Sitting of 17 February 1960

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

  DISENGAGEMENT
  Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent any form of disengagement in Europe is now included in Her Majesty's Government's foreign policy.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): I have nothing to add to what I said about disengagement in the foreign affairs debate last week.
  Mr. Allaun: Will the Foreign Secretary explain what has caused the change of attitude since twelve months ago, when the Prime Minister was speaking, very sensibly, I thought, at least, about a zone of limited arms in Central Europe?
  Mr. Lloyd: I explained that matter at some length, covering at least one column of HANSARD, during the debate. If I did not satisfy the hon. Member then, I doubt whether I shall satisfy him in answer to a supplementary question.
  Mr. Warbey: Is it the policy of Her Majesty's Government that foreign troops shall remain permanently in Germany, both East and West, or have they any alternative?
  Mr. Lloyd: I have nothing to add on the question of disengagement to what I said in the debate.

  ICELANDIC FISHERIES DISPUTE
  Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make representations to the Icelandic Government that, during the period of the United Nations Conference on the
  1258
  Law of the Seas, British trawlers should be permitted to fish up to the four-mile limit and British naval protection vessels be withdrawn.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Her Majesty's Government have made repeated suggestions to the Icelandic Government for an interim arrangement on fishery matters pending the outcome of the Conference on the Law of the Sea. I repeated in Paris in December our offer as an interim measure to withdraw our naval protection vessels from within the twelve-mile fishery limit claimed by Iceland if the Icelandic authorities would undertake not to interfere with our fishing vessels between six and 12 miles.
  Mr. Wall: While thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply, may I ask him to continue to urge the Icelandic Government to adopt a more reasonable attitude, particularly as we are now approaching the date of the conference, which could get off to a much better start if some such arrangement were made?
  Mr. Lloyd: I regard the suggestion as a fair one, because it went two miles beyond the four-mile limit to which my hon. Friend has referred. It is a matter of deep regret that the Icelandic Government have not seen fit to accept it. I still hope that they may change their mind.

  SPECIAL OPERATIONS EXECUTIVE REPORTS
  Dame Irene Wardasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs under what circumstances certain authors have had access to Special Operations Executive Reports covered by the Official Secrets Acts; whether he is aware that they have used them in such a way as to injure the reputation of agents who have been tried and acquitted; and whether, in order to stop the publication of secret reports which cannot be checked and the consequent abuse of the Official Secrets Act, the authorised history of Special Operations Executive will be immediately commenced.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to her on 6th June, 1956, by my right hon. Friend the then Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I am not aware that

  1259
  the information disclosed in the single instance to which he referred was used for the purpose which the hon. Lady suggests.
  With regard to the second part of the Question, I do not accept the implication that the Official Secrets Act has been abused. As regards the publication of an authorised history of the Special Operations Executive, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State informed my hon. Friend on 11th December, 1958, the question is being examined. That is still the position.
  Dame Irene Ward: Discounting the problem of unauthorised people being in possession of secret reports, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether, if a libel action is brought against an author who has quoted from a secret report of which he should not be in possession and the case goes to court, the proper document will be available, supplied by the Foreign Office, for the complainant to clear his character?
  Mr. Lloyd: I would like notice of that question.
  Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: Would my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that enough harm has already been done by these amateur cloak and dagger people who have ignored the Official Secrets Act and cashed in on their limited wartime experience? Will my right hon. and learned Friend deny them any further encouragement by refusing absolutely to authorise an official history of what is supposed to be a secret organisation?
  Mr. Lloyd: I am well aware of my hon. and gallant Friend's views about this matter, remembering his supplementary question of 15th December, 1958. I certainly will bear his views in mind.
  Mr. F. Noel-Baker: Will not the Foreign Secretary take the opportunity to comment on the wild allegations which have been made? A great number of the people connected with this work gave distinguished and gallant service during the war. Surely, he will not let that supplementary question pass without comment.
  Mr. Lloyd: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that many people did very gallant work in this connection.
  Mr. Speaker rose—
  Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order. Would it be in order for me to ask the Foreign Secretary if he is aware that the Prime Minister has authorised publication of an official history?

  COMMANDER CRABB
  Dame Irene Wardasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what recent information he has received regarding the whereabouts of Commander Crabb.
  Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the most recent information received by Her Majesty's Government about Commander Crabb.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No recent information about Commander Crabb has been received by Her Majesty's Government.
  Dame Irene Ward: Can my right hon. and learned Friend give us a little more assurance, having regard to some wild statements which have appeared in the Press and the disquiet which some of those observations have aroused? Has he not got any further statement to make on the subject, on whether we know definitely what happened, and whether there has been identification of the body?
  Mr. Lloyd: I would remind my hon. Friend that at the inquest in June, 1957, the coroner expressed himself as quite satisfied that the remains which were found in Chichester Harbour on 9th June were those of Commander Crabb.
  Mr. Awbery: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that there is a possibility that the coroner was wrong on that occasion? Is he aware also that a book is being published shortly by publishers in London who state that they are satisfied with the authenticity of the information received from Russia? They are publishing this. Could the Foreign Secretary give us some information about the publication of this book?
  Mr. Lloyd: I do not know about the book. I have no other information about Commander Crabb than that which I have given to the House. I have no reason to think that there is any truth in the suggestion that the coroner was wrong.
  Mr. Fernyhough: Has not the time come when the Government should come clean with the House about this case, and ought not the House to know who was responsible for giving the instructions to undertake that rather shady escapade?
  Mr. Lloyd: That is quite a different matter from the two Questions on the Paper.

  INDO-CHINA (GENEVA AGREEMENT)
  Mr. Healeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent discussions with other interested Governments of Great Britain's obligations in Laos under the Geneva Agreement of 1955.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Gentleman's question of 10th February.
  Mr. Healey: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman at least assure the House that he has reached no undertaking with the United States Government for joint military intervention in Laos in conditions and in circumstances which have been defined?
  Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman in a supplementary question last week referred to a certain newspaper article, which I have read. There is no secret Anglo-American agreement for military intervention in Laos, but, of course, we are both members of the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation, which is a defensive organisation with a military planning office. Such a planning office, obviously, considers plans for a wide variety of contingencies, but such plans are without commitment, and there is no commitment by Her Majesty's Government.
  Mr. Healey: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman telling the House that our commitments in S.E.A.T.O. apply to circumstances which may arise in Laos, whose international status has been defined as neutral in an agreement to which the Government are a party?
  Mr. Lloyd: So far as any military plans are concerned, I have no intention of being more specific. I think it would be quite unwise for me to be more specific. If a planning office is doing
  1262
  its duty it is making plans for a wide variety of contingencies. So far as our obligations under the Treaty are concerned, we are under an obligation to resist aggression.
  Mr. Healey: But surely the Treaty defines quite clearly the area in which it is relevant, and Laos is not included in its area of operation?
  Mr. Lloyd: Laos is a designated area under the Treaty.

