr. Willis: I was not sedentary.
    Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: The hon. Member looked very much as though he were in that position. I am about to give an example of rather wasteful expenditure.
    After my tour of inspection, I went into the headmaster's room and said to him, "What a nice cupboard you have there." He agreed. He opened the door of the cupboard and I saw that it had one of those automatic hinges that allowed it to close without any banging at all. Nevertheless, it was simply the door of a cupboard where he should have kept his canes—except that the cane is not used now.
    722
    At the bottom of the door was a large metal plate which is called a kicking-plate, put there, apparently, to prevent anybody damaging the door by kicking it. That is a very small example. There, I have given two small examples of unnecessary expenditure in a headmaster's room—putting an expansive kicking-plate on the bottom of the door, and an automatic hinge at the top. I agree that that is rather a silly example——
    Miss Herbison: Very silly.
    Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: My point was not that there has been unnecessary expenditure on education. I do not think there has been. I think that money spent on education is money well spent, and I do not make any charge of wasteful expenditure there. Indeed, I am surprised that anything I have said could lead anyone to that conclusion. I do not think that my speech will bear that interpretation, and I shall certainly look at it in print tomorrow. I certainly did not intend to convey the impression that I think that money has been wasted, but with all the competing claims on local authorities—education, health services roads, police, houses and the like—each item of expenditure has to be looked at most carefully. I believe that the right people to do that are the local representatives.
    I want to see live committees in county councils and town councils. I want to see the education committee competing with the housing committee for funds that may be available. I want to see live committees with live chairmen doing what they can to ensure that the full amount of services are provided for the public. That is a good thing. That is why I welcome the Bill—it will strengthen the character of local government in Scotland. It will provide real local government, not government from St. Andrew's House, by enabling local authorities to exercise greater responsibility in deciding the allocation of funds between one service and another.
    9.6 p.m.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: I do not think that any of us who heard the speech of the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) can believe that the British music hall is dead. We have heard a sparkling, effervescent, almost heady speech from the

    723
    hon. Gentleman. I, for one, am very glad that he has been filled with such a remarkable spirit tonight. He gave us a very lively speech.
    Mr. Osborne: Are we going to have a dull one now?
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am not feeling very refreshed for the very simple reason that I have been here for some time, unlike the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Angus and Mearns. I shall try to go over many of the things that he said in the hope that I can, out of courtesy, reply to some of his comments.
    The hon. Member spent a long time in talking about the special grant, which, I thought, was a curious thing, seeing that the Bill seeks to consolidate so many individual grants into one. It seemed to me that in confining himself to that point he was almost undoing the arguments about general grant. To revel in the fact that there are in the Bill as it stands certain exemptions from the general grant procedure and, to itemise these and almost praise them seems to me to be an argument for saying that the general grant itself is not, in the main, a good thing. That is what could be read into the hon. Gentleman's argument. I do not know where he got the brief which he appeared to be speaking from, but it certainly did not apply to this Bill.
    Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: It was my own, although it may have been a poor one.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: Naturally. I drew some understanding at least of the hon. Member's position when I looked at his speech on Second Reading. He will recall that in col. 296 of the OFFICIAL REPORT he said—and he illustrated his point again tonight with a rather minor remark about the headmaster's door and the kicking plate, which I am sure will go down in Parliamentary history as being a tiny argument to support an immense indictment; for that is what his utterances have meant to many local authorities:
    "In these circumstances, human nature being what it is, there is on all local authorities, and particularly on those which receive a high percentage of their expenditure in the form of Government grants, a temptation to spend lavishly so as to have the satisfaction of being thought to be progressive and enlightened."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1957; Vol. 580, c. 296.]
    724
    I submit to the hon. Gentleman that while he is entitled to say this, taking the so-called progressive and enlightened authorities in Scotland, we should be able to perceive considerable margins of lavish expenditure. That has never once been itemised by hon. Members opposite either here, on public platforms or in any of their party propaganda. I am a very assiduous reader of all the statements issued by the Conservative Central Office.
    I believe in reading what our opponents are saying—that is why I am a convinced Socialist. But I have never once come across examples to prove that argument which the hon. Gentleman and many of his hon. Friends have used from time to time. If it is a valid argument, it ought to be substantiated, because it is one of the arguments which has propelled the Government into bringing forward the Bill.
    The motive of the Bill, in my opinion, and I have seen it confirmed outside the House, but rarely by the Secretary of State, is to cut down that proportion of money spent by local authorities which is given by the Government. That has been admitted from time to time, but instead of saying that the Secretary of State has said that the Bill is to give freedom to local authorities.
    There is a certain truth in saying that a general grant will result in a certain freedom being given to the council to allocate its money as it likes, but it is a very poor kind of freedom, especially when councils are in the strait-jacket of what the Government will give them in the general grant. Even accepting the premise that the general grant is a good thing—and my hon. Friends and I do not believe that it is—the basis of the formula has provoked at least one member of the Government into threatening to withhold his vote from that support and, indeed, even to vote against the Third Reading.
    That is one objection with which we can rightly charge the Government, for the curious formula which is used in the Second Schedule and which seems to do so much injustice to so many. We asked for an explanation of how it was devised, but we have never had an answer. We have never been told how it is possible, in principle, to justify the transference of the physical facts, as the Under-Secretary of State put it, to

    725
    percentages as laid down in the Second Schedule. We have not been told how the percentages have been calculated. There is a gap in the explanation of the switching of proportion into percentages. That is not understood by anybody, least of all by the Under-Secretary, or he would have been willing to explain it to us.
    That is because it is an empirical formula. It has not been tried out and there will be a procedure of trial and error over the next two years. Meanwhile, local authorities must suffer while the Government experiment and apply the galenicals of local government administration to local government finance.
    I object to the Government's motive, namely, to cut down the national contribution to local authorities. I believe that this will penalise those who are trying to do well in local government and who require more money to do it, while it will reward those who lag and who are content to accept money from the Government rather than raise rates to match local responsibilities.
    I object to the formula upon which the general grant will be based and I deeply regret that the Bill rerates industry to only 50 per cent. In Scotland, we are losing £4½ million from our industrialists, money to which we as a nation are entitled. That £4½ million represents a graving dock for Greenock in one-and-a-half years. It means the Tay Bridge in nine months, or a strip mill in three or four years. It means many thousands of old folks' homes and extensions of hospitals and hundreds of health centres. It represents a tremendous amount of progress and physical assets which we could engender if industry were rerated 100 per cent. Industry is keeping money which would make Scotland that much richer.
    Sir James Duncan: By retaining it, it means a lot of employment in Scotland.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: Most certainly, and that is one of the great arguments for rerating. I am very glad to have the support of the hon. Member, but I understand that he will still vote for the Third Reading.
    Those are the four major points which I wanted to make and I am glad that I
    726
    have managed to put them in a little less time than that occupied by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns.
    9.15 p.m.
    Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: I very much applaud my right hon. Friend for bringing forward the Bill. I agree with all of it, except for Clause 11, on which I abstained from voting last night. It is a first-class job, for everything today is not well with local authorities. It may be that the voting in Lanarkshire has been high, but that has not been the case in the city elections. In many of the wards in Glasgow, voting was as low as 20 per cent. and 30 per cent., and I am sorry to say that the same is true of Edinburgh, where in Pilton, a great Labour ward, it was as low as 18 per cent.
    Mr. Willis: That was due to the ineffectiveness of the Tory candidate.
    Mr. M. Clark Hutchison: This is a problem to which the House must pay attention. I do not know the answer to getting people to take more interest in their local affairs, but the Bill is a step in that direction in giving greater responsibility to people serving on local authorities.
    The Opposition object to the general grant, and although they are quite sincere, they are mistaken. If local councillors are to be responsible and if we are to get good men for the job, they must have proper work to do. If they are only allowed to spend the money in certain ways, the work is done for them. The system of general grant will give more scope to allot money as they see best in accordance with local needs.
    I know that some hon. Members opposite believe that the saving in administration on the general grant system will not be very great, but I disagree with that, and I have had practical experience of it. When I was a colonial civil servant overseas I served in a territory which received money from the home Government. It was allotted by Vote in great detail. The result was that we in Aden could not change from one Vote to another without the authority of the people at home. It took time to get the changes approved, sending telegrams or cablegrams or despatches, and sometimes the position was nonsensical. We all prayed that somebody in the Colonial Office would change the

    727
    system to something like the block grant system and would give us a sum of money and allow us to use it as we thought fit, because that would save hours of work and much loss of temper. That is my own experience, and I believe that the same situation must apply to local authorities here.
    I want to make it absolutely clear that Edinburgh favours the Bill. Many hon. Members opposite have said that all local authorities are against it. They are not. Edinburgh favours it—and Edinburgh is the capital of the country and the best-governed city in it. Indeed, it is the best-governed city in Britain.
    Mr. Lawson: How long has the hon. Member been in Edinburgh to know all this?
    Mr. M. Clark Hutchison: I was born there and I lived there for the first nine years of my life and at various times since then. I suppose that it adds up to about 15 years.
    This idea of a general grant is very much on the lines of a proposal put forward by Treasurer Bell, who was a much-respected man in local government in Edinburgh and who was considered to be very able by most persons in Scotland who knew him. He made a proposal similar to this several years ago but did not get his way. I am glad that this proposal has now been adopted.
    Hon. Members appear to be afraid that education will suffer, but I do not think it will. As a nation we have always been interested in educational matters, and I do not think that our interest will melt away just because we change the arrangements. If any local authority is not acting up to the mark, the remedy lies with the people in that local authority area, and it is to sack the council at the first election. That seems to me a very good safeguard.
    For all these reasons, I favour the Bill and I am glad that it has been introduced.
    9.22 p.m.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: The House has listened with great interest to the sudden torrent of oratory which we have had from the benches opposite. Before anybody else feels an inclination to speak in the debate, I should assure hon. Members opposite that we on this side of the House are quite capable of carrying on the Third
    728
    Reading debate, as we carried on the Committee stage debate, until the Government Whips are assured that all their supporters have arrived back from the various clubs and dining places.
    Mr. John Mackie: How can the hon. Member say that some hon. Members from this side of the House are absent, dining out? He has no positive knowledge of the situation.
    Mr. Thomson: I must confess that I merely have a suspicious mind, made all the more suspicious by some of the devastating gems of oratory which have been dropped amongst us. From the hon. Member for North Angus (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) we have had a remarkably able exposition of what is in the Bill, given at great length. We have been on the Bill for some months, and I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) was grateful to be told what is in it, but the remainder of us, particularly those who were queuing up to try to speak, were getting a little restive.
    Now we have heard an astounding discovery from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. M. Clark Hutchison), who told the House, with a great air of uttering an original thought with great fairness, that as he understood it the Opposition's objection is to the block or general grant. I am glad that the Guillotine did not fall any earlier before this illumination of his mind. He then told us that we ought to accept the Bill, but the only reason he gave was that Edinburgh wants it. I understand that Edinburgh does not want it quite as wholeheartedly as he suggests but that it has some reservations. I seem to recollect the hon. Member, in one of his few interventions in Committee, expressing some criticism of the Bill. If he had been with us a little earlier in our proceedings today he would have discovered one of the reasons why Edinburgh wants the Bill, though Edinburgh does not confess to it. There is a £300,000 reason why Edinburgh wants the Bill.
    Mr. Willis: It is £650,000.
    Mr. Lawson: It is £370,000, plus direct grants to schools.
    Mr. Thomson: We are dealing with different points. I was speaking here from the educational point of view. Of

    729
    course Edinburgh is in the unique position of having a school system which is quite uncharacteristic of the rest of Scotland. A substantial number of the secondary schools of Edinburgh are private schools which receive direct grants from the Secretary of State.
    The position is, therefore, that Edinburgh likes this Bill because it is being exempted from the block grant provisions as far as education is concerned. The fact is that Edinburgh, in respect of an important part of its education, will continue to receive a 60 per cent. percentage grant. It will receive £300,000 more than other comparable authorities because, through the block grant arrangements, it will get its normal share of the aggregate by the counting of heads and, in addition, it will get a quite unjustified bonus of £300,000. Therefore, we need be in no doubt as to the reasons why Edinburgh is in favour of the Bill, but they are not particularly worthy reasons.
    The more I have heard of the arguments on this Bill during our Committee proceedings and since, the more rather than the less convinced I have become about how bad the Bill is for the education system of Scotland. On this subject we had an interesting speech from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. George)—who is no longer in his place. He was resorting to an old piece of advice from George Bernard Shaw: if one has a very weak case, do not argue, assert. The hon. Gentleman went on simply to assert to us, without producing any evidence, that everything in the educational garden in Scotland was lovely, that it could not be better—except that it would get a lot better once we have the block grant arrangements. Really the picture he painted of Scottish education was so unreal as to be unrecognisable by anyone on this side of the House.
    The hon. Member for North Angus said he knew of no opposition to the Bill from his own constituency. He also denied that there was any suggestion that education would be harmed.
    Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: What think I said was not that I knew of no opposition but that I knew of a good deal of support for the Measure, which is rather different.
    Mr. Thomson: I would remind the hon. Gentleman of the position which the Educational Institute of Scotland has
    730
    taken up. I have its journal here and these are the words it uses:
    "The Educational Institute of Scotland itself has no political axe to grind. It is, of course, a strictly non-party organisation and much prefers to keep out of the muddy waters that swirl around Westminster, when it can. Nor can the Association of County Councils in Scotland … be accused of having a party bias …".
    It goes on to say:
    "… the opposition, is headed by a solid phalanx of professional bodies and employing authorities reinforced by the testimony of municipal treasurers and accountants who have laid bare the shabby pretensions of the block grant proposals. They present such a massive consensus of expert opinion against the proposals that one can only marvel at the stubbornness of the Government in persisting in them."
    That is the view of a non-party professional organisation.
    The hon. Member for Pollok suggested that the only reason why the teachers were opposed to the block grant arrangements was that they did not trust the local authorities, but, of course, as the teachers' own journal points out, the local authorities are joined with the teachers in their opposition to these block grant proposals.
    I am bound to say to the Government that as our fears have gone on and as we have tried to put forward in one way and another an opportunity for the Government to introduce essential flexibility into the allocation of educational money to the various local authorities and these things have been turned down, I have become more and more convinced that the outlook for Scottish education can be very grim indeed. The Secretary of State and the Joint Under-Secretary have kept answering these fears by saying that the money will be allocated according to strictly objective factors. The phrase "objective factors" has become a sort of magical phrase by which the Government hope to convince us that distribution will be on such a scientific basis that nobody can take any objection to it. The phrase is a fancy one for describing the simple process of counting heads. I do not think anybody would suggest that the simple counting of heads is a sensible basis by itself for allocating finance to local authorities.
    The Secretary of State may reply that he has adjusted these objective factors in respect of counting heads by a certain

    731
    rather complicated scientific formula. Indeed, it is such a complicated scientific formula that nobody really understands what it means. I am reminded of an occasion when the late Lord Haldane gave a lecture on relativity. Somebody subsequently asked Professor Einstein what he thought about the lecture, and he replied that it was an excellent lecture but the trouble was that Lord Haldane, a delightful man, knew nothing whatever about relativity.
    That is the kind of thing that we have had from the Secretary of State. He has told us about the formula, but at the end of the day we come to the conclusion that he knows nothing about how it will work out. Yet the future development of Scottish education will depend upon this kind of system. As a country, we are at a critical period in our national development. Everyone now says as a commonplace that we are in a technological age and are competing directly with Russia and other nations. There was a famous occasion during the war when Mr. Stalin is supposed to have said, when the Pope's intervention in international affairs was mentioned, "How many divisions has the Pope?" I should think that Mr. Khrushchev adapts that phrase nowadays and says, "How many technologists, craftsmen and trained apprentices has Britain?" when somebody is drawing attention to the influence that Britain may have in international affairs. The position that our country will occupy during our lifetime will depend very much on our education system, and on the way it is prepared to meet the needs of the age. The Government are taking tremendous risks with our most important form of national development at the present stage by altering the system of financing education so as to remove the flexibility.
    As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes)—there is no greater authority on local government finance in this House than my hon. Friend—local authorities are at the moment overburdened financially. They are under crippling financial burdens which will not be eased by the provisions of the Bill. Thus, we shall have a situation when the Bill becomes law in which the Scottish local authorities, to whom we have traditionally looked to force the pace of educa-
    732
    tion, to set education standards and to bring out new educational ideas, will find that for the first time they will have to pay the whole bill themselves if they want to do these things. They will be in this position at a time when they are already feeling paralysed financially.
    The result of the Bill will be a general slowing down of educational progress. It will represent an attempt, though the party opposite denies it, at levelling down. It will have a deadening effect upon progress in Scottish education. It may well be proved in future years that the passing of this Bill and its fellow Bill in England and Wales was one of the really regressive steps in our post-war life.
    The Secretary of State is very disarming on these matters. He suggested that there had always been a row about Local Government Bills and, at the end of the day, they had all proved excellent Measures. So far as this proves anything, it merely proves that, once a Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, people have to put up with it. In this case, there is a very great deal of evidence from everybody who has a right to express an authoritative opinion that this Bill will mark a really backward step in local affairs and, in particular, in national education.
    I have no doubt at all that the real motive behind the Government's introduction of the Bill is their desire to cut down Governmental expenditure, to try to reduce, relatively, their share of the cost of the services operated through local authorities. This is what we expect from a Conservative Government driven on by so many of their supporters to try to reduce public expenditure. They hope in this way to achieve their object. But this is one of the most dangerous times of all for a Government in Britain to be trying to cut what is really education expenditure. It is a back-door attack on education. What the Government are really doing is to sabotage Britain's national development through our education system at a most critical time. If, twenty-five or thirty years from now, Britain turns out to be, relatively, one of the under-developed nations of the world, the blame may very well lie with the Government which introduced this Bill.
    9.37 p.m.
    Mr. Willis: My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) went to the heart of our opposition to the Bill in his later remarks.

    733
    We can judge the Bill from the declared intentions and purposes of the Government. To do that, we go back to the White Papers issued before the Bill was published. The essence of the criticism of the present system made in those White Papers was that that the Government's contribution to local authority expenditure had risen until it exceeded the contributions of local authorities to their own expenditure. That was the kernel of the criticism made of the present system. They went on to say, as the hon. Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State knows, that this was a bad thing because it meant that local authorities were robbed of their freedom.
    If the Government meant what they said, the Bill can have only one meaning. The Government are determined to reverse the position. The Bill can mean only that the Government intend to reduce their contribution towards local government expenditure. It can mean nothing else. It is true that, so far as we can ascertain, for the first year or two, the Government have no intention of reducing their share of local government expenditure, but there is no single guarantee in the Bill that they intend to maintain their share. There is not a word in the Bill, and no Government spokesman has given any guarantee, that it is the Government's intention to maintain the central Government's share of local government expenditure.
    What does that mean? Several times in Committee I suggested that Scottish local authorities could look forward in the immediate future to an increased expenditure of £10 million or £15 million. The Government never said that I was being absurd in suggesting that. My estimate is probably not a long way out. The Government must answer the question whether they intend to contribute to this increasing local authority expenditure upon the same basis as they have in the past and are now. That question has not yet been answered. It is precisely on this point that every Scottish educational body and local authority except Edinburgh is worried. They have cause to worry, because neither the Bill nor the Government guarantees it, and the express purpose of the Bill is to change the relationship between the national and the local government contribution.
    734
    I am sure that local authorities, the Educational Institute of Scotland, all the other educational associations and other public bodies who have expressed an opinion about the Bill would like to have an answer to that question. Not a single word in the Bill gives any guarantee of that kind. Apparently, as educational expenditure increases local authorities will have to bear an increasing share, and with rate poundages as they are today, and with the very narrow basis of taxation and the inequitable basis of local government taxation that we have, this is a very serious problem. Every time the rate poundage increases the inequities and injustices are made worse.
    These were the points that we tried to make in Committee. They are of very great concern to everybody who is interested in local government. But the Front Bench opposite have not paid the slightest attention to any of our criticisms. Not a single one has been answered seriously.
    Expenditure is increasing in respect of other services. There is the care of the aged. Everyone is concerned about that. People are now living longer. One of my hon. Friends mentioned the old folks' clubs. At the beginning of the year Edinburgh Corporation decided to open more, at Stockbridge, Broughton and Margaret Tudor House. But Edinburgh needs three or four more old people's homes. This year it also started a pilot laundry service, and the laundry needs of the old folk of Edinburgh involve an expenditure of thousands of pounds. This means that local authorities will have far greater expenditure than they have had in the past. There is also the chiropody service.
    Everyone knows that we must provide these services, and that we are lagging behind at present. Do the Government intend to contribute as much towards these services in future as they have in the past? That question has not been answered. We have not been given one guarantee, and the fears of everybody are, therefore, fully justified.
    Then we come to something about which we have spoken a lot during this debate, the complete injustice of the present method of distributing the total aggregate grant. This afternoon we were told by the Joint Under-Secretary that if we

    735
    based it on what local authorities spent, it was a—I forgot the word he used—"mystical"—no, a "metaphysical calculation". I do not find the money I pay out of my pocket in the form of rates for local government services to be very metaphysical. It is very physical. What is the position? If I refer to Edinburgh it is because I represent part of that city, but other local authorities are in the same position.
    Suppose a local authority, whether it be a Tory- or a Labour-controlled authority, decides that there is a big educational task to be performed. Suppose that authority says, "Let us get ahead with nursery schools and further education—". No, I am sorry, further education is exempt. But suppose the authority says, "Let us get ahead with services for old folk, or put a new school in place of an existing slum school." What happens to that local authority? It is punished for doing things like that. We have been told by the Joint Under-Secretary that such an authority would have the privilege of knowing that it had these beautiful schools or lovely homes for old people. It would certainly have the honour of possessing them, but it would also have the privilege of paying for them; and in doing that it will be allowing a reactionary local authority to reduce its rates.
    That is what this method of distribution means. That is what the Joint Under-Secretary called the objective manner of distributing the money. If Glasgow does well, the ratepayers there will have the supreme privilege of knowing that they have allowed some county in the centre of Scotland to reduce its rates.
    Mr. Hannan: Or the rates in Edinburgh.
    Mr. Willis: Yes. If the Edinburgh authority does well it will have the privilege of knowing that it has reduced the rates in Glasgow.
    Mr. McInnes: Not a hope!
    Mr. Willis: Is there not something "phoney" about that method? Is it not a peculiar way to treat a local authority trying to face its responsibilities? I have never heard of such a method of trying to encourage local authorities.
    When we put this point of view the Joint Under-Secretary said that this would not happen, because in the localities there
    736
    would be a great pressure for educational services, and local authorities would have to go booming ahead. Then what becomes of the argument that the specific grant encourages wastefulness? That was one of the arguments which has been used. Whether it is a specific grant or not, the electors react in the same way. They will want to forge ahead. This method of distributing the money is quite unfair. I have already pointed out that the ultimate aim is to reduce the contribution made by the Government.
    One of the carrots dangled before us is that of greater freedom for local authorities, but we have not yet been told what it is. It is something indefinite in the future that the local authorities might or might not get. In Glasgow it means a saving of 320 hours of labour. Glasgow will still be subject to scrutiny the same as before and responsible to the Secretary of State for Scotland. Otherwise, Clause 3 is meaningless. He will have to draw up standards and appeal to local authorities to keep to them. How can he do that unless the local authority is responsible to the Secretary of State and explains what it is doing?
    We ought to have that report of the working party which is considering the question of the freedom to be given to local authorities. If we had it, the Government might not want to shout about it. It may not give a good deal of freedom to local authorities. An hon. Friend suggests that the Government have probably deliberately delayed bringing the report forward so that we should not know the extent of local authority freedom. If this is the reason, we ought to be given the report before the Bill is passed. For the reasons which I have given I will have much pleasure, in spite of the fact that Edinburgh approves of the principle of the block grant, in voting against the Bill.
    9.52 p.m.
    Mr. Ross: We should recognise that the Bill, to which we are saying a farewell word, is historic. It is the first Bill that has covered local government finance so comprehensively. It makes revolutionary changes in the financial relationship between the central Government and local authorities.
    The Bill was sent to the new Scottish Standing Committee, and Scottish Members were guillotined in their ability to