  GERMANY (NAZI VICTIMS)
  Sir L. Plummerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs by what date he expects to be able to report to the House on his discussions with the Federal German Government on the agreements for compensating Nazi victims.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I cannot yet add to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) on 10th February.
  Sir L. Plummer: Does the Foreign Secretary appreciate that, while the Federal Government have given tardy and somewhat inadequate compensation to Jewish victims of Nazism, they have used a legal artifice to bar the claims of non-Jewish victims of Nazism? Will he not now say to Dr. Adenauer's representative that if the Federal Government really want to represent themselves as among the civilised nations they ought really to do something to treat alike claims on behalf of all people who were victims of Nazism?
  Mr. Lloyd: I do not accept the implication of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, but I do agree with him that this is a matter which should be looked at from the ethical point of view rather than the legal point of view. It is a matter which I shall certainly continue to pursue.

  EUROPEAN MIGRATION (INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEE)
  Mr. P. Noel-Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will

  1263
  join the Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I am afraid that I cannot yet add to what my hon. Friend told the right hon. Gentleman last month, namely, that the matter is under consideration.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Since the Committee has up to date sent overseas more than 400,000 refugees, would it not be very appropriate for the Government to join during World Refugee Year?
  Mr. Lloyd: That is certainly a consideration not absent from my mind.

  CYPRUS (SITUATION)
  Mr. Donnellyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a further statement on Cyprus.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: There is as yet not much to add to what was said in the debate on 9th February. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies left Cyprus on 10th February after delaying his departure for a few hours at the request of Archbishop Makarios. Since then the Governor has continued conversations with the Cypriot leaders with a view to clarifying certain questions that arose on the various subjects under discussion. I believe that some progress has been made. We are waiting for the Governor to complete his report. Meanwhile the position of Her Majesty's Government remains as it was stated in last week's debate; we are working for a settlement within the terms of the Zurich and London Agreements.
  Mr. Donnelly: In view of the fact that it is now public, the accusation which Archbishop Makarios has made against the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, can the Secretary of State say precisely what the Under-Secretary of State did agree to?
  Mr. Lloyd: I do not know that the word "accusation" is quite the right word to use, but I have certainly read the reports. They are at variance with my understanding, and that of my hon. Friends and others, of what took place at this meeting, but really I do not think it is wise to go into that matter today.
  Hon. Members: Why?
  Mr. Lloyd: It simply shows some of the difficulties of the negotiations.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: My right hon. and learned Friend says that the position of the Government remains as it was stated. Will he bear in mind that very many people in this country are anxious that that position should continue to remain as it was stated?
  Mr. Lloyd: I am aware of that point of view.
  Mr. Healey: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that his hon. Friend's view is not shared by everybody in this House, and that there will be a widespread feeling that the precedent set by the Foreign Secretary himself in revealing an ex parte account of what happened in private negotiations is not a desirable one to be followed?
  Mr. Lloyd: That is a point of view and I take note of it.

  UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC AND ISRAEL
  Mr. Langford-Holtasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) wheher, in conjunction with the other parties to the Tripartite Declaration of 1950, he will make representations to the Government of the United Arab Republic, with a view to terminating the state of war between the United Arab Republic and Israel;
  (2) to what extent belligerent rights are accorded by Her Majesty's Government to the United Arab Republic and Israel, in view of the fact that a state of war exists between these two States.
  Mr. Healeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what discussions he has had with the other signatories to the Tripartite Declaration regarding the effect of the formation of the United Arab Republic upon their obligations under the declaration.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: At discussions held since the formation of the United Arab Republic, the signatories agreed that the Tripartite Declaration remained a valid declaration of policy. The termination of the state of war between Israel and the Arab States was called for by the

  1265
  Armistice Agreement of 1949. For Her Majesty's Government to call on the United Arab Republic to terminate that state of war would be to admit that it still exists, which we do not.
  The question of according belligerent tights by Her Majesty's Government to the United Arab Republic or Israel has not arisen. If the point did arise, the Government concerned would have to establish, as a matter of law, that it was entitled to exercise such rights.
  Mr. Langford-Holt: Would my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that the position whereby this situation in the Middle East has been allowed over many years to drift is extremely dangerous, especially when it is accompanied by such belicose statements as we have seen in the paper by President Nasser today, and that the danger in the future will get worse and worse until some definite action is either taken by the United Nations or not?
  Mr. Lloyd: I am aware of what my hon. Friend says.
  Mr. Healey: Does this mean that the Foreign Secretary has abandoned his interpretation of the Tripartite Agreement of 6th March, 1957, namely, that the Government did not consider it applicable in the case of an attack on Israel by Egypt? Would he answer Question No. 23 in my name on the Paper? Does he consider and do his partners in the Declaration consider the Declaration as being applicable in the case of war between Israel and that part of the United Arab Republic which used to be Syria?
  Mr. Lloyd: That is a wide question. Perhaps the Answer which I gave was an over-simplification, but as the United Arab Republic is a State in the area it must be taken into account—for example, in regard to the arms race and the operation of that part of the Tripartite Declaration which deals with the supply of arms in the area. But if the question is, do we regard ourselves as under an obligation to go to the help of a State which does not want our help, I would say, "No."
  Mr. Shinwell: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman declines to admit that the U.A.R. and the State of Israel are is a state of war, why did his right hon. Friend the Minister of State for
  1266
  Foreign Affairs, in reply to a Question relating to the interference with shipping through the Canal, reply by saying that it was related to a state of war and was a legal issue? What is the legal issue involved if the Government decline to admit that there is a state of war?
  Mr. Lloyd: What I have said is the actual truth. We do not agree that there is a state of war now, but the Government of the United Arab Republic maintain that there is. As far as I understand the position of the Israeli Government, they say that there is not. That is what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State was referring to when he said that it was a legal issue.
  Mr. Langford-Holt: Could my right hon. and learned Friend say whether the United Nations Resolution which stated that neither nation should exercise a right to search and seizure is still valid?
  Mr. Lloyd: I should like notice of that specific case, but my recollection is that that is the well-known Resolution of 1951. In our view, that is a Resolution to which regard should be had. It does not lie in our hands to see that it is complied with.
  Mr. Healey: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the Tripartite Declaration made by the three Governments, without agreement or consultation with any of the Governments in the countries of the area concerned, included a commitment that the three Governments, should they find any of the States preparing to violate frontiers or armistice lines, would immediately take action within or outside the United Nations to prevent such violation? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether Her Majesty's Government recognise an obligation to take such action in the case of a violation of the armistice line between Israel and the United Arab Republic?
  Mr. Lloyd: We do not regard ourselves as under an obligation to come to the help of a State which says that it does not want our help.
  Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Is not that interpretation now given by the Foreign Secretary in plain violation of the text of the agreement which my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) has just read out, and also in violation of the view held by the United States?
  Mr. Lloyd: I do not know about the latter matter, but I do not accept that it is in violation of the text. I have been saying this for three years.
  Mr. J. Hynd: In view of the deliberate defiance by Her Majesty's Government of the Tripartite Agreement in 1956 and the denunciation of the main clause which the Foreign Secretary has now enunciated in the House, would it not be wise to scrap this altogether, so that all know where they stand?
  Mr. Lloyd: That is, of course, a possibity, but the Declaration has some validity with regard to contributing to stability in the area.