    737
    sit in that Committee. One would have thought that in order to mark the successful venture of the Government in regard to that Committee, full discussion would have been allowed on the Measure, but the Government introduced a timetable Motion to guillotine the Bill. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. George) said that there was never a more unpopular Bill, and that the Bill had no friends. He said that local authorities, teachers and industries were against it, and he added, "This Bill must have full discussion".
    It has not had full discussion. We are now on the Third Reading and there are Clauses which have never been mentioned. What about Clause 14, which will raise the cost of living in Scotland to some extent? It is not a matter for amusement but for gravity that we should be taking leave of a Bill which raises the cost of living, by how much we do not know. We have not had a chance to put questions about it. The Ninth Schedule has not been fully discussed, while not a word has been said about the Third and Fourth Schedules.
    The Government cannot be proud of the way things have been conducted. It is a reflection that, in order to pass this sham charter of the local authorities, Scottish Members have had to be denied the liberty of discussion that is their right. We have had the awful spectacle of Amendment after Amendment being passed without justification or a word of discussion—just shoved through. That is not democracy as I understand it. On the first occasion on which the new procedure has been evoked it is not greatly to the credit of the Government to employ it to get this Bill through.
    We are dealing with services vital to local government in Scotland, not purely in a local sense, but in a national sense. We are dealing with education and all its ramifications from nursery schools right through to the technical schools for which we hope. We are dealing with the welfare of the aged and of the children. We are dealing with road safety, the fire service, planning, and recreational and physical training facilities. We are making this revolutionary change under Clause 2 whereby local authority expenditure in respect of these things now covered by a specific grant is in future to be lumped together for the whole of
    738
    Scotland in an aggregate grant. In the Second Schedule there are details of the share-out.
    The first point of criticism must arise on the aggregate grant and the fairness of the apportionment. I want to draw the attention of the hon. Member for Pollok to this because he said he was satisfied that there would be adequate financial assistance for Scottish local authorities to meet the challenge in respect of education. He said the Secretary of State has got to take that into consideration. He has to take that into consideration, but that is all Clause 2 says. The hon. Member seems to equate the Secretary of State taking things into consideration with actual financial assistance. Nothing is laid upon the Secretary of State at all in respect of the actual sums of money which have to come out of that consideration. There is no guarantee of anything.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) was quite right. No local authority examining Clause 2 can say, "We will get so much". There is no guarantee of any adequate sum at all. What they will get will be what is decided by the Secretary of State. It has always been part of the case of hon. Members opposite that the man in Whitehall does not know best, but the central Government have to decide these things and the one man who decides them is to be the Secretary of State. Can the hon. Member for Pollok rest satisfied with that? I certainly cannot.
    On the apportionment of the grant, we have been given a Schedule which surely is mystic and wonderful. The Secretary of State himself cannot explain it and the Joint Under-Secretary told us he does not know whether it will work. All the evidence we have is that it will lead to dissatisfaction and unfairness. One hon. Member opposite spent hours talking about the apportionment of the grant in relation to his local authority and evidently he does not yet know how it will work.
    I do not think this is good enough. One thing we do know. In relying upon this formula we can now appreciate that a progressive local authority, since what it spends will become relevant expenditure and will go into the pool, will draw out of that pool only in accordance with this formula, which equally means that the

    739
    reactionary local authority will, according to this unchanging formula, draw more from the pool if other authorities spend more.
    That is the inequity of it. It means that local authorities which have special problems and need special services will find that they will not get their share of the pool, and those local authorities which are spending nothing on those services will draw a greater share out of it. What justice is there in that? How can this possibly lead local authorities to meet the educational challenge of today or the challenge of humanity in relation to the old folk or the children? It is an insult to their intelligence to expect the people of Scotland to believe that.
    These two Clauses, and particularly Clause 2, are the instruments of retrenchment. I do not think that this is a local authority Bill at all; it is a Treasury Bill. The Government are limiting their liabilities, and Clause 2 is the instrument by which they will limit them. We shall get a screen of wondrous words and soothing slogans about education being very important and all the rest of it, but if the educational challenge is to be met, it is not to be met with additional help from the Treasury, but only from the local authorities themselves.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) said, at the present time the local authorities are experiencing a financial crisis. Everyone knows that, and things are going to be worse. Are we to meet that educational challenge? Have we to rely on this Bill and on the people who presently occupy the Front Bench opposite? The answer is definitely "No." We were told by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) the real truth about this Bill. I always look on the hon. Gentleman as being the authentic voice of official Toryism.
    Mr. Willis: He did not understand it.
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman did not understand what was in the Bill, but he understood the purpose of the Bill, because he said that its purpose was to stop local authorities lashing out money. It was said two or three times that specific grants lead to extravagance. We asked the hon. Gentleman to give us one example of extravagance, and he told us
    740
    about some hinges on a cupboard door. The trouble with hon. Gentlemen opposite is that they have not got the right to talk about Scottish education. What do they know about Scottish schools? The Scottish Secretary of State goes into a Scottish school only as a visitor. The same thing applies to one of the Joint Under-Secretaries, and as for another of the Joint Under-Secretaries, we have never considered that Fettes is really a Scottish school. It just happens to be in Scotland.
    Let us note this. There are very few Scottish Conservative Members who were educated in Scottish schools, but those who were have been the most vociferous in opposing this Bill. In fact, one hon. Gentleman opposite, who is one of the Scots with a Scottish tradition in him, was in the Lobby with us voting against the unfairness of the Second Schedule, while another hon. Gentleman opposite abstained last night in a Division on a vital point in relation to local authority liberty.
    The actual facts are quite clear. This Bill is not what it is claimed to be. It is said that these specific grants lead to extravagance. I should like to address my remarks to the hon. Member for Pollok, because he said this. He said that everything was wonderful, and that we should not denigrate Scottish education. We have not been denigrating Scottish education. He told us how well Scotland was meeting the challenge at present.
    Let it be remembered, however, that the present time is not that under this Bill. Everything that he said was an argument for continuing the specific grants. Does he agree with this talk about extravagance? Obviously, if we are to change the grant by this Bill—and this is the purpose of the Bill—it means that we stop spending money on education, and if we stop spending money on education how do we meet the challenge? We do not.
    I think that I am right in saying that this Measure is the tool of retrenchment. We have been told—and this has been the song that has gone through the whole of the proceedings—that the Bill was the charter of liberty. We were told that local authorities would be given their freedom, and that there would be a new surge of interest in them and among

    741
    them. We heard that again tonight from the hon. Member for North Angus.
    He did not seem to realise that on Tuesday there were local elections in Scotland, but I am sure that the Joint Under-Secretary the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) realised it, and I was amazed at his silence when we were told that people are not taking interest in local government affairs. In Dumfries-shire great interest has been taken in the local elections. In one place there was an 86 per cent. poll. That is not bad for interest in local elections.
    What has stirred that interest is not this Bill, but some of the other things that the Government have done in relation to the raising of rents of local authority houses. We had 80 per cent. polls in Kirkcudbrightshire and in Ayrshire. There is a stirring of interest in local government. It is there. What is happening is that we cannot get the Tories to fight, because in certain areas they are disgusted with what their own Government are doing to local government.
    Mr. T. Fraser: We cannot blame them for that.
    Mr. Ross: Why, in Clause 11, have we this change in respect of the powers of a local authority to borrow money for any purpose, whether aided by grants or not? The Statute will say—and I hope that the Tories will cheer this, because they are doing it by their vote tonight—that a county council or town council shall not without the consent of the Minister concerned borrow money to meet any expenditure of a capital nature for any purpose.
    Not a single penny is to be borrowed by a local authority without the permission of the Secretary of State. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that he has made administrative arrangements about some such sum as £5,000, but he did not need the Bill to do that. He can do it at any time—and he could take it away tomorrow.
    That is what the Government are doing about local authority borrowings—and they talk of liberty. I wonder if they remember a few lines of Robert Burns, scathing lines that he put into the mouth of Beelzebub addressing a Highland lord who was determined to stop the people's bid for freedom—and Burns could have
    742
    addressed the same lines equally well to the Government in respect of their attacks on local authorities.
    Burns wrote:
    "They an' be d—d! what right hae they
    To meat or sleep, or light o' day!
    Far less to riches, pow'r, or freedom,
    But what your lordship likes to gie them?"
    These people who have always proclaimed that they intended to set the local authorities free now tell them that they will have to come to the Government for every single purpose for which they require to borrow sums of money. It really is a sham. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central who described the Bill as a fraud. To my mind, it is the chosen instrument of the Tory Party to carry out Tory promises to Tories to cut down Government expenditure, and they are doing it in such a way that vital services in Scotland will be cut down at a time when those services are more vital than ever to the well-being of the nation.
    Can any hon. Member opposite say that this is the moment to save money on education? Or are they satisfied that this will help in the expansion of the education that they know is needed. To our minds, this Measure is the black Act of 1958, and I am perfectly sure that Scotland will live to regret it.
    10.10 p.m.
    Mr. J. N. Browne: I agree with the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) that the Bill has in its own way made parliamentary history. It is the first Bill to be considered by the new Scottish Standing Committee. Looking back over the proceedings, I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House will feel that the smaller Committee was a success. We Scots put in more time in Committee than do our English colleagues, and for the first time at least some of our number were able to attend to their other responsibilities towards the House. We all agree that the quality and force of the debate was in no way impaired.
    Secondly, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock reminded us, this was the first Scottish Bill to operate in Committee under the Guillotine. In the event, this proved to be unavoidable. Some of the points that would have been made and discussed in Committee have not lost force by being discussed yesterday and

    743
    today on Report. We all know that the Government of the day must get its business done and that the Committee stage of the Bill was delayed by another Bill which took longer in Committee than was expected. None of the alternatives to a Guillotine Motion commended itself. Whatever the view of individual Members may be, there did not appear to be any other method that would have been more agreeable to Scottish hon. Members on both sides, to the House generally and to the Government. Personally, I do not like the Guillotine. I welcome the pressure on the Government that forces them to defend and explain their Bill. Our Scottish fault, if we admit any, lies not in what we say but in how long it takes us to say it.
    This problem of getting through our business is one which we in Scotland must view with grave concern. Could not we attempt to build up a tradition of a mutually agreed timetable? Did we, looking back over the previous stages of the Bill, spend in Committee and on Report too much time on the principles of the Bill which were already agreed on Second Reading, thus leaving ourselves little enough time for improvements in detail?
    The hon. Member for Kilmarnock said that we did not discuss the First and Third Schedules to the Bill. But, of course, they were fully discussed when we discussed Clause 2. I know that we did not discuss Clause 14, and I think that I should say two or three words about it.
    One has only to look at the dates of some of the Acts mentioned in the Clause to see the reason for it. Under paragraph (a) of the Clause we find 104 years ago that it cost 1s. to change a child's name after it had been registered at birth. The English fee has been 1s. 6d. since 1952. Under paragraph (b), what is popularly known as a birth, marriage and death certificate has cost 2s. for the last 104 years. The English fee has been 3s. 9d. since 1952. Of course, in Scotland the initial birth certificate is free, whereas in England one has to pay for it.
    Under paragraph (c), for 80 years a copy of the registrar's certificate of publication of notice of intent to marry has cost 1s. In England it is now 1s. 6d. Under paragraph (d), an abbreviated birth
    744
    certificate that conceals its legitimacy has cost 6d. since 1934. It now costs 9d. in England. Lastly, under paragraph (e), it now costs 5s. to get wed in a registry office compared with 7s. 6d. in England. Of course, it costs more than that to get wed in the long run, but I am sure that it is worth it.
    These services provided by local authorities, whether in England or Scotland, cost considerably more than the customers pay for them. The fees now bring in about £32,000 a year to the local authorities. The ratepayers pay 66 per cent. of the cost in Scotland, compared with 45 per cent. in England and Wales where the charges are higher. Under the Clause, my right hon. Friend takes power to increase the fees by regulation and he will discuss with the Scottish local authorities what the revised scales should be, having regard to particular Scottish conditions.
    My right hon. Friend will not be swayed in deciding the fees by the fact that the birth certificate in Scotland is free. It is not intended that the rise should be very steep. As an indication, if the Scottish fees were brought up to the English level, that would bring the Scottish local authorities another £20,000 a year. I know that hon. Members have not enjoyed listening to that, but it was right that we should get it on the record.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson rose—
    Mr. Browne: I must get on with my speech.
    The Bill is also unique in that it was officially opposed by the Convention of Royal Burghs and the County Councils' Association and three of the four Cities—and I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) is demonstrating his dislike of the Bill in spite of its interest for Edinburgh. It is unique in that while it is opposed by Scottish local authorities, a Bill with similar provisions was accepted in principle by the English and Welsh local authorities. I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) that the Bill has had a hostile reception. That is surprising, especially as Scottish local authorities as a whole gain £750,000 a year out of it. It is, therefore, important to look for the reason for this opposition.

    745
    I would put, first, the misunderstandings, some genuine and some deliberate, of the White Paper; and we heard a speech of deliberate misunderstanding from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). Our opponents read into the White Paper that it was our intention——
    Mr. Lawson: On a point of order. Does the use of the expression "deliberate misunderstanding" not imply deceit on the part of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis)? Is it in order to accuse an hon. Member of deceit?
    Mr. Speaker: I find the two words difficult to put together. I do not see how one can have deliberate misunderstanding. The words seem to cancel each other out.
    Mr. Browne: Whether the misunderstanding was genuine or not, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and others have read into the White Paper that it was our intention to use the general grant as a vehicle for a reduction in local authority income. What the White Paper actually said was that the rerating of industry would enable local authorities to draw a higher proportion of their revenue from local sources. Our consideration of the Bill through all its stages has clarified the minds of those who genuinely misunderstood, and discussion of the Bill in Committee and on Report has given many people a much greater understanding and has tended to change their views.
    I assure right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, and all local authorities, that the Government have none of the base intentions of which we have been accused. Our intention is primarily to free local authorities from some of the close control now exercised from the centre. We believe, and I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) said in his most well-informed speech, that too much central control and checking adds to the frustration and to the costs of local government.
    We believe, with my hon. Friend the Member for Pollok (Mr. George), that the local electors, including industry, will, as a result of the Bill, tend to take a greater interest in local government. We cannot be complacent about the present situation where the interest of the electors in local
    746
    government has so seriously declined. Hon. Members know that the number voting in local elections, which is the index of interest, has fallen from over 50 per cent. in 1947 to well under 40 per cent. today.
    The Bill brings increased freedom to local authorities to spend revenue on projects which, in their view, are most beneficial to their area. In many matters, this decision about how they shall spend their money is best made as near as possible to the local people and as far as possible from St. Andrew's House. The Bill must give local authorities a renewed sense of purpose and a renewed sense of responsibility. I just do not believe that elected representatives are only interested in furthering the cause of great social services like education and health provided that they obtain percentage grants.
    Furthermore, local authorities will now have a stronger incentive to convince the voters that their service is a good one, an incentive to obtain, and to show that they are obtaining, the best value for money. It is human nature to examine most carefully any expenditure which one has to meet in full oneself and the quality of service cannot, as hon. Members have sought to show throughout the debate, be measured proportionately to the amount of money spent. Education and health, for example, are not commodities which can be bought at so much per pound, like margarine.
    We believe that, given greater responsibilities, local authorities will do the right thing. Under the Bill the central Government retain their essential safeguards and Parliament retains ultimate control over the general grant. I can tell the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) that the general grant order is by affirmative Resolution procedure and is, therefore, taken in Government time, which is additional to any time taken on the Estimates debates. I can inform the hon. Member for Kilmarnock that it does not mean that the man in Whitehall knows best; it means that this House knows best and has the ultimate control.
    That is not the end of the story. The working party, which included representatives of local authorities and my right hon. Friend, has recently finished its examination of the relationship between the central Departments and the local

    747
    authorities. It has recommended a large number of important relaxations in present control. My noble Friend the Minister of State has discussed these recommendations with the local authority associations, who have indicated that they are prepared to accept them.
    The White Paper to explain the proposals will, I hope, be published shortly after the Whitsun Recess. In so far as these recommendations cannot be put into effect without legislation, suitable Amendments to the Bill will be tabled in another place and the House will have an opportunity of considering those Amendments later. When the Bill finally becomes an Act it will represent an important stage in our journey towards true democracy. We shall be proud of it and the local authorities will be grateful to us.
    The Bill fits into the pattern of recent Government legislation, all designed to bring local government up to date. In 1961, the full effect of revaluation under the 1956 Act will be known. New legislation will be required for equalisation grant by 1963. That Bill can incorporate any revision of the distribution formula, of which local authorities will have had at least one year's practical but not painful and not very profitable experience, although there is always the £750,000 extra which is an immediate gain for Scotland.
    In the next few years, people will move to new homes as a result of overspill arrangements. The Bill takes that fully into account. In the great problems set by the movements of population under the Housing and Town Development (Scotland) Act, 1957, the distribution formula based on objective factors helps local authorities, as it ensures that that population movement carries with it a compensating entitlement to grant.
    I predict that when the Bill becomes an Act local authorities will have no
    further doubts about the Government's intentions. When local authorities come to discuss the calculation of the general grant they will find the considerations in Clause 2 interpreted in a spirit of construction and not unnecessary restriction.
    Mr. Willis: What does that mean in terms of £ s. d.?
    Mr. Browne: Exactly what I said. When local authorities come to discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend they will find that he will interpret Clause 2 in the spirit in which it is framed, and not with any idea of this Bill being a vehicle for anything else.
    Mr. Ross: That means nothing.
    Mr. Browne: If it means nothing to the hon. Member, I do not know what he has been doing in Committee and on Report all this time. It means exactly what it says. It is the vehicle which will enable my right hon. Friend not only to give the local authorities all they need, but to enable them to move forward in the great causes of education and health which we all have so much at heart.
    When we strip down all the speeches made by right hon. and hon. Members opposite throughout Committee and on Report, we know why they are opposed to the Bill. Of course, the Labour Party do not like this Bill. The Labour Party cannot follow the downward path of Socialism unless the gentleman in Whitehall is in complete control. They sincerely believe that the gentleman in Whitehall knows best. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite and the Labour Party do not trust the local authorities. We on this side of the House believe in freedom, and the difference between us is that we do trust the local authorities.
    Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 141, Noes 98.

    Division No. 129.]

    AYES

    [10.29 p.m.

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Aitken, W. T.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Black, C. W.

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Braine, B. R.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Atkins, H. E.

    Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Barter, John

    Channon, Sir Henry

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Beamish, Col. Tufton

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Bingham, R. M.

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Duncan, Sir James

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

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Pitman, I. J.

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Hurd, A. R.

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

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

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Finlay, Graeme

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

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Gammans, Lady

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Redmayne, M.

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Gibson-Watt, D.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Glover, D.

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Glyn, Col. Richard H.

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Godber, J. B.

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Leavey, J. A.

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Gower, H. R.

    Leburn, W. G.

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

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

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Grant, W. (Woodside)

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

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

    Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

    Green, A.

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Teeling, W.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Temple, John M.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Maddan, Martin

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Marshall, Douglas

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

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

    Mathew, R.

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

    Mawby, R. L.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Hirst, Godfrey

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Whitelaw, W. S. I.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Hope, Lord John

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

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Hornby, R. P.

    Osborne, C.

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

    Page, R. G.

    Woollam, John Victor

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Partridge, E.

    Howard, John (Test)

    Peel, W. J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Mr. Wills and Mr. Bryan.

    NOES

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Hewitson, Cap, M.

    Oswald, T.

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

    Holman, P.

    Owen, W. J.

    Benson, Sir George

    Holt, A. F.

    Paton, John

    Blackburn, F.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Pearson, A.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Hoy, J. H.

    Popplewell, E.

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

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Rankin, John

    Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Redhead, E. C.

    Champion, A. J.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Ross, William

    Clunie, J.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Short, E. W.

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Janner, B.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Deer, G.

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

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Diamond, John

    Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

    Swingler, S. T.

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Sylvester, G. O.

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

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Duthie, W. S.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Thornton, E.

    Dye, S.

    Lawson, G. M.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Usborne, H. C.

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    McInnes, J.

    Wade, D. W.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Foot, D. M.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Willey, Frederick

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    Greenwood, Anthony

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

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Woof, R. E.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Hannan, W.

    Moody, A. S.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Hayman, F. H.

    Moyle, A.

    Mr. Wilkins and Mr. J. Taylor.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Orbach, M.

    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (LEVY)
  10.37 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): I beg to move,
  That the Draft Cinematograph Films (Collection of Levy) (Amendment) Regulations, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd April, be approved.
  These Regulations are made under Section 2 of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1957, which requires the Board of Trade to impose a levy on exhibitors for the benefit of makers of British films. The levy is to yield, in the Board's estimation, approximately £3¾ million in the first year, ending on 18th October, 1958. The rates of levy were fixed last year before the full severity of the decline in cinema attendances had shown itself, and it is now evident that if these rates remain unaltered the levy will not bring in the sum laid down in the Statute for the first year. Therefore, an obligation rests on the Government to amend the rates to attain the prescribed target, and the Regulations before the House are intended to achieve this.
  At the same time we are taking the opportunity to make some small changes in the method of imposing the levy. At present the levy is paid on the net seat price after deduction of Entertainments Duty. Provided, therefore, that seat prices remain unaltered, this means that a reduction of duty automatically increases the yield of the levy. The recent change in duty has not, however, increased the levy yield sufficiently to make unnecessary a change in the rates at which the levy is charged in order to secure the necessary £3¾ million. The amended Regulations, therefore, provide that the levy shall in future be charged on the gross seat price, including Entertainments Duty, so that the yield will not be affected by any subsequent changes there might be in duty, provided, of course, that there are no changes in seat prices.
  Secondly, instead of providing for the levy to rise by steps of ¼d. for specified price ranges, as in the past, we have decided to change over to a straight 10 per cent. of the amount by which the gross seat price exceeds 11d. Apart from being
  752
  more equitable, the new system is much easier to operate. Its effect is to reduce the levy on seats of 1s. 1d. and under, and to increase the levy progressively on higher-priced seats. I think I can say that these changes in the method of imposing the levy have been favourably received by the trade.
  The Act provides that the Board of Trade shall consult the Cinematograph Films Council before making Regulations, and this has been done. I hope, therefore, that the House will be able to approve these Regulations.
  10.41 p.m.
  Mrs. Eirene White: As the House knows, we have always given support to the idea of a statutory levy, and we on this side, therefore, agree in principle with the amendments proposed in these Regulations. It is not only within the statutory obligation of Her Majesty's Government to do something to increase the amount of the levy, in view of the fall in cinema attendances, since that is an obligation to the producers contained in the Cinematograph Films Act of last year, but it is a desirable object in any case.
  We feel, however, that we might have been given a little more information as to the estimated future effect of the levy. At the moment, we are in the middle of a levy year, which runs from October to October. The statutory obligation for the first year is, of course, to produce £3¾ million, but thereafter there is a certain elasticity, and the amount laid down by the Statute is anything between £2 million and £5 million.
  We ought to be told what are the calculations of the Board of Trade as to the probable future yield after October next, when one has this rather wider range within which the yield can be fixed. I think I am right in saying that the figure in mind is something more than £4 million in a full year for the year running from October next. We should have that confirmed. If it is, perhaps we might also be given the calculation of the probable attendance figure on which that yield will be based. The House is entitled to know that. The Regulations will continue until changed by some further order of the House; they will not end with the present levy year.