  NUCLEAR TESTS
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, following the recent proposals of the United States Government at the Geneva Conference on Tests, he will make a further statement on the conference.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: As I informed the House last week, the United States Delegation as the Geneva Nuclear Tests Conference put forward on 11th February a new proposal for the suspension of tests on the surface of the earth, in the oceans, and up to the greatest height at which effective controls could be agreed. The United States proposal would also ban those underground tests at present capable of being detected and identified, and proposes joint research to extend this ban. The United Kingdom Delegation have given general support to this proposal. Yesterday the Soviet Delegate rejected the United States proposal, but he put forward on behalf of the Soviet Union new proposals on criteria for initiating inspections of suspected underground tests. These are very technical and will require careful study.
  Mr. Henderson: Is it not a fact that the main outstanding difference is the problem of the uncontrollable lower-range underground tests and that there is broad agreement on the need to ban all other tests? If this is so, why should not Her Majesty's Government propose that there should be a ban on all tests other than small underground tests, that there should be a declaration by the three Governments not to resume any small underground tests, and that there
  1268
  should be the appointment of scientists by the three Governments to investigate the possibility of achieving an effective control system for dealing with small underground tests?
  Mr. Lloyd: As to the first part of the supplementary question, that already is our position. The United States Government and we have stated that we are willing to make such an agreement forthwith. What we are now trying to do is, by negotiating with the Soviet Union, to find out whether an acceptable control system can be set up to deal with the remaining range of underground tests which, on present information, are difficult or impossible to control. We must continue to examine very carefully the Soviet proposals which, I think, are designed for the same purpose, because it is much better, if we can, to get a comprehensive agreement straight away.
  Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Can the Foreign Secretary say down to what level of explosive power in kilotons the American proposal would forbid tests?
  Mr. Lloyd: No, Sir. The magnitude was put in another measurement. If the right hon. Gentleman gives me notice, I can give the actual measurements which the United States have given.
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now given further consideration to the possibility of monitoring suspected underground nuclear tests with a small number of unmanned seismic instruments; and what conclusions he has reached.
  Mr. Zilliacusasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the fact that the addition of small, unmanned, auxiliary seismic stations along the periphery of known seismic areas to the control system, already substantially agreed upon as capable of detecting all major nuclear explosions, would make it also 98 per cent. efficient in distinguishing minor underground explosions down to one kiloton from earthquakes, whether he will urge the adoption of this method of control at Geneva in preference to a resumption of nuclear tests.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Her Majesty's Government have been studying this idea for some time and it is still being examined by our experts. The results

  1269
  of this work when complete will have to be carefully considered before we can decide whether to propose the incorporation of such stations in an inspection system. It is still too early to say whether we can satisfactorily solve the practical difficulties of designing such stations, ensuring communications from them to control posts, and guaranteeing them against tampering.
  Mr. Warbey: May I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving a rather more forthcoming reply today than he gave last week on this point, and for recognising the value of the Berkner Commission's Report in making a contribution to a solution of this question? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate the importance of ensuring that we achieve an agreement covering all forms of tests and that it is hopeless and impossible to get one if one country is allowed to continue any form of tests, even underground?
  Mr. Lloyd: I do not disagree with what the hon. Member has said. The difficulty about this proposed new mechanism is that nobody has yet designed it. It is not at all certain whether one could have communication from it to the control post, or that one could prevent its being tampered with by some unauthorised person. Although I think there is a useful germ of an idea in this business of unmanned posts, we would have to go a little further on the practical issue before we could support it.
  Mr. Zilliacus: While appreciating the difficulties which the Foreign Secretary has mentioned, may I ask whether he is aware that this Berkner Commission's recommendation was recently put forward at an East-West unofficial conference here by an American Congressman and a nuclear physicist and was strongly supported by two members of the Supreme Soviet Foreign Affairs Commission? In view of the consequent likelihood that a proposal on these lines would be accepted and of the dangers of a resumption of tests as compared with an imperfect control system, would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman press for very serious consideration of this proposal?
  Mr. Lloyd: I have said that our experts are examining this very seriously, because there may be some value in some unmanned apparatus of this sort.
  Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give a report by British scientists on the Berkner Report proposal?
  Mr. Lloyd: These are British scientists who are now examining it.

  AUSTRIAN FOREIGN MINISTER (DISCUSSIONS)
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on his discussions with the Austrian Foreign Secretary.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have nothing to add to the Communiqué issued on 9th February, the text of which I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and to what I said in the debate last week about Dr. Kreisky's visit.
  Mr. Warbey: Can the Foreign Secretary say whether the subject of South Tyrol was discussed and whether he was able to assure the Austrian Foreign Secretary that he supports the view that the Italian Government are under treaty obligation to provide genuine autonomy to South Tyrol?
  Mr. Lloyd: Dr. Kreisky did explain the point of view of the Austrian Government on this question. Our view is that it is a matter much better settled by bilateral discussion between the Austrian and Italian Governments.
  Following is the Communiqué:
  In the course of their visit to London the Austrian Foreign Minister, Dr. Bruno Kreisky, and Professor Gschnitzer, State Secretary at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, have had a number of meetings with the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd; the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Heathcoat Amory; and the President of the Board of Trade, Mr. Maudling. They had intimate discussions on the major international problems of the day, with special reference to East-West relations and disarmament. They also examined questions of particular interest to their Governments.
  Special consideration was paid to the political and economic problems of Europe. The Ministers reaffirmed their determination, as expressed in the Convention setting up the E.F.T.A., to work for the early establishment of a multilateral association and removal of trade harriers between all the members of the Organisation of European Economic Co-operation.
  Ministers also reviewed Anglo-Austrian relations. They welcomed the notable progress made towards the final settlement of claims

  1271
  arising out of the Vienna Memorandum of 1955. The Ministers agreed to increase co-operation between Austria and the United Kingdom in all fields and to bring relations between the two countries into line with their new association in E.F.T.A. They decided to set up a Continuing Committee under the Chairmanship of the two Foreign Ministers to initiate and co-ordinate measures for this purpose. The Committee will meet alternatively in London and Vienna.
  Dr. Kreisky, in the name of the Austrian Government, has invited Mr. Selwyn Lloyd to visit Austria towards the middle of the year. Mr. Lloyd has accepted the invitation with pleasure.