  753
  While we would not expect to have any fixed date given tonight as to when some review might be made, I think it would be for the advantage of the trade and the public if they were to be told what the Government have in mind about this. The whole situation in the cinema industry at the moment is a little uncertain, to say the least. The trend in cinema admissions has been catastrophically downwards in the last year or so. That may be evening out a little, and we all hope that that will prove to be so. But, because of the fluctuating situation, it would be very desirable to have an assurance that there will be a reasonably early review in case some further change in the rate of levy seems desirable.
  I have one comment on the method of collection. I entirely agree that the proposed arrangement for 10 per cent. is a much more satisfactory one than the previous arrangement. It allows for changes in Entertainments Duty. I could not discuss that on these Regulations, of course, but it is, at least, a possibility that in a subsequent Budget the duty may be abolished altogether. There is nothing in the present Regulations which would impede that in any way.
  In fact, 10 per cent. is both more practical in itself and also—as the hon. Member pointed out—it means that the higher-priced seats bear a considerably greater proportion of the levy, which should have the indirect effect of helping the smaller cinemas. Therefore, although there have been some criticism in the trade that this procedure seems to be a tax on a tax, that is not justified in practice, and we have no objection to the method of procedure adopted. We think that it will be generally helpful.
  In mentioning smaller cinemas I ought to refer to the representations which we have received from certain of the smaller exhibitors, who suggest that because of the levy they are likely to lose some of the advantage they may appear to be gaining through the reduction in Entertainments Duty. The reason is that the levy is collected from cinemas whose net takings amount to £150 a week or more, and the fact that they now have a somewhat smaller amount to pay in Entertainments Duty means that some cinemas which paid no levy previously are now brought within the range of it.
  754
  They feel that this is a certain hardship, and suggest that the limit of £150 should be increased. This limit of £150 net, which was itself an advantage over the £150 gross which previously prevailed, came into effect only last October, and it has not run for long enough for us to see quite how it is working out. I do not think that my hon. and right hon. Friends, at this point of time, would be justified in supporting a change in this minimum.
  On the other hand, we have had a number of cases of individual hardship, not all of them coming below the £150 limit. Some of the rather larger exhibitors are, unfortunately, in difficulties, and say that the burden of the levy is fairly considerable. Under the previous voluntary scheme in the trade there was an arrangement whereby individual exhibitors who claimed hardship could state their cases and produce their accounts before a committee of the trade, with exhibitors and renters represented on it. When the levy became statutory this procedure came to an end, and I know that representations have been made to the Board of Trade that, by some method or other, cases of individual hardship arising out of the payment of the levy should be considered.
  There are means whereby it might be done. We have committees in the Cinematograph Films Council which consider cases for exemption from quota regulations, and in theory, at least, I see no reason why some machinery of that sort might not be established to deal with individual hardship among exhibitors who say that they have a sufficiently strong case to preclude their being asked to contribute to the levy.
  I hope, therefore, that before we finally assent to the Regulations we shall be given a little more information on the points that I have mentioned.
  10.49 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Mathew: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has said that this change will mean the introduction of a more equitable system. In the main that is so, and the Regulations have been welcomed generally. But, as the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) suggested, there is a category of smaller exhibitors who feel that

  755
  the impact on their business will be less favourable, and I should like to add my plea that the Minister should seriously consider whether the £150 limit should be raised.
  As the hon. Lady indicated, these Regulations have a very direct relevance to the generous concessions in Entertainments Duty announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his Budget statement. Of course, these concessions have been welcomed in the cinema business.
  There is a category of smaller exhibitors especially in the country areas, to whom this present change presents a considerable threat. I am told that the tax reduction proposed will result, overall, in an average increase of about 25 per cent. in the takings. For the smaller cinemas—I speak of those with a seating capacity of 400 or perhaps a little more—in country towns with a population of 5,000 to 15,000 and a "catchment area" of not more than 20,000, the benefit from the tax concession will be very much less. The reasons are that the film company's share in the taking may be up to 50 per cent. in a number of cases, and in addition the exhibitors are faced with the increase in the levy. A number of these businesses were below the £150 limit before; and, now that they are getting on to a paying basis at last, they will get above the limit and become liable for the levy.
  I have been in touch with cinemas in my constituency in the West Country which come into this category and I am informed that, so far as it can be worked out, the actual benefit from the tax concession is likely to be nearer 8 per cent. than 25 per cent. I understand that the Performing Rights Society is likely to increase the percentage it takes. The conclusion, therefore, is that although the cinemas in the larger areas will benefit from the tax concession and will be glad to welcome this change, in the rural areas and in the smaller country towns it may prove a real threat. For those reasons, I ask my hon. Friend to look again at the £150 limit.
  10.53 p.m.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I represent a scattered rural area in which almost all the cinemas are small ones and
  756
  what is proposed tonight is of the greatest moment to many of them. I have been asked to support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) and the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Mathew). The smaller exhibitors fear that what is being given with one hand may be taken away with the other, because of the Eady levy. It is hoped to raise about £3¾ million this year, and we have not been given the real basis on which that figure has been calculated. It may be that cinema audiences will continue to decline. They have gone down by about one-third during the last five or seven years, and the £3¾ million may not be realised. That will mean an increase in the levy.
  If that happens, and if in October the change has to be made by Statutory Instrument, what will happen? I ask for an assurance from the Minister that if any increase has to be made, it will not be imposed on the smaller cinemas. If it is, they will be put into a serious plight, and none of us wants that to happen.
  10.55 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: As one who has taken interest in this matter, I thank the Minister and the Government for introducing these Regulations in this form. They are a very great improvement. Few people have thought more about the needs of the small cinemas than I, and I am well aware that the reduction of Entertainments Duty affects the small cinemas by more than the average that has been referred to—in fact about 70 per cent.
  One has to bear in mind that on the percentage basis the advantage which they might get out of the reduction of the duty is offset by the fact that they do not get full value in the matter of the levy. We should not be viewing this thing in its full perspective if we did not realise that the Entertainments Duty reduction for cinemas has been a vital matter of first aid. I do not think that any of us seriously believes that the restoration of prosperity will lead to a reasonable living in the industry. It has to attract people, and the best way it can do it is by better standards. Small cinemas have a vital interest in that requirement. That is exactly what the Regulations seek to do.
  It is not awfully easy to sell the advantages of the levy to the small cinema, but there is a growing perception that a way should be thought out to get the

  757
  cinema industry out of its difficulties. There has been an unfortunate reduction in attendances. It may be argued that the Government have rather delayed their first aid. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I think I said that last year and the year before. None the less, the Government have done what they could. They have done a lot to reduce the burden of the Entertainments Duty. There have been three reductions in a year, thereby making it easier for the cinemas to function. By reducing so much more, the small cinemas will be helped to take a rather better view of life.
  These Regulations will operate very much better than before. We need a certain amount of pressure on the small cinemas. I am convinced that some of them do not look at the economics of the thing as a whole and do not realise the extent to which the Government are trying to help to produce the sort of material that will give the cinema industry a chance to hang together.
  10.59 p.m.
  Mr. John Rankin: I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that the White Paper changing and improving the method of collection might well be coloured red. It is a warning from the Government who, in many ways, are much better informed as to the state of the cinema industry than we are. It is for that reason that I say that the paper should be red, because it shows that the real reason—the only reason—for the increase in the levy is that admissions are falling dangerously.
  My hon. Friend has asked for the estimate of admissions on which the levy is calculated for the present levy year ending in October next. I have put down a Question seeking not only that but further information, as the hon. Gentleman knows. It is important that we should know not only the estimated admissions for the year ending next October, but also on what estimate of admissions the Board of Trade is to base the levy for 1959. We have to look to the full year that follows.
  Once again we have to emphasise a point about which the Government will be hearing a good deal in the next few days. Whilst there has been generous treatment of the industry, I am quite
  758
  certain that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that, if the duty remains, in another year we shall have another Statutory Instrument revising the collection of the levy. It is as clear as daylight that merely reducing the duty will not cure the problem that faces the industry. The only solution that will, within the next few years, prevent a succession of these Instruments in order to keep up the yield of the levy is the total abolition of Entertainments Duty. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will keep that in mind.
  11.3 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Glover: I agree with what the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) has said. This is not a party matter. I am quite certain that the Entertainments Duty will very soon have to be totally removed, not, perhaps, just as a matter of justice to the industry, but because of the operation of the law of diminishing returns. In welcoming these Regulations—which, I think, are well drawn and will work in a better way—I should like to say a word to the cinema industry.
  I am quite certain that, even without the duty, the cinema industry is a contracting one. There are now alternative forms of entertainment, whereas, at one time, the cinema was the ordinary weekly entertainment of every family in the land. The family now has to be persuaded to leave the fireside and go to the cinema. It thus becomes doubly important that all exhibitors should use all the force they can, including the payment of the levy, to ensure that the quality of the films is such as to persuade families to leave slightly inferior entertainment at home and find superior entertainment outside.
  As a non-expert, I want to say a few words to the cinema industry about prices. Every industry, when faced with a falling turnover, says that it is necessary to cut prices. The cinema industry faces an entirely different problem. It is a night out when a person goes to a cinema, and he has to be attracted to go there. The cost of the seat is not nearly as important as it was when cinemas provided the major form of entertainment. The industry would be wiser to try, if possible, to keep its prices at their present level, in some cases even slightly to

  759
  increase them, but to provide better facilities and to give a better welcome to the cinema-going public.
  It is because I believe that the Regulations will help the industry to produce the films which will drag people out of their homes and back to the cinema that I warmly welcome them.
  11.6 p.m.
  Mr. Stephen Swingler: Hon. Members are extraordinarily generous to the Government. In the last two years, 300 or 400 small cinemas have had to close under the crushing weight of Entertainments Duty and we were unable to be generous to the proprietors. I am one of those who believe that the case for abolishing the cinema tax has been well made out, but I do not want to get out of order and so I will defer my remarks on that topic until next week.
  I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will respond to the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) and give us some information on the subject. One of the factors which has had a harmful effect on the film industry in the last six or twelve months has been the uncertainty of the whole situation, the uncertainty of the market due to the decline in attendances and, primarily, the uncertainty about what the Government would do.
  As has been said, the Government have left it very late indeed to tell the film industry, in the light of declining attendances, what they intended to do about this subsidy to maintain film production. The result has been that many productions have been abandoned in the last few months, many have been postponed and, for the size of the industry, there has been much unemployment among technicians, producers and others, who have drifted out of the industry. That is a loss of talent and a loss of confidence. Some of the workers have been lost to television and other competing trades and they will not be won back to the industry.
  The Government must take some responsibility for that situation. Those concerned with the production side of the industry want to know exactly what the Government view is about the yield of the levy. They want to know what is
  760
  likely to be the pool, because calculations about future productions depend on that.
  One of the objections about the Cinematograph Films Act, 1957, is that the amounts mentioned are so vague—a minimum of £2 million per annum and a maximum of £5 million per annum for the size of the pool resulting from the statutory levy. It would be a great help to the production side, because of the long-term planning necessary for film production, if the Government could give a clear indication about the financial pool which they expect annually from the levy.
  I regard this as a crazy system. It is ridiculous that we should deal with a subsidy in this way—and this is a subsidy to British film production.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The main principle of the levy cannot be discussed on the Regulations because it is enshrined in the Act.
  Mr. Swingler: I understand that, Mr. Speaker, but I am commenting on the fact that this Statutory Instrument has to be introduced in this way because of the fluctuations which have taken place on the exhibiting side of the film industry, which have knocked sideways the Government's calculations, and also because of changes in the Government's fiscal policy in the Entertainments Duty. I regard it as crazy that the Government are compelled to bring forward Regulations of this kind to make changes in the rates of levy. We are passing a measure of subsidy for the film industry, based on a rate of statutory levy which has now to be changed because the economic circumstances of the exhibiting side of the industry have changed and because the taxation system has been changed.
  The amount which we are asked to vote should not be dependent on the fluctuating circumstances of cinema attendances. We ought to make up our minds what we think is the amount of subsidy which should be given to uphold or expand British film production, because we regard that production as a national asset and because we want to promote the export of British films for reasons of prestige, culture and education. We ought not continually to have to consider Regulations of this kind, which may arise frequently because nobody can estimate what will happen to the size of cinema

  761
  attendances. The Government may constantly have to change the rate of the levy because their calculations of the yield have been undermined.
  I understand that I am not allowed to go further into the principles of the system, but I hope that I have made the point clearly. I hope that, for the benefit of those who are vitally concerned in planning future film production, the Parliamentary Secretary will give a firm indication of the amount which is to be raised by the levy and of the Government's future policy.
  11.13 p.m.
  Mr. Ray Mawby: I welcome these amended Regulations. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) suggested that cinema production units should be kept on a particular rate of levy regardless of cinema attendances and of whether the films are those which people want to see. This raises a fundamental principle. The Government cannot decide who will go to the cinema, and people do not want to go only to be educated. They go to the cinema to see a film which is attractive to them. If we get away from the basis of a levy supplied by the exhibitors, depending very much on the number attending the cinema, and handed over to the producers, the production units will no longer keep their eyes open to find out what people attending cinemas want to see.
  It would be wrong of us to decide that cinemas should be a national institution, with the State deciding that a certain amount should be devoted to producing films and with people being expected to attend to be educated. We should be wrong to take that view of the cinema industry. This measure is very fair. It is taking from exhibitors a certain amount, according to the attendance at cinemas. Upon that amount production units can produce better films.
  The Government cannot say how many people shall attend cinemas, though I think they can make a rough estimate how many in future will attend. However, the Government do not have the last word in the matter. It is for the industry to produce pictures which people wish to see and which will attract them from their firesides and television sets. At the moment we are turning out some first-class films because there is
  762
  that nice balance and connection between the exhibitors and producers, and everyone knows the type of film which is required. As films get better so attendances grow. As we have seen, for at a number of these first-class films the attendance has been phenomenal. As a result more money comes in for producers, to help them produce better films.
  Mr. Swingler: I am sure the hon. Member does not want to give a wrong impression of what I said. It is a fact that film producers draw out of the production fund in accordance with the commercial success of their films. The question we have to face tonight is whether, if attendance at cinemas falls, the rate of levy must be raised to produce a certain yield. That has nothing to do with the commercial success of the films and the amount of the production fund. What we are faced with is the question whether, if attendance at cinemas falls, the rate of levy should be raised to produce the same yield.
  Mr. Mawby: If we follow that line, and assume attendances will continue to fall for ever, there will be a problem. As I see it, the reduction in Entertainments Duty and the new methods in the cinema industry should level off the fall in attendances. I am not too pessimistic about the possibility of a continuation of the fall of attendances—unless the cinema industry does not produce the films which can compete with the other forms of entertainment. It is that which I am worried about. I am worried that we may create a condition in which we shall have falling attendances because the industry does not suit the potential customers. I feel that the measures which are being taken, particularly these Regulations, will be the best way of making certain we get the best films.
  11.18 p.m.
  Mr. John Diamond: These Regulations alter the rates of levy paid by exhibitors, and the purpose of the alteration is to provide the film producers with sufficient income to enable them to continue to produce films. The amount which they may require depends on other sources of income, and in particular that from renting films to cinemas. The amount which they receive from the renting of films to cinemas depends to a

  763
  large extent upon the Entertainments Duty levied on the exhibitors. It is, therefore, impossible to discuss these Regulations without some reference to the Entertainments Duty, because the purpose of these Regulations is affected by the Duty itself.
  No doubt it was for that very good reason that hon. Members on both sides of the House were permitted to mention that the Government had been generous in their treatment of the cinema industry in their Budget proposals. If I have succeeded, Mr. Speaker, in making my point to you that it was apparently in order for these statements to be made, may I have your indulgence while I attempt to controvert these statements and say how totally I disagree with the absurd use of English in suggesting that the Government have been generous in charging only half the amount of the Entertainments Duty on an industry which cannot afford to pay any duty and should not pay any at all.
  Mr. Speaker: I cannot allow the debate to develop into an argument about Entertainments Duty. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that it may be an element in the situation which influences the charge that we are now discussing, but we cannot debate the Entertainments Duty now.
  Mr. Diamond: I was not seeking to debate it, Mr. Speaker; I was merely seeking to controvert the statements previously made. I would not wish to pursue that, because I have made my position in that respect clear.
  I do not regard this as a simple request for an alteration in Regulations. I regard it as an apology by the Government which has been ill-made from the Front Bench. The Parliamentary Secretary ought to have said, "We have been wrong in our estimates, as usual; we have given too little and too late. We are now compelled to produce these Regulations, which are an admission of that fact"—an admission of the fact that had a correct estimate been made of the needs and likely results of the cinema industry there would have been no need to produce varying alterations. Indeed, the Parliamentary Secretary indicated as much.
  I am saying these things because I am not one of those who share the view that
  764
  the Government understand the needs of the industry. I am highly critical of the Government's lack of foresight on the needs of the industry. It is the Government's action which has prevented the industry from flourishing as it used to do. I am conscious of the fact that six years ago I had plenty of black hair; now I am practically bald and grey, and all in the service of this industry, trying to run during those six years some 25 small cinemas. Therefore, of course, I am only too glad to endorse the plea which has been put forward, by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), in particular, for support for the small cinemas to the extent that they can be supported out of these Regulations, which is very little indeed.
  I hope I have made my point sufficiently clear. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary understands the feeling that some of us on this side of the House have, a feeling which no doubt will be further explained at a later stage of our proceedings on the Finance Bill.
  11.23 p.m.
  Mr. Erroll: I think it fair to say that the Regulations which we have submitted to the House command the general approval of hon. Members who have spoken, with the possible exception of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond), and also the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler), who was, I thought, very ably answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby).
  Several hon. Members have asked about the attendance figures and estimates on which our calculations are based. We have assumed that there will be a further decline in attendances, but not such a severe one as the catastrophic decline which took place in the late summer and autumn of last year. I would remind the House, however, that we consult the Cinematograph Films Council in these matters and get the benefit of its expert estimates—which can only be estimates in a highly changeable and fluctuating market.
  We have, of course, considered both aspects of the matter, namely the question of producing the necessary £3¾ million this year which we are by statute bound to try to raise, and the question of what the collection should yield in the

  765
  next levy year. We have, we believe, arrived at figures which will produce the amount required for the remainder of this year, and we hope that a figure of the same order, or perhaps a little more, will be produced during the course of the next levy year. However, in the light of the experience of the last six or eight years, it would be a very rash Parliamentary Secretary who attempted to give reliable forecasts in this extremely changeable industry.
  Several hon. Members have referred to the particular problems of the small cinema. I would just like to say that, taking Entertainments Duty and the levy changes together, every cinema is better off than it was before. Although the overall yield of the levy is going up, the levy on 9 per cent. of the seats has actually been reduced. These, too, are the cheaper seats in which the smaller cinemas usually specialise. The incidence of the levy starts at 1 per cent. on the shilling seats, rising to 6½ per cent. on the 2s. 6d. seats, finally going to 9 per cent. and over on the very high-priced seats. The combined effect of the levy and duty changes gives the maximum percentage relief to the lower priced seats, from 18 per cent. at 1s. 6d. down to only 8½ per cent. at 15s.
  It is true that there may be some of the smaller cinemas previously exempt from the levy which, because of the reduction in the Entertainments Duty, will now be in a position to pay the levy and which, although they will be considerably better off than they were before, cannot be said to have been particularly helped compared with other exhibitors. It is true, nevertheless, that the great majority of the smaller exhibitors will have been well and truly helped. For these reasons, I confidently submit the Regulations to the House for approval.
  Mrs. White: Will the hon. Gentleman just say a word about provision for a further review, if necessary? He has himself said that he is unable to give any firm calculation as to the probable yield next year or of the attendances on which that calculation will be based. Will he, therefore, give an assurance that there will be an early review, if need be, so that the producers will know where they stand?
  Mr. Erroll: We will be prepared to review matters as soon as it appears necessary to do so.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Draft Cinematograph Films (Collection of Levy) (Amendment) Regulations, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd April, be approved.

  IRON AND STEEL PRODUCTS (IMPORT DUTIES)
  11.27 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): I beg to move,
  That the Additional Import Duties (No. 3) Order, 1958 (S.I., 1958, No. 671), dated 22nd April, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th April, be approved.
  This Order implements the tariff Agreement entered into last November with the European Coal and Steel Community. The Agreement was laid before the House on 3rd December. It was ratified by the United Kingdom in March, and the rest of the ratification formalities are likely to be completed shortly. Since the Community countries have now put the Agreement into effect by bringing their new duties into force, we have decided to do the same. In order to avoid difficulties of enforcement and undue complication of the tariff headings, it has been necessary to cover in the Order a slightly wider area than the letter of our commitment.
  The main effect of the Order is to reduce the United Kingdom import duties on the main iron and steel products to 10 per cent. ad valorem and to introduce new alternative specific duties at the rates per ton in the First Schedule to the Order. These alternatives come into play on goods imported at less than current United Kingdom prices, and these have an incidence of more than 10 per cent.
  I should mention one point of detail. Some of the iron and steel duties are at present temporarily suspended, and under existing legislation it is not possible to increase any duty which is not chargeable. It has been necessary, therefore, to insert a provision—it is to be found in Article 1 (2)—to the effect that the Order will alter the suspended items only

  767
  to the extent that it does not increase them. The current suspension Orders terminate on 18th September next, and if any of the suspensions are not renewed it will then be necessary to make a further order, which will require a further affirmative Resolution, bringing the duties concerned into effect so far as they are increases.
  However, I need not alarm the House with the prospect of many further Orders, because with the coming into effect of the new Import Duties Act, 1958, on 1st January, 1959, this procedural complication will disappear. On certain very cheap goods—one might almost say ridiculously cheap goods—the incidence of the new specific duties might theoretically be more than the old rates of duty, and it is therefore necessary, under the Import Duties Act, 1932, to ask the House to approve the Order by affirmative Resolution, which I now do.
  11.31 p.m.
  Mrs. Eirene White: I do not wish to detain the House or my hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones), who has the Adjournment, but I want to say a word about the Order. Hon. Members on this side of the House again are in general agreement with it. We recognise that it is part of our obligations under the Agreement with the European Steel and Coal Community, and we have consulted our trade union colleagues, who were also consulted before this arrangement was agreed, and I understand that, generally speaking, they have no objection to it.
  We are glad to say that in spite of a certain recession in the steel industry, shown by the figures published this morning, our production costs and prices are sufficiently competitive for us to be able to stand up to the reductions in duty. As the hon. Member has said, a number of duties are in any case in suspense at present. They were introduced originally to prevent dumping and, as he rightly pointed out, if there should be any recurrence of dumping there is the long-stop provision in the Agreement. Should the situation ever become more serious I believe that Article III of the Agreement signed with the Luxembourg countries would also, if necessary, provide a procedure whereby we could ad-
  768
  just matters. I hope that it will not be needed and that the steel industry of this country can face any reasonable competition that it might have to meet. We therefore raise no objection to this Order, and I hope that none of the possible changes that I have mentioned will ever be needed.
  11.32 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Holt: I want to say a few words welcoming this Order, not so much for what it does at the moment as for its significance in new developments in tariff policy. We sometimes do things a little oddly in this House. In a very brief debate tonight we are passing this Statutory Instrument, which is the first legislative result of some very far-reaching proposals made with regard to our tariffs in connection with imports from the Continent. I would have wished that the Parliamentary Secretary felt he had rather more time to explain the present background of the steel tariffs, as they are rather difficult to follow.
  As I understand it, this Order has now reduced the tariffs, in theory, from about 33⅓ per cent., 25 per cent. and 20 per cent., which are the long-standing tariff rates on steel, to roughly 10 per cent. But, as is indicated in the Third Schedule to this Statutory Instrument, there have been three previous Statutory Instruments which have already completely exempted from duty a large range of the products affected here.
  Although this Order is produced to give effect to an agreement made between the United Kingdom and the members of the European Coal and Steel Community, these tariff reductions affect imports from any country, and that is a most encouraging development. I hope that in the subsequent reductions made in connection with the wider proposals for a Common Market in Europe the same thing will apply.
  It would have been helpful to the House if the Parliamentary Secretary could have indicated what further proposals there may be with regard to this. In connection with the Agreement which this implements, I notice that the tariff levels of other countries will be lower than ours, and I should like to know why the United Kingdom can reduce its tariffs only to approximately 10 per cent. while

  769
  on our imports into Federal Germany and the Benelux countries the figure is more like 3 per cent. or 4 per cent.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Additional Import Duties (No. 3) Order, 1958 (S.I., 1958, No. 671), dated 22nd April, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th April, be approved.

  ROADS, MERIONETH (IMPROVEMENT GRANTS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]
  11.38 p.m.
  Mr. T. W. Jones: In considering the application of the Agriculture (Improvement of Roads) Act, 1955, it should be borne in mind that this Act had its inception in the Government White Paper on Rural Wales following the second Memorandum of the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire. The Minister will recall that we had a full debate on the manifold problems of the Welsh countryside, including the burning question of depopulation. I should like to quote what was said by Lord Kilmuir, then Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, who was then Minister for Welsh Affairs:
  "I know that the condition of some of the minor roads in the Welsh uplands is of Feat concern to the farmers. Various hon. Members have referred to this question in almost every debate on Welsh affairs and the Government agree that there is need for special assistance towards the improvement of unclassified and unadopted roads in livestock-rearing areas where the improvement would materially assist the economy of farms, otherwise satisfactory … and, as is announced in paragraph 33 of the White Paper, legislation for this purpose will be introduced when opportunity offers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December, 1953; Vol. 521, c. 1834.]
  Those were very fair words, but how prophetic were the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), who wound up the debate for the Opposition. He said:
  "Then, at last, we shall have a Bill and we shall discuss it. In the meantime, all the Welsh will be thinking that they are having something. All they are having is being had. They are being had all the time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December, 1953; Vol. 521, c. 1919.]
  The Government decided to embody the proposals in an Act. In introducing the Agriculture (Improvement of Roads)
  770
  Bill, on 22nd June, 1955, the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said:
  "The main purpose of this short Bill, which I am sure the whole House will welcome, is to give the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself power to make grants to highway authorities for the improvement of unclassified and unadopted roads in livestock rearing areas … The Bill is intended primarily as a measure of assistance to upland farming and forest areas in Wales."
  Having listened attentively to the speech, and representing as I do an agricultural constituency within a livestock rearing area, I was tremendously encouraged, and during the debate I was sufficiently naive to make the following observations:
  "Unlike a previous speaker from this side of the House, I find the Bill fairly commendable. It can be made very useful and valuable in a county like Merionethshire. It is true that this is not a perfect Bill …. I am prepared to say that it is perhaps the best Bill of its kind."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd June, 1955; Vol. 542, cs. 1316 and 1346.]
  My words are on record. How innocent I was, in the light of what has happened in the last three years. The Minister led me up the garden. I assure him that he will not do it the second time. Once bitten, twice shy. Before I resume my seat I will tell him what I think of the miserable performance of his Department. The Minister should be ashamed of himself or of the Department. Either he or the Department is shocking.
  Although £2½ million was allocated for Wales and the Act has been in force for nearly three years, very little has been spent. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) asked the Minister a week ago last Monday the amount of the grant paid for the whole of 1957. The Minister had the temerity to say that it was £19,248.
  This is not good enough. In the words of my right hon. Friend for Ebbw Vale, we are being "had". The Merioneth county surveyor drew up a plan of works costing £86,500. The Land Commissioner convened a meeting of the interested parties when all the roads to be made were considered. The Commissioner pointed out that he did not think that more than £20,000 would be allocated to Merioneth for this year. I do not know the Land Commissioner, so there is nothing personal in this; but I want to know whether the Land Commissioner decides for the Minister or whether the Minister instructs the Land Commis-

  771
  sioner. In other words, does the dog wag the tail, or the tail wag the dog?
  The county surveyor and his committee have spent laborious hours preparing plans for upland road improvements, and have been fooled. Their plans have been pigeon-holed. At the last meeting of the highways committee, I was not surprised to hear one councillor say:
  "We welcomed the provision for agricultural roads with open arms in 1955. It now seems to be all a farce."
  There is the same disappointment among farmers.
  The secretary of the National Farmers' Union wrote to me, saying:
  "I am sure you will agree that this is only playing with the matter."
  This morning I received the following letter from the Welsh Secretary of the National Farmers' Union:
  "Dear Mr. Jones,
  May I, on behalf of the Welsh Committee of the National Farmers' Union, express appreciation of your gesture in placing on the Order Paper under Motions for the Adjournment of the House of Commons an item in regard to the improvement of roads in Merionethshire, especially rural roads.
  I may say this matter received much attention at the Welsh Conference which was held at Llandudno last week, and there were general complaints in regard to the slow application of the grants where they were most needed. The Merionethshire farmers were also vocal in this respect.
  The general picture is that there is a lot of leeway to be made up to allow farmers to make use of the modern machinery now available and to ensure that deliveries are possible to the farm.
  Again, many thanks,
  Yours sincerely,
  E. Varley Merchant,
  Welsh Secretary."
  How he knew that I was to speak tonight, I do not know.
  I ask the Minister to put an end to this farce. Just think—£19,000 for the whole of Wales. He could have collected that by holding a whist drive. And this under an Act introduced by the present Government. I could understand the Minister acting rather stupidly had this been a piece of Labour legislation, to frustrate its purpose, but this is his own Act.
  During the Committee stage we were told that the Government's concern was that, perhaps, county councils would not take full advantage of the Act by bringing forward their plans. I got in touch
  772
  with my own county council and encouraged it to bring forward its plans as soon as possible, because I believed in the sincerity of the Minister's remarks in Committee. I expected that practically everything that the Merionethshire County Council asked for under the Act would be granted—and particularly in Merionethshire, because I am sure that the Act was passed to help Radnorshire, Merionethshire and Caernarvonshire.
  I want the Minister to prove that the Government were in dead earnest, and the only way to do so is to act realistically and more generously, and to say to our county council highways committee, "Submit your plans. We shall take a sympathetic view and will help you to the utmost because, by helping you, we shall be helping farmers to produce more." The Ministry constantly urges the farmers to produce more and more.
  Anybody who knows my constituency will appreciate how difficult it is to farm on those high uplands. Here is one way, and a practical way of assisting those farmers. When the county council submits plans involving £80,000 it should not be told by the Land Commissioner that not more than £20,000 will be allowed. As I say, I want to know from the Minister whether the Land Commissioner decides on the spot what is to be done, or whether he is carrying out the Minister's instructions.
  11.50 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Thomas: I, too, was on the Committee with the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones) when the Act went through that stage, and we both welcomed it wholeheartedly. It can still play a great part in the rural life of upland Wales and we look forward to the Act being implemented in full.
  The hon. Member was a little unfair to my hon. Friend when he blamed him and his Ministry for the fact that the Act has not yet been fully implemented. Those of us who appreciate the excellent policy which the Government are adopting to fight certain economic ills will understand that it is not possible at the moment for the Treasury to pay out the full amount of money for many schemes, as it would like to do. But we have every confidence that it will soon be possible for these schemes to be implemented more fully.

  773
  In Wales, we attach tremendous importance to this Act, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to persuade the Treasury to consent, when it feels able, to allow a little more money to be spent to allow this scheme to be implemented to the full.
  11.51 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones) for raising this matter and to my hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. P. Thomas) for his contribution to the debate. I am very grateful to the hon. Member despite the fact that he castigated me somewhat. I do not mind that, but I want to put the matter into its proper perspective. The hon. Member gave us the history of the matter and I do not propose to go over that again.
  As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the Act provides for £4 million over a total period of seven years from the inception of the Act. I will deal first with the hon. Member's own county, Merioneth, and then with the general problem. Merioneth is a typical area which the Act was intended to assist. A very large proportion of the land in Merioneth is of the type to which the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts apply, and some hundreds of improvement schemes are being carried out by owners and occupiers under those Acts.
  The length of unclassified roads in the county is about 420 miles, which is about 43 per cent. of all public roads in the county and just about the same percentage as for the whole of the Principality. I agree with the hon. Member that it is unfortunate—that is the word I would use—that the operation of the Act has been affected by the general capital restrictions to which my hon. Friend referred and which we have found it necessary to impose in the interests of the national economy as a whole. As my hon. Friend rightly said, that was a point to which the hon. Member did not address himself. Since the passing of the Act, we have had very serious problems of that nature. The hon. Member will agree that we could not exempt roads from the restrictions.
  774
  The power to approve proposals under the Act remains until the end of 1962. In the first year of the Act, 1956–57, authorities were asked to make an appreciation of the problem in their areas and to undertake the necessarily somewhat involved preparatory work to make sure that their schemes were sound. No grants were paid in that first year. The hon. Member will realise that this is a difficult and involved matter and that it is necessary to look into these things carefully to make sure that the money is properly expended. In the second financial year, a start was made in approving schemes and £250,000 was provided in the Estimates, of which half was reserved for schemes in Wales and Monmouthshire.
  The hon. Member referred to the amount which has been paid. That is paid only after completion of the work. In the second year, £250,000 was reserved in the Estimates. About one-third of the schemes put forward by highway authorities for 1957–58, to the value of about £270,000 were selected for approval. The authorities put forward a large programme and we were able to allow one-third of it. Those schemes of greatest value to agriculture were selected first.
  The maximum rates of grant were 75 per cent. of the cost for unclassified roads and 85 per cent. for unadopted roads. These maximum rates applied to Merioneth as they did to most of the Welsh counties. The estimated cost of the work authorised and started in the 12 Welsh counties which are eligible for grant came to over £220,000, of which Merioneth accounted for £23,000. Those are figures to be noted; they are substantial figures not, to take the hon. Member's comment, "whist-drive" figures. Although the programmes of all authorities have had to be reduced, I ask the hon. Member to agree that Merioneth has, at any rate, had its fair share of what money was available.
  I am glad to be able to say that in the current year, in view of the importance of this work and despite the fact that, in general, there can be no let-up on the control of the Government's capital expenditure, the amount provided for grants under this Act in the Estimates for Great Britain has been increased by £140,000 to a total of £390,000. I know that much of this sum will be needed to

  775
  meet claims for work done last year, and the amount of new work to be approved this year will not necessarily be more than last year and may well be less.
  I realise that the amount of work approved is small in relation to the extent of the problem. I do not deny that. That is so on the figures which the hon. Member has quoted and which are available to me for the whole of Wales. I know that many highway authorities, including Merioneth, would like to go ahead much faster, but it is not possible to hold out hopes of a greater volume of work until there is a general relaxation of the present capital restrictions.
  As in all such schemes, there have been difficulties in administering this Act. Complaints have been made that approval of schemes has not been notified to highway authorities until well into the summer so that work could not be done at the most favourable time. I have a great deal of sympathy with the highway authorities in this and I am seeing to it that we do all we can to speed up the approval of schemes this year.
  I do not think that we should be too gloomy about this matter. By now many useful schemes have been completed. Roads have been improved to meet the needs of modern agricultural traffic and in many cases narrow roads have been made more serviceable by the provision of passing places. This is a good start, and I am convinced that, in spite of all the difficulties, the Act will enable the worthwhile road improvements to be made in due course.
  There are difficulties in relation to these matters, and I will quote paragraph 97 of the Mid-Wales Investigation Report, which has some bearing on them. After referring to the Bill, now an Act, it said:
  "The problem of the poor public road merges into that of the poor farm road and for the reasons indicated in paragraph 65 we feel that it is desirable that in administering the new grants the Ministry should have regard to farm planning and the cost of proposed road improvements in relation to the benefit to agriculture. A representative of one highway authority, in his evidence to us, expressed the view that the amalgamation of small farms would in certain cases reduce the length of the road network. This became abundantly clear to us during the course of our inspections. We certainly do not think it will be possible for highway authorities to
  776
  improve and maintain to modern standards all country roads constructed in the days of horse-drawn traffic. We saw some through roads the improvement of which would, in our view, be amply justified on agricultural grounds; on the other hand, there were some roads, stated to be the responsibility of the highway authority, which were little more than bridle paths. The value of a road cannot be judged entirely by the number of agricultural units and other properties served …"
  It is a difficult problem, and though counties put forward their various schemes to us we have to look at them somewhat carefully to make sure that the best use is made of the available money in the interests of agriculture, for we can spend much money on some of these roads without getting the true value we want.
  The hon. Member asked me to tell him who decides, whether it is the Land Commissioner or the Minister. I can assure him the decisions are certainly the Minister's, but the real decisions, in times of financial stringency, lie elsewhere, as, I think, the hon. Member very well knows. Once we can get rid of the present capital restrictions we are anxious to press ahead with this work. We know there is a lot of good work to be done, which can be done and should be done. When we are able to do so we shall certainly press ahead. Because of the information which the counties are preparing for us we shall be in a position then, as I think, to go ahead. The Land Commissioners are consulting as closely as they can the local authorities in Wales to obtain the plans. Plans are coming forward.
  We have provided a considerable amount of money on entirely new projects at a time of financial stringency when many other things have been cut back. I have cited the increased estimates for this year. I think that the hon. Member must realise that we are trying to do all we can in what we recognise is a very necessary thing which can be, as he said—and I entirely agree with him—of very real help in solving the difficult problems of agriculture in Wales. That was the purpose of the Act. It is our intention to do this work and spend this money. We shall certainly hope, when conditions are more propitious, to go ahead faster. In the meantime, we have made what I think is a reasonable start. I have stated the increase in the allocations which have been made.

  777
  Nobody will be more pleased than I when we are able to approve work on a larger scale, even to an extent which would satisfy the hon. Member. I am not able to tell him when that will be. He knows as well as I the difficulties of finance. But I do give him the assurance that this Act is not just a piece of paper, but something which we intend to work, which we have started to make work, and
  778
  which will work better still. I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising the matter, enabling me to bring it into perspective, as I see it. I assure him that I shall be only too glad when we are able to do a little more in that way.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Twelve o'clock.

KENYA
  Technical and Trade Schools, Nairobi
  Technical and Trade Schools, Nairobi
  Africans (Detention and Works Camps)
  Africans (Detention and Works Camps)
NORTHERN RHODESIA
  Hodgson Technical College, Lusaka
  Hodgson Technical College, Lusaka
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Probation Service
  Probation Service
INDIA AND PAKISTAN
  Kashmir
  Kashmir
SWAZILAND
  Trade Unions
  Trade Unions
  Resident Commissioner and National Council
  Resident Commissioner and National Council
EDUCATION
  Huish's Grammar School, Taunton
  Huish's Grammar School, Taunton
  Wynyard Hall Training College
  Wynyard Hall Training College
  Teachers and School Building
  Teachers and School Building
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Venezuela and Brazil (Minister's Visit)
  Venezuela and Brazil (Minister's Visit)
  Hire-Purchase and Credit Sale Agreements
  Hire-Purchase and Credit Sale Agreements
  Butter
  Butter
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Social Services (Expenditure)
  Social Services (Expenditure)
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Entertainments Duty (Cinemas)
  Entertainments Duty (Cinemas)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Statutory Smallholdings, Norfolk
  Statutory Smallholdings, Norfolk
  Herring Fishing (Isle of Man Landings)
  Herring Fishing (Isle of Man Landings)
TRANSPORT
  Motor Cyclists (Protective Helmets)
  Motor Cyclists (Protective Helmets)
  Underground Railway Coaches (Passengers)
  Underground Railway Coaches (Passengers)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Dental Treatment (Omnibus Driver)
  Dental Treatment (Omnibus Driver)
  Poliomyelitis (Vaccinations)
  Poliomyelitis (Vaccinations)
EMPLOYMENT
  Farm Workers, Norfolk
  Farm Workers, Norfolk
  Lincoln
  Lincoln
BRITISH ARMY
  Welsh Guards Band (Engagement)
  Welsh Guards Band (Engagement)
ROYAL NAVY
  Patrol Boats (Proud Class)
  Patrol Boats (Proud Class)
HOUSING
  Tenants (Intention to Quit)
  Tenants (Intention to Quit)
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD TERRINGTON On the Woolsack.

Prayers
The Lord Airedale—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Lord Dunning (L. Rollo)—Took the Oath.

GLOUCESTER CORPORATION BILL
Read 2a, and referred to a Select Committee.
FALMOUTH DOCKS BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.

DOMICILE BILL [H.L.]
LORD MESTON: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to domicile; and to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Meston.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (COLLECTION OF LEVY) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 1958
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT)THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT) rose to move, That the Draft Cinematograph Films (Collection of Levy) (Amendment) Regulations, 1958, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, Section 2 of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1957, under which these Regulations are made, requires the Board of Trade to impose a levy on exhibitors for the benefit of makers of British films, to yield, in the Board's estimation, approximately £3¾ million in the first year ending on October 18, 1958. The rates of levy
372
were fixed last year before the full severity in the decline of cinema attendances had shown itself. It is now quite evident, as those of your Lordships who are interested in the matter will agree, that if these rates remain unaltered, the levy will not bring in the sum laid down in the Statute for the first year. The obligation therefore rests on the Government to amend these rates to achieve the prescribed target, and the proposed amendment which is before your Lordships to-day for approval, is designed to this end.
First, let me say a word about some small changes in the method of imposing the levy. At present, the levy is paid on the net seat price after deduction of entertainments duty, so that, as your Lordships will see, a reduction of duty automatically increases the yield of the levy. This has been demonstrated by the recent change in duty in the Budget, but the increase in levy yield was not sufficient to make unnecessary a change in the rates at which the levy is charged in order to secure the £3¾ million. The amendment before your Lordships provides that the levy should in future be charged on the gross seat price including entertainments duty, so that the yield will not be affected by any subsequent changes there might be in entertainments duty.
Secondly, instead of the levy rising by steps of ¼d. for specified price ranges, as in the past, it has been decided to change over to a straight 10 per cent. of the amount by which the gross seat price exceeds 11d. Apart from being more equitable, the new system is, I am told, much easier to operate. Its effect is to reduce the levy on seats of 1s. 1d. and under, and to increase the levy progressively on higher priced seats.
I think I can say that these changes in the method of imposing the levy have enjoyed a favourable reception in the trade. There has, however, been a little disappointment on the part of some exhibitors because the Government have not felt able to improve on the exemption arrangements. Your Lordships will remember that exhibitors whose net weekly takings, after deduction of entertainments duty, were less than £150, were exempt from payment of the levy. Some exhibitors who have previously been exempt on this account will now, because

373
of the substantial reduction in entertainments duty, be left with considerably greater net box-office takings and will therefore be in a position to pay the levy. Naturally, no one who has been exempt from a liability of this kind likes to have to pay, but I see no justification for raising the exemption limit so that a relatively small number of exhibitors might continue to enjoy exemption regardless of their improved position. This could be done only at the cost of placing a heavier burden on other exhibitors. I do not think it is generally realised that some 1.300 exhibitors are at present exempt from levy.
The increase in the levy has been represented in some quarters as taking away with one hand what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given with the other hand by way of entertainments duty relief. How far this is valid your Lordships can judge for yourselves by comparing the £14½ million reduction in entertainments duty, with the relatively small increase necessary to bring the levy back to £¾million, from what it would have fallen to if there had been no change. But such an argument is, I would suggest, beside the point, because, as I hope I have made clear to your Lordships, the amendment to the rate of levy does not represent an arbitrary decision to take advantage of the improved position of exhibitors following the reduction of entertainments duty: it is before your Lordships for approval because the Act requires the Board of Trade to fix the rates of levy in a way which, will yield in their estimation approximately £¾ million. The Act provides that the Board of Trade shall consult the Cinematograph Films Council before making Regulations, and this has been done. I hope, therefore, that the House will be able to approve these Regulations. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Cinematograph Films (Collection of Levy) (Amendment) Regulations, 1958, be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
3.13 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, it must give the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, as much satisfaction to ask for your Lordships' consent to these Regulations as it does to the majority of your Lordships to hear him say it. After all, he has had to bear the brunt of the attack that has been made upon
374
Her Majesty's Government for quite a number of years now in regard to a reduction in entertainments duty. I am not going to speculate as to how many were surprised or disappointed at the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reducing the entertainments duty by 50 per cent., but it will mean a benefit of somewhere in the region of £14½ million to the industry and those who benefit from the industry. I understand that queues are already lined up with their traditional porridge bowls to get, if I may use the expression, a "cut" of this £14 million—all, I have not the slightest doubt, worthy claimants.
The Regulations deal with that share which goes to the Fund as levy and which will directly benefit the producers; and. as the noble Lord has said, it is designed for the amount of £3¾ million. Whilst I hope that all those connected with the industry—producers, exhibitors, and the labour employed in the industry—will benefit, may I put in a word for the silent majority, the British public? I sincerely hope that some of this will result in reduced prices to the public, because the cinematograph film industry must realise that if it is to compete successfully with its principal competitor, television, it can do so only on a rising income at the box office; and that, in the last analysis, will depend not only upon the quality of the pictures the industry produces but also upon the prices which the public have to pay to go to see them.
I am glad that the Government have been able to alter the incidence of the levy to favour in some way the small cinema in remote districts. What pleased me more than anything else was to hear the noble Lord give the hint that Her Majesty's Government, if they are in a position so to do, intend further reductions in entertainments duty, because they have now so arranged the machinery that they will not have to alter it again —I think the noble Lord said this in as many words—when they make any future alteration in the amount of entertainments duty. Since the Government can only alter it downwards, I am hoping—in fact I know that it is the only thing that will be of lasting benefit to the industry—that in perhaps twelve months' time the noble Lord will come

375
to your Lordships again with a Regulation to increase the levy, so that it will give the producers a minimum of £5 million a year, which they will be able to have out of the takings and increased earnings by the industry through the total elimination of entertainments duty. And do not forget, my Lords, that this is the only industry, or the only section of the entertainment industry, in the whole country which has an entertainments duty levied upon it. I congratulate and thank the noble Lord for the part he played in persuading his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and hope he will be able to do the same in twelve months' time.
3.17 p.m.
LORD WESTWOOD: My Lords, as one who is interested in the film business, it is only natural that I should support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. The cinema industry recognised the fact that, consequent upon the recent reduction of entertainments tax and the decrease of the box office receipts, some amendment of the levy rates had to be made. This was necessary because the British film producers were supposed to receive the £3¾ million as laid down in the Cinematograph Act but were going to fall short of that sum as a result of the reduction in the box office receipts. I am quite confident that the new rates which my noble friend has outlined to your Lordships today will enable the figure of £3¾ million to be reached, and probably exceeded, in the next year, starting October, 1958.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, I was very sorry indeed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not see his way in his recent Budget to abolish the cinema tax—I say "cinema tax"; I do not call it entertainments tax, because the cinema is the only form of entertainment which is taxed. However, half a loaf is better than no bread, and I am hopeful that he may yet have it in his heart to give us some more relief, either in an interim Budget or in next year's Budget, and bring the cinema into line with all other forms of entertainment.
I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said about a queue being formed for the £14½ million which we are alleged—when I say "we" I mean the executive side of the industry
376
—to have got. But out of the £14½ million concession which we have been given, over £5 million will be given to the film distributors on account of film hire—and rightly so: they are entitled to it just as much as the exhibitors are, and they must have it to enable them to stay in business. That leaves a balance of £9½ million in the exhibitors' hands. Your Lordships have heard to-day that the levy rates are to go up, which will further reduce that sum by about £1¼ million, bringing the balance in exhibitors' hands down to something like £8 million. On top of that we have had demands from the two trade unions for wage and salary increases. As a result of all this, I can visualise the concession of £14½ million gradually dwindling until it may well have little value to the exhibitors of this country and the closing down of cinemas will still continue. The tax concessions to the live theatres came too late to save many of them. I hope the same will not prove true with the cinemas. Like the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have some softening of his heart, either in the Committee stage of the Finance Bill or later, and give us what we are, I think, entitled to, tax abolition for this wonderful industry which brings entertainment to so many of our people.
3.21 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, I would not intervene on this matter except that when we had a previous Order before us there was a slight discussion on it, and it might be misunderstood if that were not followed up on this occasion. Like those who have spoken, I welcome this Amendment Order, for two reasons. I think it puts the method of the levy on a more equitable basis than is was formerly; and I would say, speaking for producers, but without having consulted them, that they are naturally very pleased that the short-fall which was obviously going to take place on the levy is now being restored.
I feel, however, that it is necessary to say a word or two of qualification. Reference has been made to the remission of tax being of the order of £14½ million. That figure, I think, is a little illusory. It would have been £141 million if receipts for the ensuing year, admissions at the box office, had remained at the same

377
level as last year. With the fall in attendances at the cinema the total yield of tax would have been down again, and therefore the remission is something less than the£14½ million. So far as British producers are concerned, the best estimate is that out of the so-called £14½ million they will receive in increased film rentals something of the order of £1 million. With the effect of this amending Regulation they will get from the production fund £3¾ million..I am bound to say that I do not think that that does any more than put them in the position of hopefully continuing for a further year. The industry's case was for abolition of the tax and a £5 million levy for production. They will continue for the current year on the same basis of the optimism that has always sustained them in the past; but unless, in a year from now, there is abolition of the tax and a £5 million levy I do not think that British production can be sustained at the level we should all like to see.
With those qualifications, may I say that I think that all sides of the industry welcome the Regulation. There may be a little disappointment among some of the exhibitors at the failure to raise the exemption limits, but apart from that I think all sections of the industry welcome the Regulation as making a necessary and equitable change in the situation.
3.25 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for the friendly way in which you have welcomed these changes. There are two points only with which I want to deal. The first, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, gave voice, was the complaint that we have heard elsewhere, that the duty reductions are not being passed on to the cinema patrons as freely as one may wish. But whatever may be felt about the exhibitor's decision to pass or not to pass on to his patrons by way of a reduction in seat prices some of the duty reduction, I do not think that this is a matter in which the Government can or ought to interfere. Whether increased patronage would compensate them for reducing prices is a matter for the commercial judgment of exhibitors. They must make up their own minds on it.
My Lords, throughout the numerous debates we have had on this subject of
378
late, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and those who support him in this matter have made several attempts to get me to forecast my right honourable friend's Budget for 1958. Now that we have that safely behind us, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, tries to ensnare me into saying what will happen in 1959. I can only say what I have said before: that I will see that his remarks are passed on to the proper quarter, but I cannot anticipate my right honourable friend's Budget for 1959 or any other year on which the noble Lord attempts to ensnare me.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DISABLED PERSONS (EMPLOYMENT) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.