  SPAIN (NUCLEAR REACTORS)
  Mr. P. Noel-Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now propose to the Government of Spain, following the recent Agreement, that the design of any nuclear reactors to be built in Spain by British firms shall be submitted for approval to the International Atomic Energy Agency, and that this Agency shall be invited to control the operation of the reactors to ensure that no fissile material is produced for military use.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Our Agreement with Spain provides for the contracting parties to consult in order to determine in what respects and to what extent controls and safeguards should be administered by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The Agency has not yet worked out its detailed arrangements for safeguarding the use of fissile material.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the dangers, as I think them, of supplying the Franco Government with fissile material, would it not be desirable to ask the Agency to undertake this task at the earliest moment, and if not, why was the Agency set up?
  Mr. Lloyd: According to my information, no British firm is at present building nuclear reactors in Spain, and, so far as I am aware, no agreement for erecting them is being negotiated. I think it is rather a hypothetical question.
  Mr. Woodburn: Is it not the case that the most up-to-date and most efficient reactors are bound automatically and incidentally to produce plutonium and fissile material? Is there not a great
  1272
  danger that, unless we get some world control of these nuclear fissile materials, little countries might be used by bigger countries as a means of producing these materials, thus enabling them to defy the agreement which we hope will be reached?
  Mr. Lloyd: Without precisely identifying myself with the proposition which the right hon. Gentleman has put forward, I am, broadly speaking, in agreement with him. The question is how to work out the necessary safeguards. The body known as I.A.E.A. has not yet worked out these safeguards, but it is engaged in that task. There is another body, the European Nuclear Energy Agency, which is also working out safeguards. I very much hope that these further safeguards will be worked out.

  BRITISH CONSULATE, NICE
  Mr. Teelingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now consider the reopening of a British Consulate in Nice.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I am considering this question.
  Mr. Teeling: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that nearly three years ago he told me that he wanted to try out covering the area from Marseilles? Does he not think it is now time that the British Consulate was brought back to Nice?
  Mr. Lloyd: I am aware of my hon. Friend's point of view about this matter, and it will be taken into account.

  FRANCE (NUCLEAR TESTS)
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, following the recent French atomic explosion in the Sahara Desert, he will propose that the French Government be invited to participate in the Geneva Conference on the discontinuance of nuclear tests.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: This is a matter which has to be considered in the light of previous statements of policy by the French Government and also of the fact that the negotiations have been going on for fifteen months on a tripartite basis.

  1273
  My own present feeling is that it is better to try to complete our work on a tripartite basis in the hope that other countries will accede afterwards.
  Mr. Henderson: As, according to reports, the French Government intend to carry out more nuclear explosions, can we take it that Her Majesty's Government will do all they can to ensure that the French Government will at least adhere to any agreement that may be reached at the Geneva Conference?
  Mr. Lloyd: I have stated our position with regard to that matter. I do not think that to introduce a fourth negotiator at this stage of the conference would tend to speed up its conclusion.

  CHANNEL TUNNEL
  Mr. Teelingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what consultations he has had with the French Government concerning a Channel tunnel; and when he expects to receive the report of the Channel Tunnel Study Group.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I believe that the International Study Group intend to send Her Majesty's Government a copy of their report in the near future. No worth-while discussions can take place with the French Government until this report has been studied.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the Foreign Secretary give an undertaking that he will not encourage the proposal in view of the urgent needs of the British people for capital expenditure for housing and so on, which should come before a proposal of this kind?
  Mr. Lloyd: I certainly think that before a decision is taken in favour of the project all the relevant considerations should be taken into account, and I think that one of them is the matter to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Factories (Safety Officers)
    Mr. Awberyasked the Minister of Labour if he will take steps to make it compulsory for employers who have factories employing more than 100 men or women to appoint safety officers whose sole work would be the prevention of accidents.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Peter Thomas): No, Sir. The need for a safety officer in a factory is not determined primarily by the numbers employed. When regulations under the Factories Acts dealing with particular processes and industries are made, this question is considered and some regulations provide for such appointments in certain circumstances.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, while we are satisfied that the present inspectorate is doing the work very satisfactorily, we are not satisfied that there are sufficient inspectors? Is he also aware that when an inspector makes a recommendation for an alteration in machinery for protective purposes, no period is laid down for it to be carried into operation? Will he either lay down a period or ensure that alterations are carried out when inspectors make recommendations?
    Mr. Thomas: I have noted what the hon. Gentleman says, but I suggest that that is another question.

    Factory Doctors (Fees)
    Lieut.-Colonel Cordeauxasked the Minister of Labour whether he will take steps to ensure that the fees due to appointed factory doctors for carrying out the periodic medical examination of juveniles required by the Factory Acts of 1937 and 1948 may, in future, he a charge on public funds.
    Mr. P. Thomas: No, Sir. The Factories Acts provide for these fees to be paid by the employer of the young persons and my right hon. Friend would not consider it appropriate to amend the law to make the fees a charge on public funds.
    Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: Does not my hon. Friend feel that, while fully recognising the desirability of these examinations and the necessity for safeguarding the health of young people in industry, the very considerable contribution to National Insurance paid by the employers should be sufficient to cover these extra charges, and would not such a practice be an actual encouragement to all firms to ensure that these examinations are regularly carried out?
    Mr. Thomas: I take my hon. and gallant Friend's point, but the use of the

    1275
    National Health Service is a slightly different matter, because it is a personal medical service. The examination under the Factories Acts is part of the general responsibility of the employer for the safety, health and welfare of the people employed by him, and I see no good reason why that responsibility should be a charge on public funds.

    National Dock Labour Board (Disciplinary Cases)
    Mr. A. J. Irvineasked the Minister of Labour whether he will ensure that, upon the request of an hon. Member, sufficient particulars will be furnished to him by the National Dock Labour Board to enable him to satisfy himself, with reference to any particular case, that like penalties are imposed for like offences by a local board or confirmed by an appeals tribunal under the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Edward Heath): Under the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1947, the National Dock Labour Board is responsible for the administration of the Scheme and I have retained no control over day-to-day business. I could not, therefore, comply with such a request.
    Mr. Irvine: Will the right hon. Gentleman go the distance of acknowledging that the best way to dispel suspicion in this kind of matter is to reveal the relevant information, that it is desirable to get away from the atmosphere of the secret court, and that hon. Members can give assistance in this regard?
    Mr. Heath: There is machinery laid down for dealing with disciplinary cases in which there are appeals tribunals with independent members, and, if necessary, a case can then he taken on, I understand, by various processes to the High Court. I think that such disciplinary processes should be able to deal with these matters.
    Mr. Irvine: Will not the right hon. Gentleman go a little further than that and recognise the public advantage which exists in the fact that proceedings in the ordinary courts of law are widely publicized, and would he not say that the same principle should apply to tribunals of this kind?
    Mr. Heath: I am certainly willing to examine that point.