LITTER BILL
3.27 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I very much hope that we shall find that it is generally welcome in all parts of the House, as indeed it was in all parts of another place—a somewhat rare but nevertheless desirable state of affairs. This small and, I think it might be termed, wholly inoffensive measure has been very generally welcomed throughout the country. All organisations—and they are like the sands of the sea, without number—who are concerned with the preservation of amenities throughout the country and in the countryside are in support of this measure and welcome it. I would mention only two, because I think they have really borne the heat and burden of the day: the "Keep Britain Tidy" Group, which is sponsored, I believe, by the National Federation of Women's Institutes, has been a tower of strength in this matter, and I think it is significant also to realise and to know that all the local authority associations are in support of a measure such as this.
I do not think it will be necessary for me to try to make out the case against

379
litter. I think we are all fully aware in this House, in any case, of the shameful and disgusting mess that the countryside is in and that measures are long overdue to try to control and correct it. But it may be convenient if I briefly sketch what is the immediate background of the measure that is now before your Lordships' House. Your Lordships will be aware, probably, that there have already been three Bills in recent years on this subject. The first Bill, I regret to say, fell by the wayside and did not get very far. The second, though it reached Second Reading in another place, fell on somewhat stony ground; and weeds, in the shape, I regret to say, of Her Majesty's Government, grew up and choked it. But the third measure which we now have before us has fallen on good ground and now comes to us in a form which I sincerely think may commend itself to your Lordships. It would be churlish of me in the extreme if I did not pay tribute, with your Lordships' permission, to the patience, skill and assiduity of a Member of another place, Mr. Rupert Speir, who introduced the Bill there.
If therefore I do not actually endeavour, in the short time I shall detain your Lordships to-day, to make the case against litter, it is because I prefer to confine myself to an explanation of the clauses in this very modest Bill. I think we must all admit that this is a short and simple Bill. It could hardly be shorter. There are but two clauses, and no Schedules. It is in language which is a very good approximation to plain English—and we could not ask for better than that. It is a simple Bill and I hope that it may prove generally acceptable. We must always remember, however, that good intentions may pave the way to Hell, and I think it would be advisable for us to look at this Bill for a moment to see whether there may be in it hidden dangers that may have unforeseen disadvantages. Having studied this Bill with great care, I should like to bring forward one or two points which may conceivably trouble your Lordships, and attempt to allay any fears to which those points might give rise.
In general terms, and first of all, I think we must satisfy ourselves that there is a mandate for legislation of this sort. I personally think that that is abundantly
380
clear. The very fact that all these organisations, and the local authorities themselves, are behind this Bill shows, I think, that there is a general desire for legislation of this sort. The next point which it is most necessary always to bear in mind, in dealing with a measure of this sort, is this: Is this a pettifogging, vexatious interference with the justifiable liberty of the subject? Is this "Mrs. Grundy" legislation of the sort that we do not want? I do not think that we could possibly describe this Bill in those terms. I do not think that the liberty of the subject can go so far that the subject must be at liberty to spread broken bottles on Brighton beach, or to deposit unwanted iron bedsteads in St, James's Park. I think that that is not liberty but licence, and that it is high time that such licence was checked.
The third matter that I think should concern us in general terms is whether this Bill is necessary. Are we here duplicating other powers? Is this matter already covered by other legislation? I should be deceiving your Lordships if I did not say that this is, as it were, the rock on which the previous measures foundered. But I would rather not say "rock" because, greatly daring, we came nearer to this "rock" and we found that it was not really a rock but only a shadow, and that there arose the problem which we foresaw: that the by-laws which already exist in many parts of the country, and which were thought to be adequate, have not in fact proved effective.
Far be it from me to enter into a debate on the theory and practice of by-laws. The Lord Chairman of Committees might resent my poaching over that ground, and I should feel quite unable to deal with the matter. But I think it would be fair and proper to say just this, that surely the essence of by-law legislation is that it is a local circumstance for which one is legislating. This matter of litter is not local; it is national. There can be no reason, I would submit, for there not being national legislation and a national Statute for its abatement. Wherever we arrive at a state of affairs when something is of national application, then we have a national law to deal with it. It is not only the extremely heinous offences that warrant national laws. Not only do we have a law for murder; we have laws

381
also against exceeding the 30 m.p.h. speed limit. Therefore I think there are quite justifiable grounds for saying that this matter of the nuisance of litter is of such wide and national importance that it deserves national treatment.
If anything further needed to be said it would be simply this: that, while the by-laws do exist, and have existed for many years, the problem is still with us—they have not, unfortunately, proved effective. If anyone should say "We shall be usurping the functions of the local authorities; they will resent this", my reply would be that that is not the case; that the local authorities, through their organisations and associations, are supporting this legislation and are desirous that ii should come into force. They do not consider that we are poaching on their preserves. This little Bill is so reasonable and undictatorial that it is not even proposed that the by-laws should be superseded; the by-laws will still remain in force until, as one hopes, when they come forward for review some of them may be repealed. A prosecution can be brought either under this Bill, when it becomes law, or under the by-laws. It is worth noting, however, that this Bill goes a little further than the by-laws and that the penalty is slightly more severe—£10 instead of £5.
There are one or two other specific points that might conceivably cause difficulty to your Lordships, and I would attempt to anticipate them, if I may. First, there is the question of the unwitting offence. If this Bill had been passed into law and one of your Lordships had the misfortune to drop his glove on going home from this House this afternoon, would he have committed an offence under this Statute? I am advised that he would not have committed such an offence, because the words "and leaves", in the third and fourth lines of Clause 1 of the Bill operate. Those words give an intention or deliberateness to the act which is, I am advised, not present in a wholly accidental leaving or depositing of the litter or the glove. But, quite apart from that, I am sure that the success of the operation and the enforcement of this measure will depend wholly on the reasonableness with which it is used. That, of course, applies in regard to a good many other Statutes.
382
Another point upon which I should like to touch is the vexed one of private land. I am advised that if private land, as such, to which the public have no right of access, had been included we should have been in very deep water with the law of trespass and other things. Private land, as such, does not come under the Bill, except—and this is very important—in so far as Clause 1 says
"If any person throws down, drops or otherwise deposits in, into or from any place in the open air …"
and so on. That is to say, if one is eating one's lunch in a lay-by (which is a public place in the open air to which the public have right of access without payment) and should toss a sandwich paper, banana skin, or even the beer-can of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, over the wall into a private field or a private garden, one is caught, because one has deposited "from" an open place. Similarly the offence is committed if one is walking on a footpath or right of way through private land and deposits litter right or left from this public place on to land, whether it be private or public land.
I have been told that there was a fear that certain legitimate sports or pastimes might he in difficulties under this measure. "What about a paper-chase?" I was asked. I believe that we are all right there if the depositor of the paper (which in certain circumstances could, of course, be litter) has obtained the consent of the owner. All land, whether public or private, has some kind of owner, and there will be the onus to find out who is the owner of the land, whether public or private, over which the paper-chase is held. Provided that his consent has been obtained, an offence will not be committed under this Bill by those who go in for that pastime.
Another question which was considered: will this make it quite impossible for anybody to go to a football match at Wembley Stadium or the enclosure at Ascot without fear of prosecution afterwards?—for there is always a most dreadful mess after these occasions. I am informed that the Bill as drawn will make it perfectly safe for your Lordships to go to Ascot without fear of prosecution, because that is a place to which one has to pay to go, as also is Wembley Stadium. The offence will be created only in an open space to which

383
the public have right of access without payment. Presumably it is assumed that the half-crown received by some noble Lords for allowing the public to walk through their gardens must partly provide for a man to clean up the banana skins afterwards. If I am not wearying your Lordships, there is another point which may be worth mentioning. Your Lordships will see in subsection (1) a reference to an open space which appears at first sight to be rather curious. It says:
"…for the purposes of this subsection any covered place open to the air on at least one side and available for public use shall be treated as being a place in the open air,"
I am informed that that adequately covers the bus shelter, which is an open space, covered but open on one side; so that it will be an offence for anyone to throw used bus tickets or sandwich paper out of a bus shelter.
There is another covered place open on one side about which we may find we are in trouble. That is the church porch. What about confetti? What about the well-nigh universal custom of throwing confetti on to the blushing bride? I am informed that we shall indeed commit an offence if we throw confetti out of a church porch or into a church porch or churchyard unless—the saving words—we have the consent of the owner or authority concerned. I suggest, therefore, that at weddings it should be made very clear—perhaps in future a notice will have to be posted up—whether the vicar and churchwardens have given permission for confetti to be thrown. I have heard it said that we might overcome this difficulty by using edible confetti, so that the confetti, having been thrown, would be consumed by the fowls of the air. Personally, I believe that it would be a much more desirable procedure that, before we possibly commit an offence, we should make sure that the vicar and wardens have consented to this practice. For—and let us make no bones about it—some of them object.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, are we to assume that confetti is not litter if it sticks to the bride; that it is then all right?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I should say that the bride cannot be
384
defined as a public open space to which the public have access. Perhaps it might be wiser if I did not go into any further details but simply confined my last few remarks to the second subsection of Clause 1. Your Lordships may conceivably have had some difficulty in understanding, and may have wondered, why particular bodies are named as bodies which shall have power to institute procedings. The reason is that such bodies have not now any such general power to spend money on a matter of this kind, and it is felt that they must be protected against the rapaciousness of the Public Auditor who might wish to surcharge councillors with the expense of prosecution. If this Bill passes as it is now before the House, there will be no risk of those of your Lordships who are county councillors being surcharged if you or your council should institute a prosecution under this Bill.
I think there is little more that I need say. Subsection (3) of Clause 1 refers to Scotland, and the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, will, I hope, say a word about that. The law in Scotland is very different, and I understand that these are matters which there have to be dealt with by a gentleman known as the procurator fiscal. I am not optimistic enough to believe that the passing of this Bill will immediately end the whole problem of litter, for obviously that will not be the case; but I do feel that it is a desirable and a worthwhile advance that we should have a moderate and a proper sanction universally applicable throughout the whole country. There is a terrible habit growing up among some of the young in this country. When one asks them to do something, or not to do something else, they are apt to turn round and say, "So what?" It is a very embarrassing position when that happens, and one has no sanction, when there is no answer to, "So what?" I feel that there must be in the background this sanction which can be used—I am sure that it will be used with tolerance and not extravagantly so that we shall be able to tidy up our countryside, and not only our countryside but also our towns, by, in the last resort, prosecuting those who make such a disgusting mess of it. I beg to move that this Bill be given a Second Reading.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
3.51 p.m.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, this Bill, as the noble Earl has so ably, moderately and humorously explained, is a Private Member's Bill belatedly blessed by a hesitant Government, and it now comes before us as a non-controversial measure for our consideration. I have no hesitation myself in giving my unreserved support to its passage through your Lordships' House. But I cannot say that it gives me great pleasure to support it, for the fact is that the need for such a Bill is a sad commentary upon the social habits of a very large section of our people. It is a reflection upon the attitude of our adults and our adolescent population; and to some extent may even be regarded as a criticism of our educational system.
This attitude to litter is not confined to slum dwellers who know no better and whose housing conditions do not encourage habits of tidiness; it is equally prevalent among the minority of motorcar users, whose revolting droppings every week-end penetrate deeper and deeper into the once almost inaccessible countryside. Years of example, persuasion and exhortation by a minority of socially-minded men and women have had little, if any, effect. Hence the need for this Bill, mild and moderate though its terms are, which makes the scattering of litter a statutory offence for which a penalty not exceeding £10, maximum, can be imposed.
The Bill applies to England, Scotland and Wales; and I cannot imagine any county council or local authority not welcoming it. Many local authorities, conscious of the expense and annoyance that litter scattering imposes, have adopted local by-laws to deal with the situation, but have found them not wholly effective. In the City of Glasgow, although litter baskets in great numbers and at considerable cost have been fixed, and although on trams and buses, also at considerable cost, receptacles for tickets have been attached, they have not prevented the scattering of litter in the streets, even though the baskets and receptacles are to some extent used by a number of people. For myself, I am pleased to see that in Scotland offences can he dealt with in courts of summary jurisdiction, for this presumably implies (I stand to be corrected if I am wrong) that offenders will be tried by baillies
386
and police judges, who, for the benefit of the mere Sassenach, are men and women who are still members of local authorities although acting as what would be called in England magistrates. Offenders would come before these people, who are, as I say, members of local authorities, and who will therefore have a truer appreciation of the seriousness of the offence, knowing what the cost is and what the trouble is, and be able to explain to offenders what this annoyance and expense mean which their thoughtless actions create.
Nobody will pretend, as the noble Earl has pointed out, that this Bill will either prevent or remedy the evil of litter scattering; but it will, one hopes, have a restraining effect upon some who otherwise would not know any better. Side by side with the proposed deterrent in the Bill, advantage must still be taken of modern methods of mass communication, so that children in schools, adolescents in their hostelings and hikings, and adults in their motoring and holidaying, may be made to understand the wickedness of this habit of litter scattering and shamed into decent behaviour. I am very pleased indeed to be able to give this Bill my complete support.
3.56 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, congratulated Mr. Rupert Speir and his associates in the House of Commons on having succeeded in getting the Bill through the House of Commons up to the point that it reaches this Chamber. Having had some experience in the past of passing Private Members' Bills through both Houses of Parliament, I heartily endorse what the noble Earl has said in that respect; but I should like to add this. I feel that the noble Earl, in sponsoring the Bill in this House to-day, has earned the gratitude of the nation in so doing, particularly for the reason that he has expounded it so eloquently and so admirably to your Lordships this afternoon.
Seeing that I myself happen to have taken an interest in this subject a couple of years ago, perhaps I may, with your Lordships' permission, quote Questions I have put and Answers I have received, because it will adequately cover a great

387
deal of ground that I might otherwise trespass upon this afternoon. On July 10, 1956, I asked the Government whether they would introduce a Bill which would render persons who dropped litter about
"liable to prosecution and on summary conviction to a maximum penalty of one month's imprisonment without the option of a fine."
Of course, I knew that that was asking too much; but I knew also that it would give some publicity, as it did and as my postbag showed, to this particular problem. The answer of the noble Earl, Lord Munster, was as follows [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol 198, col. 677]:
"My Lords, the Answer is, No."
Having thanked the noble Earl for that incisive Answer, I then asked him this:
"May I ask whether nothing can be done to prevent these human pests from desecrating the countryside and the beaches with eyesores wherever they go? Is it not a shockingly bad example for the young to see their elders indulging in these disgusting and abominable habits?"
The noble Earl said:
"I agree that it is a shocking example for the young to see older people leave litter all over parks, highways, commons and open spaces …"
Again, on July 25, I asked [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 199, col. 199]:
"May the House take it that Her Majesty's Government are pursuing every possible means and investigating everything that it may be possible to investigate in order to put these abominable litter-mongers and human pests 'on the spot'?"
To that the Earl of Munster replied:
"My Lords, the answer is …in the affirmative"
I pass that over. I leave your Lordships to draw what deductions you may like from that Answer and its consequence. But, at any rate, we have now arrived at the stage, I am glad to say and I feel the country is glad to say, when thanks to Mr. Speir and his associates in the House of Commons, and the noble Earl to-day, we have a measure which will bring into operation, as I hope, the objectives which so many people in this country have in view.
The success of this measure depends fundamentally upon making the people of this country litter conscious. I feel sure that when this Bill becomes law, Her Majesty's Government and the various bodies who have been engaged in doing everything they can to push forward the objectives which the Bill has in view will
388
put their heads together and evolve some scheme or schemes in order to carry out the Bill's objectives. As the noble Earl has said, these apply to the old as well as to the young—I am not sure that they do not apply more to the old than to the young. The noble Earl said that sometimes when he puts something to young people their answer is, "So what?" That carries the noble Earl no further, and carries us no further, but we all know that if we can get the young young enough and put them through an intensive course, they will respond to it—that has been instanced in other countries, for example, by the Hitler youth. I believe it to be the case that the schools in this country are doing that very thing.
But the youth will not respond unless they see their elders doing the right thing, and I feel sure that it is to the elders that the main plea should be made. What is the use of the British and Scottish travel organisations inviting foreigners to this country to see the beauties of our countryside if, when they arrive and go to such beauty spots as the Surrey hills, which have only recently been declared to be a place of natural beauty, they see one mass of abominable litter. I feel that the noble Earl would agree that the main plea should be to the old, and that some method should be evolved whereby they can be made litter conscious. I think that these are the objectives we have to achieve and which I hope that this Bill will achieve. I give it my hearty support.
4.3 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS of BARLOCH: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, and to the honourable Member in another place who introduced this Bill. I am particularly glad to note that the local authority organisations have supported it and have admitted that proceeding by by-law is ineffective in matters of this kind and requires to be supplemented by general legislation. There is another aspect of the matter which is closely related to what is contained in the Bill but which. I am afraid, is not covered by it—that is, the nuisance and offence which is caused by dogs, particularly in large cities. Attempts have been made to deal with this by by-laws, quite ineffectively, and I venture to throw out the suggestion that there is an opportunity some day for

389
another Public Bill which will deal with this question and help to put an end to a noxious, disgusting and injurious practice.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, before we pass from this Bill there is one aspect I should like to submit to the noble Earl. Anybody who drives along the roads of this country will have noticed that wherever motor coach parties stop to have a picnic meal at the side of the road there is a shocking display of litter. Would it not be possible in this Bill to hold the motor coach companies responsible? It would be impossible for the police, subsequent to the committing of the offence, to find out the identity of the individuals responsible for throwing the stuff out. Would it not be possible under the Bill to find some system whereby we should be able to "go for" the driver or conductor, or better still, the motor coach company concerned?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I am glad to be able to express the Government's support of this Bill. As noble Lords have already said, it was welcomed in another place and outside Parliament as well. It is a short and simple Bill, but I do not think it is any the worse for that. I hope that it passes in its present form, so that there will be no doubt in anyone's mind that the dropping of litter is a statutory offence which renders the offender liable to a maximum fine of ten pounds. I hope that this will re-enforce the National Parks Commission, the Keep Britain Tidy movement, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and all the many private and public associations who have to deal with these matters and will bring about a great improvement in the appearance of our countryside and streets.
4.8 p.m.
LORD HAMPTON: My Lords, I have only a word to add in support of this very necessary measure, and that is to call attention to the fact that in many cases the local authorities, those who draw up the by-laws, will be guilty of an offence under this Bill—and for two reasons. One is that, as we have all seen, they have by-laws on high poles so defaced by the weather and lack of renewal that nobody can read them and much too high for children to read. The second is that they provide litter baskets made of
390
very open wire mesh with open tops; and when they are full and a strong wind conies along, it gets underneath and scatters the litter out of the baskets all over the surrounding country. I have stood and watched that happen. Why cannot local authorities have solid containers made, with tops shaped something like a milk can, so that litter, once inside, could not be removed by any wind that happens to pass? I would also put in a plea that the local authorities should empty them rather more often and not allow them to get filled right to the top so that, at the first wind, out goes their contents, making more mess than any casual passer-by could be guilty of.
4.9 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, perhaps before the noble Earl replies your Lordships would allow me to say a word in commendation of the Bill and to underline what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton? Getting this Bill on to the Statute Book is hardly halfway in dealing with this problem. I have been actively engaged for thirty years or so in the work of the National Trust and the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, and this has always been one of the worst problems we have had to tackle. The National Trust have power to make by-laws, and in many instances have made by-laws under which the depositing of litter is an offence. But the making of a by-law of this kind is only a short step on the way to abolishing litter. It is extraordinarily difficult to enforce a law of this kind, and unless the noble Earl and all of us can succeed in persuading the local authorities, in particular—because they are in the best position of all to enforce a law of this kind—to do their bit, and unless more urgency and enthusiasm is put into enforcing this Bill, when it becomes an Act, I am afraid that we shall see litter deposited just as much in the future as we have done in the past. Therefore, I hope that attention will be paid to the problem of enforcement, which is a real problem.
4.11 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, there is one point that I should like to mention, following on what the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has said. I think it is important that there should be instituted a

391
certain number of prosecutions when the Bill becomes law; but it is even more important that these prosecutions should be given a good deal of publicity, both in the local and in the national Press. I am sure that it is far more important to do that than to put up notices such as we see in the parks: "This park is beautiful. Please keep it so". That, I think, is a pure waste of money. However, if a good deal of publicity can be given to the fact that Mr. Jones or Mr. Brown has been fined £10 for leaving the paper that wrapped his sandwiches lying about, that would go a long way to stop people from doing it. I trust that prosecutions will be given the fullest possible publicity.
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, I should like to draw the attention of the noble Earl to one further aspect of this. Your Lordships have been thinking and talking in terms of litter in the form of confetti, banana skins, orange skins and so on. I know of people who abandon motor cars in the countryside. Will it be possible for them to be moved and the offender charged?
4.13 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I am grateful to all the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and for the warm welcome and support that this Bill has received. I do not think there are many specific questions that I need answer. The question of the noble Lord, Lord Dynevor, came last, but perhaps I might deal with it first. Undoubtedly, an abandoned motor car, an abandoned bedstead or an abandoned piece of balana peel, would be classed as litter; and one of the matters that was considered at great length in Committee in another place was the dumping of old iron, and so on, on bombed sites, which it is thought will be caught under this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, did not actually ask a question, and it would not be for me to say what will be the proper practice in the Scottish courts of first instance, although I have no doubt that what the noble Lord said is correct.
The noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, said that we should all have to become more litter-conscious, and indeed, we must. He invited me to put the young through an intensive course, as I understood him. I will give serious consideration to that—
392
and especially my own young. I do not think this Bill can be held to cover the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, but I do think it is a serious matter. The point made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is an excellent one, and I think it links up with the matter of prosecution that was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Chorley and Lord Amulree. Obviously, it will be desirable that there should be one or two prosecutions quite soon after this Bill becomes law, as I hope it will. Those points will then come out. I am sure they will be give publicity by all the organisations who are so anxious that these powers should be known—the "Keep Britain Tidy Group "and the other organisations with which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, is associated. I think the prosecutions will come, and I hope no difficulties will arise. I am not a lawyer, and I should not like to say" off the cuff "how we can cope with the litter from the charabanc if we cannot identify the actual person who deposited it. However, that point will have to be looked into.
I do not think there are any other points to which I need reply—noble Lords will forgive me if I have omitted any—and I will only say how glad I am that there is this general welcome for the Bill, and express my gratitude to the Government for giving it their support.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FIRST OFFENDERS BILL
4.16 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Templewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Restriction on imprisonment of first offenders]:
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "or commit such a person to prison for failure to pay a fine". The noble Viscount said: Those of your Lordships who were here for the Second Reading of this Bill

393
will remember that I said that upon the Committee stage I should move an Amendment to exclude from the scope of the Bill defaulters on fines. An undertaking to this effect was given in another place; indeed, it was only after that undertaking was given that the Bill went through unopposed. The Committee will remember that the object of the Bill is to make magistrates pause before they impose a sentence of imprisonment and consider whether there are other alternative punishments that could be equally good or better. In the case of defaulters on fines something like this procedure already takes place.
A defaulter upon a fine, I am informed, cannot be sent to prison unless he appears before the court and unless the Bench have made an inquiry into his financial means. So that in the case of fines very much the kind of procedure that we are asking for other offenders already takes place. The result has been that the Justices' Clerks Association, and other experts upon the question, have suggested that the defaulters on fines should be excluded altogether from the scope of the Bill, because the procedure that we want already takes place in their case and to duplicate the arrangement would merely mean creating delays and unnecessary work. From that point of view, therefore, the Bill would not only be simpler, but better, if the Amendments in my name were carried.
I have put down four Amendments on the Marshalled List, but they are all part of the same point. They all have the same object, and they are all part and parcel of this one intention—namely, that defaulters on fines should be kept out of the Bill altogether. The undertaking was given in another place that they would be excluded, but quite apart from that, on the merits of the case, I put it to the Committee that these defaulters should be taken out of the Bill. I therefore beg to move the first Amendment standing in my name, and at the same time to point out to the Committee that the other Amendments are all consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 6, leave out from ("twenty-one") to ("unless") in line 7.—(Viscount Templewood.)
LORD CHESHAM: As the noble Viscount has told us, these Amendments
394
are agreed in all quarters, and no doubt will be as acceptable to your Lordships as they are to Her Majesty's Government.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 23, leave out ("or committed to prison as aforesaid").—(Viscount Temple-wood.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 26, leave out from (" offence ") (" shall ") in line 27.—(Viscount Temple-wood.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 10, leave out subsection (4).—(Viscount Templewood.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed.

LAND POWERS (DEFENCE) BILL
4.23 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Power to require use of land for limited training purposes]:
On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS- BOROUGH: I wish to raise a point at this stage of the Bill because I am particularly interested in Clause 6. Speaking from memory—I have not the Bill in my hands at the moment—Clause 6 is one which, with certain amendments of the Act of 1897, gives authority for temporary occupation and the like. I am concerned as to the effect of this particular clause in the case of farm lands of varying character—land bearing different crops and things of that kind. In order to arrive at his exact position, if the ordinary farmer gets a notice he has

395
somehow or other still to refer to the Act of 1897.
What occurred to me—I do not know whether your Lordships will agree—is that when there is what becomes almost a major Bill of this kind, consolidating the powers of a whole range of former Defence Orders, it is a pity to include a considerable amount of legislation still by reference. It seems to me rather too much that the ordinary farmer or similar person who comes under (as is quite right and proper in the security of the country) orders of this kind should be able to check them only by going to a lawyer and finding out exactly what the powers of the 1897 Act are. I should have hoped that, even if the Government cannot do anything about this Bill, in future Bills they should endeavour to leave out as far as possible legislation by reference.
EARL BATHURST: With your Lordships' permission, I should like to remind the noble Viscount opposite that we went into all the purposes of the Bill a little while ago in your Lordships' House. I assure the noble Viscount, and all noble Lords, that in fact the measures under Clause 6 have been most carefully considered with regard to farm land; farmhouses and all farm buildings are, of course, out of any form of temporary training area. It will be only with the previous knowledge of a farmer or owner or occupier that such small areas of land will be used, and after reasonable notice—fourteen days in fact. If that particular area proved inconvenient, it is quite obvious that the powers that be might be able to vary their needs for that piece of land to suit the circumstances of the farmer or occupier concerned. I assure your Lordships that in every way Clause 6 will work for the convenience of farmers especially, and of occupiers of land, and it is believed that it will work even better than the old Manœuvres Regulations which were in existence before the war, when very little trouble was experienced.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Prevention of obstruction of airfields]:
THE EARL OF DUNDEE THE EARL OF DUNDEE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "occupier",
396
where that word first occurs, and to insert:
"owner or (in the case of a movable structure) the occupier",
The noble Earl said: This clause deals with the removals of obstructions to airfields. If the Minister desires to move an obstruction he has to follow the procedure laid down in Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the Bill, and if, in spite of this procedure, the object is not removed, then under Clause 10 the Minister has to issue an order to the occupier of the land—not the owner—on which that object is situated requiring him to remove it. In subsection (2) the objects referred to are described as:
"trees, hedges, fences, poles, masts, cables, wires, walls (other than a wall forming part of a roofed structure)…"
Many of those, of course, may be the property not of the occupier at all, but of the owner. It is difficult to see why, in the case, let us say, of half a dozen trees growing in a field which is rented by a farmer, but which do not belong to the farmer, it should be the farmer and not the owner of the trees who may be required by the Minister to remove them.
In subsection (4) it is laid down that if the Minister requires the removal of trees, the Minister shall issue instructions to secure that the removal is carried out "in a woodmanlike manner". It seems to me a little unreasonable that the tenant farmer should be required to remove trees which do not belong to him in a manner which he may never have had the opportunity of acquiring. I am told that the reason the occupier, and not the owner, is made the object of the order is that in some circumstances the Minister might find that the owner of the land had got lost and could not be found. It may therefore be convenient to the Minister to issue the order against the occupier, who is there and can be found, instead of against the owner who is not there and cannot be found. But even if this difficulty should arise, it does not seem to me to justify the Minister's issuing an order requiring an occupier to remove some object which is not his property. It seems to me that in those circumstances the Minister, if he really cannot identify the owner or discover his whereabouts, should remove the obstacle himself. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 15, leave out ("occupier") and insert ("owner or (in the case of a movable structure) the occupier").—(The Earl of Dundee.)
EARL BATHURST: I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Dundee for placing this Amendment before your Lordships, because it does bring to light some small point in this very complicated measure. I assure your Lordships that in fact both the owner and the occupier will always be notified of any obstruction, and in fact of any step that may be needed to be taken throughout this Bill; and when that is done the full measures that have been recommended by the Franks Committee will of course apply. Such fears as my noble friend has will, of course, be effective only if the owner flatly refuses to comply with the Minister's request, or, as the noble Lord so rightly said, if the owner is away or it is quite impossible to find him. In such a case, however, my right honourable friend finds that it is often easier and causes less disturbance if the occupier carries out the work himself on behalf of my right honourable friend or his Department. On the other hand, quite obviously, should the occupier be in no position to do that, my right honourable friend and my noble friend from the Admiralty have powers to carry out the work themselves. Again, full compensation will be paid for all damage that may occur and for any rights that the owner or occupier may lose. Of course a full inquiry will already have been held before such measures take place. I will look into this extremely complicated clause on behalf of my noble friend, and perhaps at a later stage I shall be able to give a still further assurance that in fact all the fears that my noble friend has stated are unfounded, as indeed I believe they are because of the safeguards in Part I of the Second Schedule.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am grateful to my noble friend for his explanation. The only point I am not quite sure about is why the onus of having to do this should be placed on the occupier if the owner cannot be found. As my noble friend has been good enough to say he will look at the point and give further explanation at a later stage of the Bill,
398
I ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Interpretation—general and in relation to Scotland and Northern Ireland]:
THE EARL OF DUNDEE THE EARL OF DUNDEE moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (1), to leave out all words from "undertaking" to the end of the paragraph. The noble Earl said: Subsection (1) (b) of Clause 25 defines the word "owner" in the case of land in Scotland. The Subsection reads:
"'Owner' … in the case of land in Scotland, includes any person who, under the Lands Clauses Acts, would be enabled to sell and convey the land to the promoters of an undertaking and a tenant of the land under a lease the unexpired term of which exceeds three years …"
My Amendment proposes to omit the words "and a tenant of the land under a lease the unexpired term of which exceeds three years." My reason for moving this Amendment is to ask for an explanation of what is meant by the Government draftsmen in defining an owner of land in Scotland, because only a few weeks ago your Lordships passed a measure which has now received the Royal Assent, the Land Drainage (Scotland) Act, under which the owner of land in Scotland is defined in a very different way. That Act says that the "owner" of land in Scotland, if the land is not held on a long lease
"means, if the land is feudal property, the proprietor of the dominium utile"—
that is, the feuer—
"or, if the land is not feudal property, the owner of the land."
If the land is held on a long lease "owner" means the lessee, and a "long lease" is defined as
"a lease …capable of being recorded in the Register of Sasines under the Registration of Leases (Scotland) Act, 1857."
Under that Act, the Registration of Leases (Scotland) Act, 1857, leases of 31 years or more, or which contain an obligation for renewal so as to extend for that period, can be registered under the 1857 Act to give the leaseholder a real right under the lease.
I am quite willing to believe there may be good reasons for having completely different definitions of an "owner" of land in Scotland in two different Acts which are passed and receive the Royal Assent in two successive months. There may be good reasons for having different definitions of the word "owner" in every piece of legislation we pass, but I think we ought to have some explanation of the reasons for these differences in definition. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 28, leave out from ("undertaking") to end of line 30.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
EARL BATHURST: When my noble friend was moving his last Amendment he explained how difficult it was at times to locate the actual owner. Landowners, no doubt, are called a good many names in various places, and I understand that in Scotland they are all called one and the same. I assure the noble Lord that the precedent for the wording in this Bill is covered by two previous Acts, with which I will not weary your Lordships. Nevertheless, we shall look into this wording and the precedent, and I hope to be able to assure the noble Lord, the next time the Bill comes before your Lordships' House, on Report stage, that the wording is in order.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: In view of my noble friend's assurance, which I appreciate, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed.

PARKING PLACES (WESTMINSTER) (No. 1) ORDER, 1958
4.40 p.m.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE rose to move, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Parking Places (Westminster) (No. 1) Order, 1958 (S.I. 1958 No. 549), dated March 27, 1958, laid before the House on April 2, 1958, be annulled. The noble Earl said: My Lords, it was on April 30 that I brought before your Lordships' House a Motion
400
"to call attention to the enormous cost of the control of parked cars by the use of parking meters as compared with the disc system as used in Paris, and various other questions involved; and to move for Papers."
Encouraged by the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, on that occasion, I now venture to submit the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
I particularly do not want to weary or unduly detain your Lordships by again raising all the arguments which I used in the debate which took place so recently, but there are just one or two points that I must ask your Lordships to allow me to submit to you. First of all, I will deal with the replies which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, made to me in that debate. The first remark he made to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention is [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 208 (No. 61), col. 1158]:
"it is no good arguing that everything is right with the meter system, and that no faults can be found with it, nor that the disc system is wholly wrong."
I was encouraged by that remark. But the noble Lord then proceeded to adumbrate a whole series of arguments to show that if the disc system was not wholly wrong, it was certainly first cousin to it.
Much has been made in argument, particularly by the noble Lord in his remark in col. 1159 of
"…how much narrower our streets are than the main streets of Paris."
Of course, that in its way is something of a platitude. But there are streets in Paris, particularly streets covered by the blue zone, which are every bit as narrow as, if not narrower than, the streets of London. The noble Lord went on to talk about the Champs-Élysées. Everybody knows that the Champs-Élysées is one of the widest streets in any great city in the world. The same is equally true of many other streets, the names of which I need not recite. There are many wide streets in Paris and, equally, there are very narrow streets—if anything, narrower than the average street one finds in London.
Then the noble Lord said [col. 1160]:
"All the disc system in Paris has done is to increase the turnover of cars—if that is the right metaphor to use."
I thought that one of the aims of the parking meter scheme—indeed, of every other scheme that one may consider—

401
was to try to get rid of long-term parkers. That is exactly what the Paris disc system has done; the long-term parker has retired to garages, and the cars that are now parked on the Paris streets, where they can be parked, are short-term parkers. Furthermore, there are not nearly so many of the short-term parkers, for a 10 per cent, reduction in the number of cars parked on the Paris streets has been secured by the disc system. Furthermore, the disc system has enabled the overall speed of Paris traffic to be increased by some two miles per hour. The disc system must have advantages there if it has been able to bring about that result.
One other point that the noble Lord made in that debate was when he said that meters are better suited than discs to control our parking in London. That is simply an assumption by the noble Lord and is unbacked by any sort of experience. It is presumably in order to gain experience that he wants his Order. He says that the meter itself shows where parking is permitted, which the disc does not. I am sure the noble Lord drives a motor car, and when he goes abroad he has to know, or he should know, the international signs. Those international signs include an outstanding sign for where parking is permitted and another outstanding sign for where it is not permitted. The question of where parking is permitted can be taken care of by the use of international signs. Then, further on in the debate, the noble Lord said that it would not be possible to produce any legislation. Obviously there would have to be legislation to legalise the disc system. He said [col. 1167]:
"…there is frankly no room for such legislation either in this Session or the next."
I suggest that it all depends whether or not the Government really mean business on this parking question.
There are these two systems. I submit to your Lordships that the parking meter scheme is rigid; it is inflexible. For example, at the moment one of the quite natural features of London traffic is unilateral parking in certain streets. I should like to ask this specific question of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. One of the streets in the area to be covered by this experiment is Park Street. I happen to know that street very well because I go to a dentist whose consulting rooms are
402
there. At present the street is subject to unilateral parking. If the noble Lord gets his parking meter scheme, the parking meters will not deal with unilateral parking unless one is prepared to put down a whole series of parking meters on each side of the street and to put half of them out of action on alternate days. I do not think that that is really a practical proposition; yet unilateral parking is most necessary in that particular street. You cannot have parking always on one side of the street; you would depreciate the rateable value of the property if you did that. It is not a practical proposition. On the other hand, with a parking disc you could go on as you do now, having your parking alternately on the one side and on the other.
I say that the meter scheme is hopelessly rigid. So it is. It is rigid in this way. Suppose that a mistake is made in the distribution of the parking meters and so on; we shall have gone to considerable expense to decorate the streets with them and shall have to incur considerable further expense to dig them up and put them somewhere else. With the parking disc scheme, on the other hand, there is no expense whatever to anybody.
There are various other matters to which should like to refer, but I will switch to what was said in a similar debate in another place by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 587 (No. 103), col. 992]:
"In Paris, with its wide streets and boulevards, it is quite easy, over a large area, to allow parking on both sides of the street without impeding the traffic flow,"
It is quite easy to do so in the Champs-Élysées, as everybody knows, but one of the features of the disc system in Paris is that whereas there was a great deal of double parking on streets much too narrow for it, double parking has now disappeared and it is much easier to park one's car. For example, shopkeepers in Paris have stated that their financial returns have been going up since the disc system has been in operation, due to the fact that the short-term parker who wants to go to a shop for a few minutes is able to get there without too much difficulty, whereas before, with long-term parkers, that was quite impossible. The result is that in Paris shopkeepers are asking the authorities to extend the scheme as rapidly as they

403
can; and the authorities are doing so in order to make things considerably easier in that great city.
Then the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, referring to the parking meter scheme, said [col. 993] that the motorist
"would be allowed to set down, but not to park"
in certain places; and he followed that by saying:
"I would not regard this feature of the limitation that the disc system can control only time and not space as being conclusive."
I hope that when the noble Lord comes to reply he will remember that point, for it is one which he used in replying to the earlier debate. It has been said that the disc scheme will require much more supervision than the parking meter scheme. Speaking on the volume of prosecutions, of which a lot has been made, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said [col. 996]:
"The general estimate which is made is that it will not be substantially more than that we are now dealing with."
The prosecutions in Paris have been running at a high level, as I believe everybody knows; but at first it was an experiment there and was not understood. We must remember however that while the number of prosecutions is much larger than, I hope, we in this country are likely to contemplate, the area in Paris covered by the blue disc scheme is actually ten times larger than the area proposed to be covered in the Order which I am praying to annul.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary went on to say:
"The parking meter system has the further advantage that the cost of operating it is paid directly by the individual parker who is benefiting by it, as opposed to the alternative scheme "—
that is, the disc scheme—
"where the cost falls on the taxpayers generally."
I could not follow the reason for that last remark, but I would point out that all the cost of the parking meter scheme falls on the man who keeps the law, while the cost of this scheme falls on those motorists who break the law; which seems a rather important point. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary also said [col. 997]:
"I hope that the average motorist will accept that this is the right thing to do "—
404
that is to say, that there would be willing co-operation on the part of the motorist,—
"but there is nothing to show that more off-street garages would be used if they existed."
Your Lordships will remember that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, told the House that he had gone for a little hike round the purlieus of Montagu Square and had found some garages with a certain amount of accommodation available. But the official figures given by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in another place showed that all told there is off-street garage accommodation for 1,580 cars. We are told that there are 1,300 cars parked in the experimental area covered by this Order and that we are to get rid of a half of those. That means that 650 or so have to go somewhere else. Whether or not they will go to the garages recommended to us by the noble Lord the other day as having a lot of surplus accommodation I do not know; but if we extend the parking meter scheme over the whole of the West End of London, the City of Westminster and the City itself, we shall have to find garage accommodation for an enormous number of cars running into several thousands—accommodation which simply does not exist at all.
It seems to me that it would be much better and more in accordance with practical politics to have the disc scheme, which is flexible and, as I pointed out before, costs absolutely nothing. The disc itself—I have one here—costs less than ld. It is said that this system is more easy to evade, but that remains to be proved. I am going to ask Her Majesty's Government to give me an assurance. Would the noble Lord first of all give us an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will either promote legislation or give assistance to legislation to legalise the disc system? Will he assure us that the experiment will be one equivalent to the experiment in Westminster? I do not mean that it shall necessarily be made in London (though it would be better if it were), for if that were too difficult it could be made in any city subject to considerable congestion of traffic.
If the noble Lord is not able to do this, would he give us an assurance that he will not authorise any further extension of the parking meter system, either in London or elsewhere, until it is possible to have such an equivalent experiment? If the noble Lord is able to

405
answer those questions or any one of the three in the affirmative then I shall be able to accept his assurance and we shall all be able to go home; but if he does not, I am afraid I shall have to press my Motion to a Division.
Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Parking Places (Westminster) (No. 1) Order, 1958 (S.I. 1958 No. 549), dated March 27, 1958, laid before the House on April 2, 1958, be annulled.—(Earl Howe.)
5.5 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, replied on April 30 to the debate to which the noble Earl has just referred he said—and I now quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT [Vol. 208 (No. 61), col. 1158]:
"Somebody has to try to solve this problem, and that is what the Government are doing."
Now I wonder, if I may say so with great respect, whether the noble Lord or the Government know the problem they are trying to solve. It is popularly supposed that they are trying to solve the parking problem. Nothing of the kind! This scheme will not solve any parking problem. As I pointed out in the speech I made upon the last occasion, all it does is to shift the parking from one area to another; it does not solve the problem at all. What the noble Lord really means when he says "solve this problem" is "solve in the West End of London the problem of the congestion that is caused by parked vehicles". That is what the noble Lord means. The noble Lord and the Government could cure that congestion in five minutes, without having any parking meters or anything else. They could prohibit anybody from parking a car for over two hours anywhere they liked to designate. That is what they could do. Why do they not do it? No!
One can see the attraction to the Government of this parking-meter scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, let that out of the bag later on, as did his noble friend Lord Selkirk two years ago—and I am very glad to see the noble Earl here, because in a minute I am going to quote what he said concerning the Road Traffic Act.
406
But the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, went on to say, in the debate on April 30:
"And, of course, by introducing a charge, the parking meter reduces the demand for the use of parking places."
That is the secret. The Government think that they will put up these parking meters—640 of them, I think it is, or something like that—in Mayfair, and nobody will be allowed to park a motorcar anywhere except beside a parking meter; then the charge will be made. And I suppose, as the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, hinted when we were discussing the Road Traffic Act—at least, he did not deny my challenge—the success of this scheme will be when the charge is so high that nobody will be able to afford to park a car by a parking meter; and the very start of this iniquitous imposition is in these Regulations, to which I shall come in a minute.
I find it easy to follow the noble Lord, because if the price mechanism was not behind the Government's thinking in this, they could very well try the parking meter experiment with the scheme of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. Both schemes are precisely the same, except that they do not collect any money under the blue disc scheme, and that is why it is so unattractive to them. They could do everything with the blue disc scheme that they can do with the parking meter scheme as an experiment, because they could designate various streets where the blue disc scheme would operate. They could have an area for it. And that, of course, would prevent the defacing of some of our streets in London with these hideous monstrosities of parking meters. There is only one place where I am rather glad they are going to put them, and that is Grosvenor Square. It will at least make our American friends feel at home. But that is about the only useful purpose they will serve.
I want to ask the noble Lord who is to reply whether he will tell me, in the experimental scheme that is contained in these Regulations, how many of these parking meters that are going up in these streets will be placed outside houses or private residences. That is what I want to know; because they cannot all be in Grosvenor Square; they cannot all be in Berkeley Square. Are the Government, in order to collect money, going to prevent the shopkeepers from allowing anybody to park outside their shops? Are they