    Factory Inspectorate (Railways)
    Mr. Spriggsasked the Minister of Labour if he will now make a statement, giving details of the number and type of premises, as defined in Section 25 of the Factories Act, 1959, which were visited by the Factory Inspectorate within the railway industry.
    Mr. P. Thomas: No such visits have been made as the Section is not yet in operation. My officials are consulting the Ministry of Transport and the British Transport Commission about certain problems which will arise when the Section is brought into operation. My right hon. Friend's aim is to bring it into operation at the earliest practicable date.
    Mr. Spriggs: Cannot the Parliamentary Secretary give a specific date when these regulations will become operative?
    Mr. Thomas: No, Sir. Many discussions have to take place, and I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a specific date, but I can assure him that there will not be undue delay.

    North-East Region
    Mr. Fernyhoughasked the Minister of Labour, as a result of his visit to Tyneside and his talks with employers, trade union officials and other interested parties, what conclusions he has formed regarding the need for additional industries in the north-east; and what steps he is taking to provide work for those now without jobs.
    Mr. Heath: I recognize the need for additional employment, especially for men and boys, and I am impressed by the opportunities offered for new industries in the north-east. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who hopes to visit Tyneside on 29th February, entirely shares this view and he will continue his efforts to attract fresh industries to the area.
    Mr. Fernyhough: While we are very pleased in the north-east at the interest being taken by the right hon. Gentleman and his Ministerial colleagues, we are not at the moment very enamoured of the progress which is being made. Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the President of the Board of Trade that he is repeatedly saying that he is doing his

    1277
    best but while he is doing his best, unemployment in Jarrow and Hebburn is growing worse? In my constituency we have almost 2,000 unemployed, or a rate of about 8 per cent. Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any real hope of jobs for these people in the reasonably near future?
    Mr. Heath: The whole of the area to which the hon. Gentleman is referring is on the list of development areas—
    Mr. Robens: No.
    Mr. Heath: —issued by my right hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend and I have both been doing our utmost to persuade new industry to go there.
    Mr. Robens: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while there are some isolated cases on Tyneside on the list, there are other places in south Northumberland and Durham which are vitally affected by the diminution in coal mining and that these are areas which require very special attention? Will he and the President of the Board of Trade apply their minds to the position now obtaining with the tremendous reduction in the number of miners employed in south Northumberland and Durham?
    Mr. Heath: We are in close contact with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power in order to have information about this developing situation. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the President of the Board of Trade is taking all these considerations into account in looking to the future.

    Plymouth
    Miss Vickersasked the Minister of Labour if he will give the percentage of unemployed in each of the last five years in the city of Plymouth.
    Mr. Heath: Because of the volume of daily travel to work it is not possible to compute a percentage rate of unemployment for Plymouth alone. For the wider area, including Saltash and Torpoint, the percentage rates were 2·2 in December, 1955, 2·5 in December, 1956, 3·2 in December, 1957, 4·1 in December, 1958 and 3·7 in December, 1959.
    Miss Vickers: In view of the fact that we have over 3,000 unemployed in the area at the present time and that the
    1278
    area is not included in the new Local Employment Bill, does this not give rise for anxiety in that area?
    Mr. Heath: Naturally one has anxiety where there is unemployment of that kind.

    National Service (Call-up)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Labour if he will instruct his officers in their consideration of applications for postponement of National Service to give special consideration to cases of fathers with more than one dependent child, in view of the hardship involved for the mother.
    Mr. Heath: Special consideration is already given to applications for postponement of call-up made by men with one or more children. I recognise that if there is more than one child the mother's difficulties may often be greater, but the full circumstances of each case are carefully considered.
    Mr. Allaun: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, does he not think that there can be exceptionally few such cases where real hardship does not arise?
    Mr. Heath: I remain of the view that each case must be treated on its merits. If a great number of these cases are suffering hardship, then they will receive sympathetic consideration from the tribunals.
    Mr. Prentice: Is not the reference to special consideration rather ambiguous? Is not that the kind of instruction liable to different interpretations by different officers in different parts of the country? As my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) has just pointed out, in every one of these cases there must be a real element of hardship and, in view of the general manpower position, surely all these cases can now be excluded.
    Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is going further in saying that there must be an element of hardship. I cannot accept that. They must be considered on their merits. I think uniformity is obtained over the country. The figures show that the proportion of cases which received postponement has risen from 57 per cent. in 1955 to 75 per cent. in 1959.

    1279
    This shows that sympathetic attention is being given and many more cases are being postponed.
    Mr. Prentice: In dealing with young married couples with more than one child, facing possible separation for two years, surely there is real hardship in virtually all these cases? Is it not playing with words to say that each case must be considered on its merits?
    Mr. Heath: I am not prepared to give automatic exemption to these cases.

    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Wallsend and Tynemouth
    Mr. Shortasked the Minister of Labour if he will give an occupational analysis of the present unemployment in Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
    Mr. Heath: As the Reply includes a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Short: Is it not a fact that these figures reveal rather heavy unemployment in certain trades and that this is lost sight of when merged into the

    OCCUPATIONAL ANALYSIS OF ADULT WORKERS REGISTERED AS WHOLLY UNEMPLOYED AT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES IN NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE AT 7TH DECEMBER, 1959

    Occupation

    Men

    Women

    Total

    House and ship painters, paperhangers

    …

    …

    …

    76

    —

    76

    Miscellaneous building and civil engineering workers

    …

    46

    —

    46

    Electricians, etc.

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    23

    1

    24

    Stationary engine, etc. driver, stoker, etc.

    …

    …

    …

    44

    1

    45

    Miscellaneous workers in engineering and allied trades

    …

    34

    4

    38

    Toolmakers, precision fitters

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    37

    —

    37

    Kitchen workers (other than in private domestic service)

    …

    14

    53

    67

    Motor or electric lorry, tractor, van or truck drivers

    …

    214

    2

    216

    Warehousemen

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    46

    5

    51

    Porters and messengers

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    49

    —

    49

    Packers, stowers, boxers, wrappers, etc.

    …

    …

    …

    6

    94

    100

    Shop assistants in food and drink establishments

    …

    …

    15

    39

    54

    Clerks (general and routine)

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    158

    83

    241

    Labourers in building and civil engineering

    …

    …

    …

    224

    —

    224

    Labourers in engineering and allied trades

    …

    …

    …

    78

    —

    78

    Charwomen and cleaners (non-resident)

    …

    …

    …

    1

    128

    129

    General labourers, heavy

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,046

    —

    1,046

    General labourers, light

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    737

    —

    737

    Factory workers, factory hands, etc.

    …

    …

    …

    …

    7

    139

    146

    All other occupations

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    966

    438

    1,404

    TOTAL

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    3,821

    987

    4,808

    Mr. Shortasked the Minister of Labour what is the present percentage of unemployment in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Wallsend, and Tynemouth, respectively.
    general unemployment percentage? Is it not most unfair that the list should be drawn up on the basis of a general overall figure of unemployment in an area?
    Mr. Heath: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade takes into consideration a very large number of factors. If the hon. Member will look at this very detailed list, he will be able to see the situation clearly.
    Dame Irene Ward: Would my right hon. Friend please bear in mind that north-east Northumberland, with the exception of one small place in the centre, has been completely eliminated from the areas which are covered by the new Bill? Is he aware that we in the North-East are thoroughly dissatisfied with what appears to be a somewhat amateurish Bill which divides the Tyne in two?
    Mr. Heath: Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to put those points to the President of the Board of Trade when he visits the North-East.
    Following is the reply:
    Mr. Heath: Percentage rates of unemployment are not computed for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Wallsend or Tynemouth, but on 11th January, 1960, the rate of unemployment for the combined

    1281
    area of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Elswick, Walker, West Moor and Newburn was 3·1 per cent. and for the combined area of North Shields, Wallsend and Whitley Bay, 3·8 per cent.
    Mr. Short: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in addition to those figures there is tremendous fear of redundancy in the area? There is widespread short-time working and this, in addition to the contraction of the coal industry and of the shipbuilding and repairing industry, really makes it quite shocking that none of this area has been included in the list.
    Mr. Heath: I recognise that there are these factors. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has to take into account a number of other factors as well.
    Mr. Jay: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that these areas were omitted from the list because the unemployment percentage was less than four?
    Mr. Health: No, I was not saying that specifically.

    Sunderland
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Labour what was the number of unemployed persons in Sunderland on the latest available date.
    Mr. Heath: 6,075 at 11th January, 1960. I will write to the hon. Member when the February figure is available at the end of the month.
    Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this shows an unemployment percentage of more than 7 per cent. and that it looks like being persistent? Is he also aware that the whole of southeast Durham urgently needs new industries? Will he consult his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to see that urgent steps are taken to provide new industrial development in the area?
    Mr. Heath: I have vividly appreciated this problem since my visit to the North-East. As the hon. Gentleman knows, this area is one of the development districts.

  ROYAL NAVY

    Ratings (Pay Allotments)
    Mr. Willisasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what limitations are imposed upon the number of allotments from pay that can be made by naval ratings.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): At present, there are no limitations on the number except that only one may be made to a trader by a rating below leading rate and under 20 years of age. We are, however, introducing by stages over the next 12 months a limit for all ratings; monthly allotments will be limited to three, and one weekly allotment will be allowed for the maintenance of a wife or dependant. If three monthly allotments are made, at least one must be either to a savings bank or for National Savings, a recognised benevolent fund, an insurance company, a building society, or to fulfil a court order. This action is being taken to save administrative effort both ashore and afloat.
    Mr. Willis: Since it appears that the numbers will be limited to four, could the hon. Gentleman say how many men will be aected by this? Will he not look at this again in order to give sufficient flexibility to permit desirable types of allotment being made?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: At present, 181,000 allotments are made by 83,000 officers and ratings. Only 1,882 of these are making more than four allotments, and all this totals under 10,000 allotments. I will bear in mind the point raised by the hon. Member in the second part of his question.

    Work Studies
    Mr. Willisasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how many work studies have been carried out at his Department's office; and what were the resulting savings in manpower and money.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: Work study in a headquarters office takes the form of organisation and method study. The Admiralty have for nearly 20 years now had an O. and M. Branch, which has

    1283
    done a great deal in increasing efficiency. It is not possible to calculate the saving in manpower and money.
    Mr. Willis: Do we understand from that answer that there is to be no reduction in this very swollen staff at the Admiralty?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: We are by no means complacent about this. The hon. Gentleman may have noticed that there is a Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Estimates at present investigating Vote 12, the Admiralty Office.

    Nuclear-Propelled Submarine
    Mr. Wallasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he will now make a statement about the laying down of a sister-ship of H.M.S. "Dreadnought".
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to my noble Friend's Explanatory Statement published today, which mentions that we plan to order a second nuclear propelled submarine.
    Mr. Wall: Is my hon. Friend aware that I am delighted that the Admiralty has decided to order a nuclear-propelled submarine, but that what is really needed is a nuclear-propelled submarine capable of discharging nuclear missiles? Will he give urgent consideration to the design of such a vessel?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I take this opportunity of making it clear that "Dreadnought" and her successor sister ship are not designed for nor capable of taking Polaris type missiles. The second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is, therefore, another matter.
    Mr. Short: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the development of marine nuclear propulsion may well be the major hope of British shipbuilding to regain its lead in the world? Will he push ahead as fast as possible and bear in mind the developments in German yards and that, if we do not do something quickly, we shall be left behind and without a contract? Will he bear in mind the nuclear developments on Tyneside and the remarks at Question Time today on the needs of Tyneside?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: The hon. Gentleman will know that that responsibility has
    1284
    been transferred from the Admiralty to the Ministry of Transport, to whose attention I will draw the points made.

    Fishing Vessels (Iceland Patrols)
    Mr. Haymanasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what has been the additional cost of giving extra protection to fishing vessels in Icelandic waters since 1st September, 1958, because of Iceland's introduction of a 12-mile fishing limit.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Marshall) on 15th February.
    Mr. Hayman: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that while no one grudges £500,000 extra for giving protection to British fishing vessels in northern waters, we in Cornwall feel that the Minister of Transport is pursuing a very mean economy in refusing to continue a constant watch especially for protection for Cornish fishing vessels, especially when it is remembered that we have 300 miles of coastline?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: We have reorganised and strengthened our fishing protection squadron since the Iceland patrol was started. I see from the figures that in 1957, before the Iceland patrols began, we made infrequent appearances off the Cornish coast and caught only one poacher. In 1959, we made 92 appearances, six poachers were caught and four successfully prosecuted.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Military Medal (Financial Benefits)
    Lieut.-Colonel Cordeauxasked the Secretary of State for War why it was decided, in introducing the financial benefits attached to the award of the Military Medal, to limit them to decorations earned on or after 3rd September. 1939.
    The Under-Secretary of State and Financial Secretary for War (Mr. Hugh Fraser): I understand that the reasons for the decision taken in 1945 were financial and practical ones. There were about 116,000 Military Medals awarded in the First World War compared with 17,000 in the second. Apart from the cost involved in including the earlier awards, there would have been

    1285
    difficulty in checking entitlement, particularly if the next-of-kin of those who had died were made eligible.
    The decision applied not only to the Military Medal but to a number of decorations the financial benefits of which were revised towards the end of the war. Details are set out in the OFFICIAI. REPORT for 27th February, 1945.
    Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: In that case, will my hon. Friend consider restricting the monetary award to the earlier holders of the Military Medal who are still alive? Does he not agree that to do so would mean an enormous reduction in administrative work end in cost?
    Mr. Fraser: Yes, Sir, but there are two problems. Quite apart from administration, the cost would still be very great. Secondly, payment to the next of kin of those who have died was permitted in the regulations in 1945 and would it not be fair to pay it in some cases and not in others.
    Dr. King: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that surviving holders of the Military Medal from the First World War feel a sense of injustice about this matter? While it might not be possible to go the whole length of giving the award to the next of kin and so on, could not the hon. Gentleman perform a simple act of justice if he gave the award to surviving holders?
    Mr. Fraser: No, it would not be just, in so far as some next of kin would receive it and some would not. We must abide by the decision of all Governments since the war, the Labour Government and this.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    Coloured Telephones (Charges)
    Mr. John Hallasked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider reducing the charges for the new type coloured telephone.
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): Yes, Sir. I am reducing the charge of £5 to £3 for all new type coloured telephones fitted as from today. I am also reducing the £3 charge for the replacement of the old type coloured instrument to £2.
    Mr. Hall: I thank my right hon. Friend for a reduction which will be welcomed by all colour-conscious telephone users. Will he consider reducing the charge still further as supplies of the new phones become more readily available?
    Mr. Bevins: Yes, indeed. As supplies come more freely to the Department, we shall certainly consider further reductions.