407
going to deny the householder the right to pull up outside his own front door? These are the things that I do not like about this meters scheme.
After lunch I refreshed my memory by reading Hansard of July, 1956, and the debates we had on the Road Traffic Act. How any noble Lord in this House can find anything fresh to say about parking meters or parking places—I cannot—is very difficult to see. We all argued it then. It was the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who said that the reason they were having a charge, and an excess charge over the standard charge, was first of all to act as a deterrent; and, secondly, to act as a pseudo, quasi-fine—a fine. If people were to be summoned for staying after two hours, all the attendants attending to the parking meters would have to spend their time in police courts. So they thought that fining on the spot was a very good idea. I will quote the noble Earl's own words [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 198, col. 1130]:
"…one of the points of having this excess charge is that it will avoid either the attendants or anybody going into court for what is a trifling offence. We have sought to settle an amount which is a substantial deterrent, but not an unfair or unreasonable payment. It may vary in different places or at different times. I do not know what recommendation will be made by the local authority, but I expect the excess charge will be of the order of 6s. to 8s. or something of that sort…That is enough, for a three or four hour period, to constitute a substantial deterrent. It is not a great deal in excess of what you would pay in an ordinary garage."
My Lords, in this regulation which we are discussing upon the noble Earl's plea for annulment you are going to pay 10s. 6d. if you leave a vehicle parked for sixty-five minutes. The standard charge here in these regulations is one shilling for two hours. If you think you want parking space for only an hour you can put in sixpence; but if you find you are going to be an hour and a half you cannot put in another sixpence. Just as you have exceeded your first sixpennyworth, the extra charge is ten shillings, and the limit of time during which you can leave your car is two hours.
One of the disadvantages from which we suffer in having an Order subject to the Negative Resolution procedure is that we cannot amend the Order. I suggest to your Lordships that it was never intended by either House that an iniquitous
408
charge like this should be made. When I first read it, I thought it must be a mistake; but no, it was done with malice aforethought, again, I suppose, as a deterrent. That is why the Government stick so closely to the meter scheme and do not like the blue disc one, because the latter scheme does not give such a chance of bringing in a deterrent. I suggest to the noble Lord that for an experimental scheme it is quite wrong to have a charge of this kind. I suggest that it would be better for him to take the regulations back and then re-lay them with this one altered, because I am sure that no Member of your Lordships' House thought that a temporary experiment would include such an iniquitous charge as this. The Minister of Transport and the Government must accept responsibility for this. They cannot put it on to the Westminster City Council. On the last occasion, I expressed the fear that when we get these 640 meters erected the cost of dismantling them and remaking the pavements will be so great that this temporary experiment will be as permanent as Nelson's Monument. Will the noble Lord give the House an assurance that that will not be the case? I do not suppose that he will be sitting on that Bench when the experiment comes to an end, and I am not going to deny him the experiment.
I should find it very difficult to advise any noble Lord on this side of the House, or any noble Lord who would take my advice, to follow the noble Earl, Lord Howe, into the Division Lobby, for this one reason: we debated this matter fully when the Road Traffic Bill was in your Lordships' House in 1956. If the noble Earl will read the OFFICIAL REPORT to refresh his memory, he will find that he is allied to what I am going to say now. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, gave the undertaking that no further experiment would be made outside the London area and that these parking meters would not have Government sanction until an Affirmative Resolution was brought before Parliament. On that undertaking, the Amendments to the Bill that opposed the designation of parking places and the erection of meters were withdrawn. I think that that is within the memory of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk.
Where the Government are not playing fair is to bring in these regulations. I

409
refer to paragraph 8, which starts off by saying:
"The standard period for which a vehicle may be left in a parking place during the permitted hours shall be two hours …"
Those are the permitted hours, and one shilling will give the motorist two hours' parking. The paragraph goes on to say:
"Provided that the initial charge for a vehicle left for a time not exceeding one hour shall be sixpence …"
That is not the permitted charge, I beg your Lordships to understand; the permitted charge is one shilling for two hours. But if you put in sixpence, you cannot put in another sixpence to get the two hours. Paragraph 9 says:
"If a vehicle is left in a parking place during the permitted hours for longer than the period for which payment was made by the initial charge, the amount of the charge shall be the amount of the initial charge together with an additional amount of ten shillings…"
If you think that that is fair, I do not, and I do not think that it is in line with what your Lordships were given to understand when we agreed to this experiment, or with what the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said as spokesman for the Government during the debates on the Road Traffic Bill.
I do not think it is worth debating this matter much longer. If the Government want to stop the garaging of cars—and I use the word "garaging" as opposed to stopping for two hours for the legitimate purpose of shopping—it is easy to stop it. They could stop it to-morrow without all this ridiculous paraphernalia of parking places and everything else. They could do it by prohibiting the stopping of cars anywhere, or in designated streets, for longer than a certain time—I say, two hours. It would take no more police to enforce regulations of that kind than it would take to enforce the regulations in this document before us.
The excuse for not allowing another sixpence to be put in the meter to make up the initial one shilling charge is that it may lead to "fiddling" of the meter. But nothing is going to stop that. It will be the easiest thing in the world to do, unless there is one attendant per meter and he is the most honest man that was ever born. I acquiesce to this experiment
410
with great misgivings. It could be done in a far better way. I want the noble Lord, if he will, to give the House these undertakings: first, that this initial charge, the amount of which I say is a breach of faith, will be altered; secondly, that he will tell us quite definitely that this will be only an experiment; next, that the blue disc scheme will be tried, either in London or somewhere else. I join with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in that request.
It is no good the noble Lord coming to your Lordships' House and saying that there will not be Parliamentary time this Session or the next. There are too many old campaigners here for him to get away with that statement. There is never Parliamentary time for anything that a Department does not want to do; there is always plenty of time for what a Department wants to do. That is an old story that all of us who have been on the Government Front Bench have used. I have been as guilty as everybody else, but I am converted to the truth now. If the noble Lord will give those assurances, I, for my part, will not find it difficult to support him. I think he has a difficulty, because I know what taking these regulations away would mean, but I think it is iniquitous that something like that should be put forward in an experimental scheme in a set of regulations that we cannot amend. With those words, with reluctance, I support this experiment. I do not think it will cure anything; and I am afraid it is going to be like many other things, difficult to get rid of.
5.20 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I agree with a great deal of what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and I certainly agree that the excess charge of ten shillings which was not indicated at the time when the Act was going through is far too high. I do not seek in any way to delay the proposals of Her Majesty's Government to carry out a trial of the parking meters under the terms of the Order which is before the House to-day, as the proposal has already been agreed to by the House and embodied in an Act of Parliament. On the other hand, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, Her Majesty's Government have said that in order to carry out a trial of

411
the Paris disc system in London, legislation would be necessary and that time could not be found for such a proposal. I must say that I do not feel that that is a valid excuse Surely it would be perfectly possible to move a short amendment to the Road Traffic Act, 1956, and pass it through both Houses in quite a short time, if the Government so wished.
However, what I am anxious to do today is to get an assurance from the Government that they will in fact support a trial of the disc system in one of our great cities if the local authority is prepared to initiate such a trial. I do not know whether legislation would be necessary outside London, and perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply will be able to enlighten us on that point. If legislation is necessary, I ask Her Majesty's Government to undertake to put forward a necessary amendment to the Road Traffic Act to enable a local authority at, say, Birmingham or Manchester to carry out a trial of the disc system. I also hope that the Government will give an undertaking that no further extension of the parking meter scheme will be proceeded with until a trial of the Paris disc system has been carried out.
I would point out that under the Road Traffic Act. 1956, Parliament gave the necessary powers to the Minister of Transport to enable him to authorise only an experiment, and not to go any further. I am sure it would be the greatest mistake to litter London with parking meters, when perhaps the Paris disc system might well prove equally suitable and a great saving in money. It was suggested by Her Majesty's Government, I think in the recent debate, that the cost of the parking disc system would fall on the taxpayer. That is quite true. But the revenue from fines would probably exceed the cost of this administration, which would be low. If the scheme should be so successful that the revenue from fines did not cover the cost of administration, the benefit to the community as a whole would be well worth while. Under the parking meters scheme finances are extracted from the motorists who are obeying the law, but under the disc system from those who break the law. Surely the latter is a far better basis.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, with such a wealth of knowledge and
412
eloquence from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who moved the Motion, and from my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth. I should be a brave man indeed if I rose to speak in opposition. Mine is a far simpler and humbler venture: it is merely to ask Her Majesty's Government one or two questions. The first question I should like to ask is this. Is it a fact that acknowledged traffic experts, including an Assistant Commissioner of Police, visited Paris to study the working of the disc system, and reported against the adoption of that system here? The next question I want to ask is: what staff would be involved? Is it a correct estimate that for the experimental system seven men and a supervisor would be necessary, whereas for a similar area working the disc system at least 200 men would be required?
I suppose one might say that this system works all right in Paris; there are plenty of men there to do the job. Without being unkind to our near neighbours, anyone who has visited Paris will be aware of the French temperament and that large numbers of police are required, and are in fact there, to maintain law and order; though as we have seen recently they are not always successful in doing so. When they are not called upon to perform those tasks, obviously something must be found for them to do, because, as we all know, Satan always find something for idle hands; and so the police are allocated to looking after the disc system. That is my information, and I should like to know whether that is correct or not.
The next question I want to ask—and I do it with great trepidation—is this. We all know that motorists are among the most honest of people, but is it correct that the disc system could lend itself to bribery, whereas the parking meter system would not? Then, is it correct that the parking meter system provides appropriate gaps where unloading from commercial vehicles can take place, whereas in Paris, with the disc system, it is a "free-for-all" and whoever gets there first leaves his car there? That may be a very happy system, but I suppose that in Paris, as in other cities, vehicles have to unload sometimes. If they find a place where they want to unload, do they have to form a double line; and does that help the movement of traffic or not?

413
My final question is this. I am sure it would not be in the mind of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, or in any way bearing on the problem, but I am assured that the motorists themselves will pay for the meter system, whereas the cost of the disc system will fall on the taxpayer. If that is so, we can congratulate the motorists on their advocacy of the disc system. But whether that is a solution of the problem which would commend itself to your Lordships I can only leave to your discretion in the subsequent debate.
5.30 p.m.
Lotto DERWENT: My Lords, I trust that noble Lords who have already spoken will forgive me if my speech does not follow any of theirs, except to say that I wholeheartedly support my noble friend Lord Howe in asking for certain assurances. If the assurances are not given, I shall feel inclined to follow my noble friend into the Lobby. If they are given, then I think we ought to go on with this experiment. I am going to be so hold as to suggest that this Order should be now withdrawn on the grounds of bad drafting. I am submitting that certain sections of this Order contradict other sections of the Order, and that, in effect, the Order does not carry out the intentions of the Minister. I need hardly say that I am not making this submission without expert advice. There may well he an answer from my noble friend Lord Mancroft, but experts who have studied this Order are in agreement with me that it is contradictory and does not do what is intended.
May I first draw your Lordships' attention to Article 2 of the Order, "Interpretation"? Amongst the list of things for which an interpretation is given is a "goods vehicle." There is no interpretation later in the list for a "vehicle", and it is quite clear from the way the Order is worded that a "vehicle", without the word "goods" in front of it, includes a private motor car. I merely want to state that at this point so that your Lordships can follow my argument. I would then draw your Lordships' attention to Article 8, paragraph (2), which without reading it all to your Lordships says in effect that if a vehicle stops on a parking meter site in a parking bay, and the initial charge is not paid, the attendant on duty shall put a notice on the car saying that an offence has been
414
committed. The reason why I mention this particular Article is that it is quite clear from it that, before an attendant can do such a thing, he must be quite satisfied in his own mind that an offence has been committed.
Now we come to the nigger in the woodpile, which is Article 23. Article 23 states:
"Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions"—
that is, everything that has gone before—
"with respect to vehicles which are left in a parking place …any other vehicle may wait during the permitted hours—

(a) anywhere on the carriageway in a parking place if "—

and then come a whole series of vehicles which may wait in a parking place in a parking bay without charge, such as Post Office vans, commercial vehicles loading and unloading, and so on. Subparagraph (viii) says:
"in any other case the vehicle "—
mark you, my Lords, not a "goods vehicle" but "a vehicle," which includes motor cars—
"is waiting for the purpose of delivering or collecting goods or merchandise or loading or unloading the vehicle at premises adjacent to the parking place in which the vehicle is waiting and the vehicle does not wait for such purpose for more than twenty minutes or for such longer period as a police constable in uniform may authorise "
I am advised by the experts advising me that that means, in effect, that a vehicle, a private car, may stop outside a shop in a parking bay and wait there twenty minutes, provided that the driver —a lady, shall we say?—either takes into the shop a parcel which she wants to change, or goes into the shop, buys something, and comes out. I am advised that the effect of this wording is that she can do that on a parking place for twenty minutes without charge. If that is the case, how is the attendant on those parking meters to put a notice on her car to say that she has not paid her initial charge, and that she has committed an offence? Because if our reading of this Article is right, she has committed no offence; she is allowed to stay there for twenty minutes. As I say, there may be an answer to my point, but so far I have not heard one. If there is an answer, well and good. If there is not an answer, this Order cannot be amended. If there is no answer, this sub-paragraph makes

415
nonsense of the Order. And in my submission, if that is the case then the Order should be withdrawn and a new one issued.
5.36 p.m.
LORD CRAIGMYLE: My Lords, it is difficult to follow the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, in what he himself has said is rather a different approach to this question from the approach of most of your Lordships. We have now reached the stage towards making this experiment where, if we approve this Order, we shall have a system of the control of parking in a small area in London on July 10 of this year. If we now support the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and pray that the order be annulled, whatever system we ultimately decide to have we shall not have this summer. So it seems to me it requires some urgent proof that something is seriously wrong if we are, at this late stage, to annul the Order.
The arguments which the noble Earl has put forward are arguments that have been expressed before in your Lordships' House by the noble Earl himself and by others. Other than those which relate directly to the disc system, Which is a comparatively new scheme, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, pointed out, many of them date back to the discussions on the Bill. The scheme outlined in the Order is certainly not going to cure everything, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said. But it is intended to be only an experiment. It is admitted that it covers only a small area. I venture to suggest that the fact that it covers only a small area reduces to some extent the importance which should be placed on the off-street parking aspect. Obviously, before control of parking can be enforced over a wide area, such as the whole of this city, one must have adequate off-street parking. My noble friend Lord Mancroft has pointed out that there is more off-street parking than is used, and so long as that situation obtains it appears to me quite permissible to have an experimental meter scheme in a comparatively small district before you start additional off-street parking.
There are arguments against the scheme—most of them have been mentioned, though I think not all. My own objections are the excess charge scheme, which I mentioned in the debate the other
416
day, and the objection which I heard only to-day and which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, put very forcibly. That is the objection of a man being able to use only half his share of the normal period, and then not being able to come back, as it were, for his second helping. That certainly needs re-examination. I do not know whether it would be possible to redraft these regulations and to re-lay them again so as to take the place of the present Order. If that is possible, it might be the best thing to do. In the meanwhile, however, from the point of view of getting the scheme working I am sure we should support the Order, and if it is necessary to redraft it, as my noble friend, Lord Derwent, thinks it is, perhaps that can be done as soon as possible after the scheme is started.
5.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, we have had a very interesting debate, one of many debates on this subject, with great expert knowledge, and I am sure it is very helpful. The point I want to make I can express quite briefly. On what I consider to be the correct constitutional practice, it would be quite wrong for this House to negative an Order which has already received the approval of the House of Commons. It is quite true that Statutory Rules and Instruments have to be submitted to both Houses, but in these Orders the powers of your Lordships are exactly equal to the powers of the House of Commons: that is to say, if there were a change of Government and they were to propose such an Order and it was necessary for their legislation, your Lordships, not under any measure of the Parliament Act, with no powers of suggesting Amendments but by a simple phrase, could negative the policy of the Government elected to power in the other House.
Therefore, although constitutionally—or statutorily I suppose is the word—the noble Earl is perfectly right to discuss the matter and move his Motion, when I heard him say he was going to a Division I thought it right to put this point before your Lordships. What would happen then? This is not a question of which Party is in power; the Government is a Conservative Government at the moment. But they have passed this Order with the assent of the properly elected Chamber. Yet a number of noble Lords can then come and, without any

417
appeal to any Parliament Act, negative the policy of the Government. I say that constitutionally that is wrong.
What my noble friend said about not voting certainly applies to me and I imagine to other noble Lords; I shall certainly riot take part in any vote on this subject. We have to establish use here, and that is what I am endeavouring to do. Your Lordships may think this is a large issue to raise on what is a very small matter, but it is not small; it will be a very important thing in the future, because a great deal of legislation, especially colonial legislation, is at the present time being passed under the Statutory Instruments Act. Take as an example the question of the Rhodesian Constitution or the constitutional position in East Africa. In all these matters, if changes have to be made they will probably be made by Statutory Order, and it would be quite wrong for the House of Lords to claim in this matter to have a power independent of and contrary to that of the House of Commons. Therefore, I respectfully submit to your Lordships that the correct thing for us to do, and certainly the course I. shall follow, is to take no part in any Division called by the noble Earl.
5.44 p.m.
LORD CLITHEROE: My Lords, I will not join issue with the noble Viscount opposite on the constitutional point he has just raised, except to say this: we are, amongst other things, a revising Chamber, and here is a Statutory Instrument which contains certain things with which your Lordships may not agree.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, that is just the point. If we are a revising Chamber there is something to be said for the noble Earl's Motion. But we cannot revise this Order; we cannot amend it. We can only reject it, and counter the settled policy of Her Majesty's Government.
LORD CLITHEROE: My Lords, I am fully aware of that. I was only pointing out that we are a revising Chamber. That is one of our functions; it is generally recognised, even if the noble Viscount does not agree. And when circumstances are such that the only method of revision is to reject an Order or ask the Government to withdraw it, it leaves us very little opportunity to do anything else.
418
With regard to the main issue, London traffic has been in such a mess ever since the end of the last war that naturally one is very loth to criticise any genuine proposal to try to improve it. Therefore I have asked myself whether this scheme will improve the situation and if it is the right way of trying to do so. We have been told by Her Majesty's Government that this is an experiment. I think that is agreed. I find nothing in the Statutory Instrument, however, about an experiment; I see no time limit in this Statutory Instrument. We have been told by Her Majesty's Government that one of the plans in this experiment is to collect some money with which to create garages and parking places. If we are going to wait for the end of that experiment, it will take a great many years. Just to build one of them will absorb many years' revenue from such an experiment as this.
Therefore I would ask the noble Lord who is going to reply if he will give us an assurance, first, that if this scheme is unsuccessful it will be withdrawn after a limited period, let us say two years; and, secondly, that he will at the same time promote and encourage— not merely permit, but promote and encourage—an experiment in the disc system. The disc system has a great many merits which have not been fully canvassed in this House. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, told us of many of them. One merit is that it is much fairer to the residents to have a disc system. If your Lordships have looked at the map which accompanies this Order, you will have observed, for example, that in Upper Brook Street (I may say that I am in no way interested in Upper Brook Street in particular) there are to be parking meters on the whole of the north side but none along the south side. The fortunate residents on the south side of Upper Brook Street will have no parking meters outside their front doors. They will be able to drive up to their doors; their visitors will be able to come; their laundry will be delivered. They will have all the amenities of a front door. But the residents on the north side of that particular street will have none of these amenities.
Then again, this scheme is designed to reduce traffic congestion. I observe here that in several streets parking is to be allowed on both sides. Much of the

419
difficulty at present in our congestion of traffic in London is simply because parking is permitted by the police on both sides. I cannot understand why the police continue to permit it. I was in one narrow street this morning near Westminster Cathedral where there is just room to get through between two lines of cars. It is perpetually occupied by two lines of cars, and the police make no effort to clear it, though they have power. There are several streets which are quite narrow which are to have parking meters placed on both sides. I cannot believe that that is a sensible plan. I shall be very glad if the noble Lord who is going to reply will tell us why that is being done.
This scheme is going to be very expensive to install. Probably these meters have already been bought. But installing them is a very expensive job, and it is a thousand pities that we cannot, even at this stage, persuade the Government to try for six months or a year the disc system, to see how it works. It would cost nothing, and we should not have to desecrate Grosvenor Street and other places with these hideous meters. If, after six months, it was found that it did not work we could come back to the parking meter system. I think that is a very much better plan, and I should like to ask the Government to postpone this scheme for a year and give a chance for the disc scheme to be tried. I have been told by those who criticise the disc system that it is not perfect, that it deals only with the long-term parker. But he is the man I want to deal with, and I think that the problem of the long-term parker is the main problem we have to face. Therefore, I think the disc system should be tried.
Under the meters scheme, a large number of people will never during the day be able to approach their own front doors, because this is a busy area, and all these parking places will be filled up. Yesterday afternoon a furniture van came to my house, which is not in this area, and spent about half an hour unloading a small amount of furniture. It would have taken much longer had there been more furniture, but at least it was able to approach the door. Had there been a parking meter along my street, the whole of the traffic would have been disrupted during the period of unloading. I do not know
420
whether that would have been a very satisfactory situation.
One other point that I want to mention is, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has said, that all this will do is to shift the parking of cars from one area to another. Here I declare an interest, because I live just outside this area, and all that will happen is that cars are going to be pushed from this area and will crowd into the area in which I live. I know that that is something that one would have to suffer. But I beg the Government to withdraw this Order now —that will obviate the necessity for any Member opposite to vote against a Statutory Instrument—and to tell us that they will try the disc system for six or twelve months. Then, as I say, if it does not work, they can come back and introduce another Order, which I hope will have been drawn to meet the obviously important point raised by my noble friend Lord Derwent. I also hope that the map will be amended a little, so that some of these inequalities of distribution in regard to parking will be put right.
5.51 p.m.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, I shall be brief. I should like to say that I fully align myself with my noble friend Lord Howe, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth and my noble friend Lord Derwent in regard to the assurance for which they ask. I also agree with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Clitheroe. One point that has not been made is that when we agreed to this experimental parking scheme and gave it our blessing in the Road Traffic Act, 1956, there was no question of a blue disc scheme—it had not then been started. Surely when you find something that is as good, or, as some people say, better, you should give it a try, if possible in comparable conditions. Lord Lucas of Chilworth said that we should agree to this because we have given it our blessing in the Road Traffic Act. I agree. But we did not at that time know of the disc system.
The next point I want to make is that it has been said that the money coming from the parking meters is necessary to provide off-street parking facilities. I agree that such facilities are necessary, but I do not believe that any money that came from these meters—that is, if there was any net revenue from them, because I think they are going to

421
cost more than we get from them—would ever go to putting up garages. After all, the Road Traffic Fund was robbed and done away with; and the way things are going, all the money coming into the Treasury goes to a general fund. I think many noble Lords will agree with me that money that came specifically from these meters would not necessarily go towards providing off-street parking facilities. One other thing I want to say concerns the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Burden, about traffic experts going out and looking at this scheme. If I am correct, the London and Home Counties Advisory Committee, senior officials of the Ministry of Transport, an Assistant Commissioner from the Metropolitan Police and another official from the Ministry of Transport, not in a technical capacity but in an administrative or secretarial capacity, would all be very good in their jobs. But many people in Germany and other countries have been out and made a joint survey of the disc scheme; and they have written a report. The reports of Mr. Samuels and the others have been compared, and there is a lot to be said for both sides. I do not think it could ever be said that one body only can be said to be the only body of people who know what they are talking about.
5.55 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I will not delay the House more than a few moments, but I should like to make one comment. We have had many interesting debates on important matters in which there have been only a few speakers speaking to an empty House. We have had this subject this afternoon which has been debated from time to time by a fair number of speakers speaking to a fairly full House. It seems rather peculiar to me, and I wonder whether it is not a question of our taking far too great an interest in the interests of motorists. I would suggest to your Lordships that there is another section of the community that we should consider this evening—namely, the pedestrians. The vast majority of men and women who live and work in London are pedestrians, and they require public transport as a means of moving from one place to another. We know that public transport is continually hindered and delayed because of parking.
422
I would support any scheme that would clear the roads of parked cars and permit the free movement of public transport and of the motorist using the road legitimately. I would support the noble Earl, Lord Howe, if I believed that his scheme would clear the roads; but frankly, having thought about it, I cannot believe that it would clear the roads. I believe there is a possible hope in the Government's scheme, subject to two conditions which do not exist to-day—and, indeed, there is no evidence that they will exist. The conditions are, first, that the Government and the local authorities will provide off-street parking; secondly, that the charges incurred by a man parking his car in the street will be so high that it will drive him off the roads into the garages. I have my doubts which way I should vote if I were called upon to do so, and I must say that I am much relieved that my noble friend Lord Stansgate has put this constitutional position, which makes it a little easier for me to abstain than to vote with the Government.
5.58 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, the Motion before the House to-day relates to a subject on which the views of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who has moved it, and of myself must be wearisomely familiar to your Lordships. We had a very full debate on it only three weeks ago, which will be fresh in your minds. What has been said in the debate to-day has for the most part been heard in this House before, and your Lordships will not therefore expect me to cover much new ground.
The Motion seeks your Lordships' approval of a Prayer to annul the Order before the House. The noble Lords who have spoken in support of the Motion have made it abundantly clear that their objection is to the introduction of parking meters in Westminster at all, not (or at least not primarily) to the manner in which the Order would empower their introduction. I may be forgiven, I hope, therefore, if I address myself first to some general considerations that have sometimes been overlooked in our debates.
The Road Traffic Act, 1956, adopted by your Lordships after full argument, empowers the local authorities in the Metropolitan Police District to submit to