  POST OFFICE

    Postal Facilities, Ferryhill Station
    Mr. Slaterasked the Postmaster-General (1) in view of the postal distribution over a wide area from the Ferryhill Station centre, if he will give further consideration to the need for a Crown Post Office in this area;
    (2) what is the radius covered by the Ferryhill Station centre for postal distribution; how such area compares with 10 years ago; and what percentage increase there has been in delivery during this period.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Miss Mervyn Pike): The radial distances from the Ferryhill office to its area boundaries vary from 2½ to 5½ miles, and the area served from the office is slightly smaller than 10 years ago; the number of letters delivered has increased by 26 per cent. and the number of parcels by 54 per cent. The existing arrangements appear to be satisfactory and I would not be justified in making any change at present.
    Mr. Slater: Is the hon. Lady aware that ever since I can remember we have had a general post office at Ferryhill Station, with a postmaster in attendance, but that for the last three years that policy has been changed and the postmaster has been taken away—probably on representations from Darlington or Leeds to the Postmaster-General—and that with the increase of staff and the amount of work which is now involved, the time has come when we should have a different type of post office facilities in the area which at the moment are little more than a sub-post office?
    Miss Pike: At present, we would not be justified in altering the status of the

    1287
    post office at Ferryhill, but we have promised to review the position yearly and that will be done.
    Mr. F. Noel-Baker: The hon. Lady and her right hon. Friend have just answered three Questions on the day-to-day administration of a nationalised industry. Can they say from their experience and that of their officials whether such Questions are helpful or a hindrance to the efficiency of the Post Office, and will they bring their conclusions to the notice of their right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport?
    Mr. Speaker: That is a long way from Ferryhill Station.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Houses (Rents)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for Air in how many cases of houses owned by his department the rents have been increased since the passage of the Rent Act, 1957; to what extent the increases in rent have been related to the tenants' ability to pay; and what has been the average amount by which rents have been raised.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. W. J. Taylor): The rents of some 2,300 civilian occupied houses have been increased by an average of 5s. 10d. a week. The increases are not related to the tenants' income.
    Mr. Swingler: Why should the Government use the excuse of the Rent Act, passed to benefit private landlords, to increase rents of their own houses? Is it not a fact that these houses were not affected by the Rent Act but are tied houses whose tenants have no legal rights whatever? Will not the hon. Gentleman consult the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who is constantly telling us that rent increases should be related to the tenant's ability to pay?
    Mr. Taylor: It has been decided in principle that the tenants of Government-owned houses should pay a fair rent, as they would if the properties were privately owned. I could not justify introducing a differential rent scheme, which would mean giving a hidden subsidy to Government tenants. It seems right that civil servants in Government-owned
    1288
    houses should pay what would be a fair rent as between a private landlord and a private tenant.

  SHIPPING

    Nuclear Propulsion
    Mr. Benceasked the Minister of Transport when a decision is to be taken to proceed with the building of a nuclear-power unit for marine propulsion, suitable for merchant ships.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): I have nothing to add to the Answers my right hon. Friend gave to hon. Members on 27th January and 3rd February.
    Mr. Bence: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is as important to spend public money on keeping the British Mercantile Marine abreast of world development as it is with the air services? In view of the situation on the Clyde for the next 12 months, is not the time ripe to develop a nuclear-powered marine ship, either a tanker or a mixed cargo vessel?
    Mr. Hay: That goes a little wider than the Question. All I can say in answer to the Question put down is that I have nothing to say today.

  RAILWAYS

    Station Posters
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Transport if he will give the British Transport Commission a general direction to refrain from banning the display of posters on stations because they are considered politically controversial.
    Mr. Hay: No, Sir.
    Mr. Swingler: Will not the hon. Gentleman reconsider that? Is he not aware of the British Transport Commission's refusal, for some extraordinary reason, to display posters advertising certain films about affairs in Germany on the grounds that those films might be unfair to Dr. Adenauer and so politically controversial, although the Commission is prepared to advertise all sorts of other things which are extremely controversial? Will he not consider the application of that principle and the removal of that political ban?
    Mr. Hay: The hon. Gentleman asks my right hon. Friend to give the Commission a general direction on a matter which is clearly one of day-to-day management. I am afraid that I cannot say other than "No, Sir", in answer to this Question
    Mr. Swingler: It is a matter of principle.