423
my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport schemes for charging for parking on the highway, if they wish by the employment of parking meters. While the Act was before Parliament as a Bill, a Special Committee was in being to consider the manner in which such a power, if it were granted, should be employed. The Samuels Survey Committee, as I may call it, recommended that a start should be made with a parking meter scheme in North-West Mayfair.
The Westminster City Council adopted that recommendation, and the present Order before us in effect translates it into legal form. The Order is, therefore, the natural outcome of the passage of the Road Traffic Act, 1956, and, were no such Order before you, there would, I suspect, be legitimate grounds of complaint. The Act goes so far as to give my right honourable friend powers, in default of any scheme submitted by a local authority, to introduce such a scheme himself for the purpose of experiment and—here I may reassure my noble friend, Lord Clitheroe—for demonstration. It has not been necessary to adopt that course owing to the sensible and timely action of the Westminster City Council.
The scheme of the Westminster City Council has been most fully examined in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Act. Incidentally, it has also received the backing of the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis. After due advertisement there has been a long public inquiry conducted before Sir Hugh Dow, at which all objectors have been able to state their case, and most of the points raised by your Lordships in the course of our debates have been exhaustively examined there. The report of the public inquiry has been considered by the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee. Both the inspector of the Inquiry and the Committee have advised the Minister to adopt the scheme and make the proposed Order, and copies of their reports are available in your Lordships' House. That is precisely what my right honourable friend has done, and in doing so he has fulfilled, I suggest. both the intentions of the Act and his assurances to Parliament before it was passed. Therefore, I make no apology for the Order.
424
My noble friend, Earl Howe, and the other noble Lords who have supported him, now claim that since the Road Traffic Act, 1956, a new factor has intervened which should make the Minister hesitate before he carries out the intention of that Act. This new factor is the introduction, in what has come to be known as the Blue Zone of Paris, of the disc system. From the very birth of the idea of parking discs in Paris, my right honourable friend made it his business to keep himself informed both of what was proposed and, later, of how it was working in practice.
He did so precisely because, like your Lordships, he wished to be satisfied that nothing had occurred which would render out of date the parking meter experiment as envisaged in the Road Traffic Act, 1956. My right honourable friend has no prejudice whatever against the disc system, as some of your Lordships seem to think, and he had a completely open mind about the scheme when he first heard of it; but as a result of preliminary reports on the Paris system, he asked Mr. Samuels to lead the small party to which the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, referred, to inspect the system. This they did in January last, and their report, of which your Lordships have had copies, amply confirmed his own preliminary conclusion that, attractive and ingenious as the disc system is, it is, on balance, less likely to solve our central London parking problem than a scheme for parking meters on the lines before your Lordships at the moment; and I must say that nothing that has been said to-day or on previous occasions has shaken that conclusion.
The essence of any system of parking control surely is that it should be enforceable. There would be no need for meters, discs, or any other device if a simple regulation that motorists may park only in particular places, and then only for a limited period of time, was enforceable. But the plain fact is that it is not, as anyone who uses street parking places where the legal limit is two hours, and unilateral waiting streets where the legal limit has been half an hour, will know. I believe it is common ground between us that if we are to have a reasonable traffic flow and some degree or order brought back to our streets, the parking of private cars on those streets must be restricted to comparatively short

425
periods in specified places. To that point I particularly ask your Lordships' attention.
The question now before us is: what is the most effective and cheapest way in which this can be done? Some of your Lordships place your faith in parking discs. Her Majesty's Government believe that the right course lies in the judicious use of parking meters. The first essential difference between the parking meter and the parking disc lies in the scale of enforcement involved. The second is in the treatment of offending motorists. Most of the other differences in the system employed in Paris or contemplated in London, although in my view they favour the parking meter, might be overcome; but the two difficulties I have specifically mentioned seem to Her Majesty's Government insuperable.
Let me take first the scale of enforcement. There is evidence that when the number of attendants in the Paris scheme falls below one for every twenty-five car spaces, the standard of enforcement of the disc instantly falls off. That is what the Paris police tell us. We have no doubt that for the same level of enforcement at least three times as many officers or attendants are necessary to watch the disc system than are necessary to watch the meter system. As I have explained, that is where cost comes in. I explained that to your Lordships on the last occasion that we debated this matter and I will not repeat it, but it is the wages of the extra attendants to enforce the disc system which put up the cost of that system. Evasion is much easier with the discs and less easily detected. We are told that strict enforcement is necessary to ensure that the discs are set correctly and that the observation of each car must take place at the fixed time indicated on the disc.
The Dutch authorities who have also studied the disc system very closely have estimated this figure at not three times but ten times as great. I believe that that is on the high side; but even with three times as many attendants the difference in cost and effort between enforcement of the disc system and of the meter system is, I believe, very considerable. It is, in fact, a determining factor. In the long run the cost of the meters is relatively small compared with the bill for the enforcement of the disc system.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My
Lords, the noble Lord has told us of the great disadvantages shown in the disc system in Paris. Can he say whether the Paris authorities are continuing with the disc system or are discarding it, after their experiment, in favour of the parking meter system?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I understand that at the moment the Paris police are going into a revision of the scheme, trying to overcome some of the difficulties now being revealed by the scheme.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Are they discarding it?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, they are certainly not discarding it.
LORD CLITHEROE: My Lords, may I put a point to the noble Lord? He has said that it is much more expensive to have the additional men with the disc system, whereas with the parking meters it is a matter of the original cost. That is true; but this is an experiment, and if the experiment goes on for only a couple of years how is the economy of cost to work out?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I do not want to explain in detail what I explained so elaborately last time. I believe my noble friend Lord Salisbury was not present at the last debate. But I will not weary your Lordships with that. The matter of cost is not the important one. I have mentioned it only because it has been raised in the debate. I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, that it is not by any means the overriding question, for the overriding question should be: will this produce a better flow of traffic in London—not what it may do in Paris. It was also suggested that the figures which I gave last time are deceptive because under the meter system more police would be needed to patrol streets where there are no meters. I think it is clear that for the first few days after the new system is introduced an increased number of policemen may be needed on the job, for it will be essential to ensure that motorists understand the system and realise that in a meter zone they may park only where there is a meter. Once that phase is over and the system is understood and accepted here, I do not see why more policemen should be needed than are needed at present.

427
Indeed, the police will be concerned with shorter lengths of street, since they will not be concerned where there are meters. The enforcement of "No waiting" restrictions under the parking disc system would make exactly the same demands on the police as under the meter system. The only relevant comparison is between the numbers involved in supervising the meters or the discs themselves. On this particular point the comparison is strongly in favour of meters.
My Lords, let us, if we may, consider the point that has been raised several times this afternoon—namely, the treatment of offenders. By introducing an excess charge for the second two hours, the meter system creates something very near to a penalty for over-staying. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, does not like that—he made the point fairly and clearly—but I do not think he can be surprised by it, because it was considerably canvassed at the time the Road Traffic Act was debated.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I accepted the principle in the Bill. I am quarrelling now about the amount.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I grasp that point too; but I think that the figures in the Order were canvassed fairly widely at the time of the Bill. The noble Lord may not have approved, but I do not think he can have been surprised.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I think we all clearly understood that the maximum charge for the first two hours would be a shilling, and not, if you were there for fifty-five minutes, sixpence, and if you over-stayed by ten minutes 10s. 6d. We never understood that. It may now well be that one is going to pay 10s. 6d. although one is there under two hours.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, it was an essential part of the meter system that motorists should have a real, financial incentive to take their cars away before the time for which they had paid according to the meter had expired. The Paris disc system does not provide any similar incentive. I would ask you to take this point for very careful consideration. In Paris, the results, in the number of prosecutions, have been really fantastic by our standards. In Paris under this disc scheme there were 47,000 prosecutions in January, and 45,000 in February.
LORD TEYNHAM: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. If he will break down those figures I think he will find that 389 were for making an alteration of the time incorrectly on the disc on the windscreen.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, that does not matter. Forty-seven thousand prosecutions is a very large number. If you compare it with the total monthly number of prosecutions for a comparable area of the Metropolitan Police District for traffic offences, you will find that our figures are about 2,000. Prosecutions of the French order would, I think, be utterly beyond the capacity of our courts to handle. In the opinion of some people, the only way to get over that would be to introduce something like the American ticket system. I appreciate that in the Magistrates' Courts Act of 1957 we have adopted a simplified court procedure for minor offences; and I note also that the Samuels Report on the disc system envisages that it might be possible to legislate for the principle of an excess charge to be applied to the disc system. Nevertheless, if the number of offences committed in Paris under this disc system is any indication of the scale of infringements that is likely here, I doubt whether anything short of the American ticket system would be a really effective instrument of enforcement.
Your Lordships will recall the strong opposition to this innovation—this American ticket system—expressed in the Sharpe Report of 1956, which preceded the Magistrates' Courts Act, and I do not really think that at this juncture your Lordships would like to go back on a fundamental principle so recently and so strongly supported. As I have told your Lordships on previous occasions I am not going to stand here at this Dispatch Box and try to suggest that the disc system is wholly bad—I say it for the tenth time. Experience in Paris has proved that it is not. It has nearly eliminated the long-term parker there, and that is all to the good. But I claim that its achievement is more or less limited to that. The aims of the disc system differ from the aims of the parking-meter system embodied in this Order, and they have been bought at the cost of a level of supervision and prosecution which we in this country could not really contemplate. I also I claim, despite the views of some of your

429
Lordships, that when parking space on the streets is in short supply it is entirely right and just that motorists should have to pay a moderate sum for the privilege of using it.
It has been alleged in this debate this afternoon that discs are on their way in and meters are on their way out. I am not certain that that is wholly true. Meters are still on the increase in America, where they began (the figures show that there was a 15 to 20 per cent. increase last year), and they are still spreading in Europe and in other countries, South Africa included. About the time that Mr. Samuels took his party to Paris a similar party were inspecting discs on behalf of the Royal Dutch Touring Club. In consultation with the chief constables of Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague, their report has just been published. Briefly, the report concludes that the attractions of the disc system—namely, the absence of a charge, and the fact that with no bays more cars can be parked in a given area—are far outweighed by the disadvantages. That is the point of view I am putting forward to-day. As I mentioned just now, the Dutch consider that up to ten times as many police would be required for enforcement; and they believe that enforcement would be particularly difficult in the narrow streets of their towns—which are no narrower, I venture to suggest, than many of those in London. The Dutch report concludes that parking meters will provide the best solution of parking problems in these conditions. I could hardly ask for a more thorough-going vindication from an entirely disinterested source for some of the views I have tried to put before your Lordships. I do not want to labour this argument any longer—we know the facts backwards—but I should like to recapitulate the more important ones that I have put forward on previous occasions.
My right honourable friend the Minister of Transport has by no means closed his mind to the possibility of an experiment in parking discs; but it is his opinion, which I myself entirely share, that it would be quite impracticable to consider meters and discs in the same area of the same city in the same experiment. I have been asked to give an assurance on this point. Let me, if I may, to put your Lordships' minds at rest, say that if there is any city outside
430
London which would like to have an experiment in the disc system, and it puts forward a workable proposition, my right honourable friend will be only too glad to consider it. We cannot force a scheme on a borough or town that does not want it. There is no point in our taking up Parliament's time with legislation now for a disc Bill if nobody is going to use it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, the noble Lord says, very cleverly, that he will undertake that his right honourable friend will consider it. Will his right honourable friend, if it is wanted by any local authority in the provinces, facilitate its passage and the necessary legislation through Parliament?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, my right honourable friend will certainly not offer any obstruction or any objection whatever to a Bill, measure or proposal, that is wanted and proves workable. That is the thing we have to make quite certain about. But nobody has come forward with such a scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, asked whether we will agree not to have another experiment with meters until a scheme has been tried out with the discs, but no scheme has so far been proposed. If some authority does come forward they will be given a very cordial and interested reception.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, the noble Lord said "If the scheme proves workable". No scheme can prove workable unless it has been tried.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, that is what I have been saying for about the last ten minutes on this parking meter business.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I am talking about the noble Lord's answer. If any local authority wants to try it, the noble Lord said that the Minister will consider it if it is workable.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I apologise; that was a slip of the tongue: I meant if it seems workable. So let us be quite clear about this point. The Government and my right honourable friend are not opposed to the disc system. He does not have the prejudice on it which your Lordships appear to think he has. We are solely concerned with Westminster, where we think that the disc system is inferior in promise to the meter

431
system. If anybody wants to bring forward the disc system, to produce a scheme that looks workable, by a Private Bill or any other proper means, it will be given the most warm and cordial reception. But we cannot go on holding up this scheme while waiting for something else that nobody in this country knows about and about which nobody brings forward any plans. I do not think your Lordships would want me to elaborate the reasons why legislation is required. There are technical reasons which my legal advisers have explained on several grounds, but unless your Lordships challenge me, I would ask you to accept that position.
We have heard to-day a good deal of another argument for deferring once again this parking meter experiment—namely, that there is not enough off-street parking accommodation. In this context, it should be remembered that the Minister is required by the 1956 Road Traffic Act not simply to have regard to the extent to which off-street parking accommodation already exists, but also to the extent to which any Order is likely to encourage its provision. I feel little doubt that this scheme, both through the proceeds of parking meters, and because cars will no longer be able to park free, will provide encouragement both to public and private enterprise. Indeed. I have already told your Lordships of the plan of the Westminster City Council to create a multistorey car park for 350 to 400 cars a short distance to the south of the zone, between Audley Street and Waverton Street; and in agreement with them, private enterprise plans are progressing for a 120 to 180-car garage in Bowdon Street. These plans will continue to go ahead.
I mention only these two Westminster plans, since they alone are directly relevant to the Order, but I have made some inquiries since our last debate as to the extent to which the existing parking space in the West End is not fully used at present. I think that this reflects very much on some of the arguments that have been advanced this afternoon. In garages and parking lots with a total capacity of 2,600 car spaces, an average of 1,100 are unused every day. If motorists were willing to use it, there is still much unused parking space off the highway in the West End, and I hope and
432
trust that parking meters will persuade them to use it.
I am trying to convince your Lordships that there are good reasons for proceeding with this present Order. I have said so much on so many occasions with regard to the seriousness of our traffic problems in London, and particularly the part that excessive parking plays in them, that your Lordships cannot wish me to repeat it again. This Order empowers the Westminster City Council to conduct an experiment with the first comprehensive parking scheme ever attempted in London. It does not say in the Order that if the experiment proves a total failure it will be stopped, but I cannot imagine the Westminster City Council, which is a sane and sensible local authority, going on with an Order which proves to be a complete disaster, which I cordially hope it will not be.
The plan accompanying the Order, which the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, showed to your Lordships, indicates the limits within which parking meters may be erected. The sites have been most carefully chosen to provide the minimum interference with necessary accesses and traffic flow and to allow a reasonable allowance of curb space for loading and unloading. I cannot pretend that every syllable in the Order will prove justified and justifiable—it is an experiment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, will the noble Lord at this point acquaint us with the answer to the question I asked him—namely, how many private residences and how many public premises are to have parking meters right outside?
LORD MANCROFT: I can only do that by taking the Order with the map and working through it street by street.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord's advisers cannot tell him the number?
LORD MANCROFT: It will take some time to work out the figure.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It should have already been worked out.
LORD MANCROFT: It may have been, and I will find out for the noble Lord. It is provided in the Order exactly where the first meters are going to be. Somebody is going to be inconvenienced,

433
most assuredly, but already many people are being inconvenienced by parking. The point is that if this plan succeeds it will achieve several things. First, it will remove long-term parking from the streets. It will also provide facilities for a reasonable number of short-term parkers and an incentive to motorists to keep their parking to short periods. It will ensure that such parking will take place only where it can be accepted without detriment to traffic flow or interference with the essential operations of loading and unloading.
My noble friend Lord Derwent asked a question about Article 8. I have taken a rapid glance at that and I am assured that his fears are ill-founded. That matter will be carefully watched, as well as some of the other points that have been raised, and if this experiment proves in need of amendment here and there, it will be amended. I am not going to pretend to your Lordships that this is an experiment brought down from the mountain and that not one single syllable will ever be altered once your Lordships have passed it.
Loan DERWENT: My Lords, I am sorry to press this point. We are concerned not to make this scheme unworkable but about the actual legal position. What I am submitting makes legal nonsense of it. If any of it is to be amended, cannot an Amending Order be introduced at once?
LORD MANCROFT: I am sorry, but I am assured that it does not make legal nonsense at all.
LORD DERWENT: Well, that is all right.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, let me conclude, because we have little fresh to say. I appreciate that the results we are seeking to achieve will not be achieved without some inconvenience and hardship but, as your Lordships know, that is true of every form of traffic regulation. We have sought, with the Westminster City Council, to keep inconvenience to a minimum, and I hope that we have succeeded. This is an experiment, as I have already said a hundred times. We shall learn by experience, and if we find the need to amend the scheme, it can be amended before we apply it elsewhere.
434
After all the arguments we have had in your Lordships' House, I cannot believe that it is really your Lordships' wish that once again this experiment should be postponed in the hope that some Utopian scheme may be found. If nothing is done about the parking problem, your Lordships complain. When Her Majesty's Government adopt a scheme carefully and properly proposed by the Westminster City Council, threshed out by the authorities, compared with other schemes put forward elsewhere and discussed with experts internationally, some of your Lordships complain again. I must ask your Lordships to believe that we cannot always have it both ways.
A Prayer to annul the Order has been debated in another place arid, after hearing the arguments of my right honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary, which my noble friend Lord Howe discussed in detail, the mover withdrew his Prayer. (I will not be so rash as to cross swords with the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, on the constitutional issues but I listened carefully to what he said.) I invite your Lordships to follow their excellent example. Unless we do something about the traffic in London, nothing will ever be achieved. We shall be talking about it here until I am an old, old Back-Bencher, whether over there or possibly still on this side of the House. Therefore I beg your Lordships not to follow my noble friend Lord Howe into the Lobby, if he should think fit to lead a Division, but to give your approval to this Order and let us get on. Surely after the ocean of talk, we should do something about it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH:
My Lords, the noble Lord is both patient and courteous, but he seems to have overlooked one question I asked him. Can the Government take steps to amend what I think every Member of your Lordships' House regards as an excessive charge and something which the House was not led to believe would be imposed—namely, the charge of 10s. 6d. for sixty-five minutes parking?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I can do no more than bring it to the attention of my right honourable friend and ask him to look at it particularly when the experiment is tried out on the ground.

435
I cannot agree that the Order should be held up now for any point, because, as I say, Parliament was given full warning that this was likely to happen. I cannot say from memory that my noble friend Lord Selkirk or I stood at this Box and said that this will be written into the Order, but it certainly came as no surprise to me. If, however, it proves, as the noble Lord fears it will prove, a great hardship, then I am sure my right honourable friend will be prepared to consider an amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Then may I take it that this will not be taken as a precedent for any other experiment or permanent plan of this kind? Because this cannot be accepted by the House as a standard charge for every local authority to impose.
LORD MANCROFT: I cannot possibly suggest that anything in this Order will be considered as a standard for anything else. This applies to Westminster, and to Westminster only. There may be a dozen different things that will apply differently when put into practice at Land's End and John o' Groats. I cannot say any more than that.
6.31 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord has said, and I only wish he had listened half as carefully to the few remarks that I made. He has altogether ignored quite a number of them. I told him that the information we get from Paris is that the speed of traffic there, as the result of the disc system, has gone up by 2 miles per hour. He paid no attention to that. I then asked him what he is going to do about unilateral parking under this scheme. My noble friend Lord Clitheroe asked him about Brook Street, and I asked about Park Street, but he has not referred to that in his reply. It is not satisfactory to put questions to a Minister which he ignores so completely as the noble Lord has ignored these two questions that really matter.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Earl. I hope he does not think I was discourteous in any way; that is the last thing I should want to be. I did make the point that he was making rather detailed comments at this stage of the
436
proceedings, on matters which had already been most carefully considered before. If the noble Earl thought that I was discourteous or not paying attention to what he said, I can assure him that that was far from the case.
EARL HOWE: Of course, I accept the noble Lord's assurance. But still. I put this question about unilateral parking in a debate on April 30; I have put it to him again to-day, and he still has not answered it. Nobody can tell us whether unilateral parking can continue or is intended to continue under the parking meters scheme. If the noble Lord would like to reply now, I will give way. Apparently he does not wish to reply. The noble Lord was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, whether he would facilitate an experiment with the disc system; and I have the noble Lord's reply in Hansard. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 208 (No. 61), col. 1167].
"…the disc system requires legislation, and there is frankly no room for such legislation, either in this Session or the next."
So the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, can judge from that how much the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, is likely to facilitate such an experiment. I asked the noble Lord three questions, to none of which have I had an answer. The principal one is whether, before extending the meter system or the experiment envisaged under this Order, he can assure us that an experiment will be carried out with the disc system. All he has said on that is what he said in the first debate, that there was no prospect of Government help with legislation. Therefore I can take it that nothing will be done, so far as the noble Lord is concerned, to facilitate a disc system.
LORD MANCROFT: The noble Earl must not say that. He is getting things all muddled up. I originally said that there was no point in wasting Parliamentary time by legislating in vacuo in case somebody wanted to try the disc system. If somebody wants to try the disc system, that is a different matter. In either case there must be legislation. But if somebody wants it, and produces a workable and attractive-looking scheme, that will be a different matter from suggesting, as was suggested in the last debate. that we should legislate in case anybody wanted the disc system. I

437
can repeat to the noble Earl and reassure him on this: that if somebody wants to try the disc system, we shall be only too pleased to help in any way we can. We are not going to force the disc system on somebody who does not want it, nor are we going to legislate in vacuo in case anybody wants it.
EARL HOWE: How does the noble Lord reconcile that with what he said on April 30, to which I have just referred? He then said:
"Let me remind the noble Lords who suggested it that the disc system requires legislation, arid there is frankly no room for such legislation, either in this Session or the next."
Resolved in the negative and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

THE WHITSUN RECESS
6.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, it may be for your convenience, before the House adjourns, that I should tell your Lordships that it is hoped that Parliament will be able to adjourn for the
438
If that is not a complete rejection of the idea, then English does not mean to the noble Lord what it means to me. I can only say that I much regret that the noble Lord has not given way in any sense and has not given us the slightest encouragement. I can see nothing for it but to ask those noble Lords who would like to see a workable scheme for the disc system tried out alongside or conjointly with the parking meter scheme to support me in the Division Lobby.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 4; Not-Contents, 38.

CONTENTS

Buckinghamshire, E.

Howe, E. [Teller.]

I Merrivale, L. [Teller.]

I Waleran, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Lansdowne, M.

Colville of Culross, V.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Salisbury, M.

Crookshank, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Gage, V.

Denham, L.

Bathurst, E.

Goschen, V.

Dovercourt, L.

Crawford, E.

Hereford, V.

Dynevor, L.

Ferrers, E.

Lambert, V.

Geddes, L.

Gosford, E.

Soulbury, V.

Hampton, L.

Halifax, E.

Tentoy, V.

Leconfield, L.

Home, E.

MoCorquodale of Newton, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Aberdare, L.

Mancroft, L.

Perth, E.

Addington, L.

Merthyr, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Auckland, L.

Milverton, L.

Selkirk, E.

Baden-Powell, L.

Strathalmond, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Whitsun Recess on Friday, May 23, until Tuesday, June 10. In present circumstances, however, the House must treat this arrangement as provisional. A further statement will be made as early as possible. Your Lordships' House will adjourn on Thursday, May 22, unless some further Business requires us to meet on the following day.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes before seven o'clock.