BALLISTIC MISSILE EARLY WARNING STATION
The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about a ballistic missile early warning station.
Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States of America have reached agreement about setting up and operating a ballistic missile early warning station in the United Kingdom. This agreement is in support of the North Atlantic Treaty. The text of the Agreement is available as a White Paper in the Vote Office.
The station will be sited on Government-owned land at Fylingdales Moor, in Yorkshire. It will give early warning of ballistic missile attacks on the United Kingdom. The station will also be the third in a chain giving early warning of ballistic missile attacks on the North American Continent. Thus, the two countries have a community of interest in its erection and operation. In providing additional protection for Western strategic deterrent forces, the station will contribute substantially to the security of the entire N.A.T.O. area.
The station will be commanded and operated by the Royal Air Force. The information it obtains will be available simultaneously to operations centres in the United Kingdom and the United States. The Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, will receive the warning generated by the system; and the United Kingdom will also have access to information provided by the other stations in the chain.
The United States will provide and install the radars for the station, and pay for the communications required to link the station to the rest of the system.
The United Kingdom will provide the land, erect the buildings, and provide
1290
communications required to link the station with our own authorities.
For the first five years of operation, the cost of spares for the radars and other technical equipment will be borne by the United States Government, and the cost of the maintenance of this equipment on the site will be borne by the United Kingdom. The responsibility for these costs after the end of this period will be a matter for later review. The other running costs of the station will be borne by the United Kingdom Government.
The capital cost of the station to this country is expected to be about £8 million. The capital cost to the United States is expected to be about £35 million.
The Government greatly regret that the station has to be in part of a National Park. But the topographical, geographical, and the operational criteria governing the choice of site are extremely stringent, and after detailed examination, the Government are satisfied that there is no other suitable site in the whole country. The Fylingdales site comprises about four square miles of land, owned mainly by the War Office and partly by the Minister of Agriculture on behalf of the Forestry Commission, and is within a larger area which has been used by the War Office for military training.
As the site is in a National Park, the Government undertake to demolish the buildings if at any time in the future the station is no longer required. The Air Ministry will discuss with the local authorities, and with the National Parks Commission and other amenity bodies, the detailed siting arrangements and measures to be taken to minimise the effect on the landscape.
Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that a reference to this matter is contained in the Defence White Paper which, presumably, will be debated within the course of the next week or two? Do I understand that this statement was necessary this afternoon? If, in the opinion of the Government, it was necessary, are we to be allowed to debate this matter right away, or must we defer consideration of it until the Defence White Paper is presented to the House for debate?
Mr. Speaker: I have not had an opportunity of studying the reference to this matter in the White Paper. I do not think that I am doing anything unusual in allowing a Minister to make a statement if he asks leave to do so. For the rest, my emotions are always committed to the hope that the House will not think that a statement is the right occasion for an unorthodox debate. On the other hand, it would seem in order to allow some questions to be asked about it.
Mr. de Freitas: It is difficult to assess the full implications of this statement without hearing more about it, and we shall probe a great deal deeper during the Air Estimates debate, especially as to cost.
At first sight, is it not uncanny that, once again, a National Park is the only possible site in the whole country? Other technical questions arise. For example, which way will the station look? Will it look one way, like the Singapore defences, or will it look westwards against any possible Atlantic submarine attack? Secondly, will it replace any of our existing stations and thus save money? Thirdly, will it require skilled Royal Air Force manpower to operate it, or is it highly automative? Lastly, is there any radiation danger?
Mr. Ward: May I deal with the last two questions first? The uniformed manpower will amount to about 50 officers and men, some of whom will be United States Air Force personnel, and some Royal Air Force personnel.
There will be some thermal radiation. There is no question of any nuclear radiation. There will be a safety area immediately in front of the radar heads. This accounts in large measure for the four square miles that we need for the station.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the last thing in the world that I wanted to do was to put the station in a National Park, but we searched the whole country, and, as I said, the operational and other criteria were so stringent that this was the only place where we could put it.
Mr. G. Brown: Does the Minister accept the estimate that has been given elsewhere, that the maximum warning that this station will give this country is four minutes? If so, does he think
1292
that that will allow us to do more than say "Cheerio chaps" to the other fellows who are listening to us? If, as I understand from the same estimates, it gives 15 minutes warning to the United States, which is significant, does the Minister think that it is proper that we should provide the facilities and also pay one-fifth of the cost of what is really a United States early warning station?
Mr. Ward: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman brought that up because we do not accept four minutes as the maximum figure. We hope to get a good deal more warning than that, in any case. [HON. MEMBERS: "How much?"] We hope to get enough time to get a substantial part of the bomber force into the air.
Mr. Bellenger: Is this to be an isolated station, or, if it is successful in its purpose, is the system to be extended to other areas of the British Isles?
Mr. Ward: I said that this was the third station in a chain of three, the other two being in Alaska and Greenland. This chain will cover most of the North Atlantic Treaty area.
Mr. Grimond: The Minister said in his statement that the chain has been developed to give early warning to the North American Continent. Do we understand from that that the rest of the nations in the Western Alliance are not protected by this chain? Can we be assured that they will be taken into account and will get simultaneous warning with America from the other stations?
Can the Minister say a little more about the radiation danger? Does it mean that people who work or live in that area will be moved? If so, what arrangements are being made?
Mr. Ward: I said that the information from all three stations would be available not only to ourselves, but also to the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, nobody lives there.
Mr. Proudfoot: Can my right hon. Friend say what degree of civil employment this will bring in the area?
Mr. Ward: While the site is being built there will be employment for quite a large number of people. The number

1293
employed on building will be about 2,000 people, some of whom will be unskilled. Once the site is built employment should be available for 200 to 300 people.
Mr. Shinwell: Are we to understand that international tension has increased recently, and that we apprehend an early attack, which makes this speculative proposition desirable? In view of the fact that, as a result of the French decision, we now have a large number of American bombers situated in this country, apart from air stations which are dominated by the United States, and that we now propose to hand over a large piece of land which might be used for other and more desirable purposes, can the Minister say whether we are to become a colony of the United States?
Mr. Ward: This is a joint project which will benefit both the United States and ourselves—and, indeed, the whole of the Western deterrent.
Sir A. Spearman: Can my right hon. Fiend give a complete assurance that there will be no thermal radiation danger in the area outside the four square miles?
Mr. Ward: There will be no thermal radiation danger at all outside the area of the station.
Mr. Lipton: Would it not have been better to site this warning station somewhere in France or Western Germany, where we are supposed to have allies?
Mr. Ward: It would not, because this is a joint project between the Americans and ourselves, sited subject to extremely stringent operational criteria which have dictated the choice of this position.
Mr. Short: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer one of the questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas), whether the station will be fully automative? Will it be electronically or manually operated? Is the Minister aware that some of us have seen the North American air defence system and believe that if this one is no more effective than that it will be a sheer waste of money?
Mr. Ward: The technicians who will be on the site will be there mainly for the maintenance of the equipment.

SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES ACT, 1843 (AMENDMENT)
3.42 p.m.
Mr. Leslie Hale: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the provisions of the Scientific Societies Act, 1843.
When I first projected this Measure I had in mind primarily the London Library and its immediate problems. It is a very great national institution, with a remarkable history of service to learning. I am a member of the Library and I suppose that I therefore have a trifling financial interest in this matter.
The London Library was founded in about 1843, by Thomas Carlyle, after his famous British Museum Reading Room. It has been associated with the names of all who are great in our literature since then. It is a non-profit-making institution, primarily devoted to learning, and not so much to light fiction. It is an institution the membership of which we all value. I value my membership of it as much as others value their membership of the M.C.C. It represents all classes of society, from log cabin to White House or—translated into more modern English—from me to the Prime Minister.
Like the Windmill Theatre, it never closed, although it was never quite so wide open as the Windmill. When it was bombed its staff was guarding piles of books under tarpaulin jackets in the streets. Recently, as a result of an unexpected judicial determination, it has been saddled with an additional burden of £5,000 a year, in addition to the many burdens which libraries are having to bear at the moment.
If I may regard this as a natural break in my programme, I would say that the Library has had some benevolent help, but that it will need some more in future, whatever happens today or later, and I hope that more people will hear of this great institution and extend their benevolence to it. It was at this point that I came into contact with the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), who was interested in a similar problem in connection with the Royal College of Music. I have no special knowledge of that, except the very great knowledge that I gained from the hon. Member, and the very great help I had

1295
from him through his knowledge of the complicated law of this difficult situation.
We approached the Minister, who had answered some questions about the matter, and we exchanged some letters. At very short notice, and with very great courtesy, the Minister of Housing and Local Government and his talented Parliamentary Secretary agreed to receive an all-party deputation on the subject. Here I would mention that the deputation consisted of twice as many hon. Members opposite as hon. Members on this side of the House.
The Minister put a number of points of substance. First, he said that whilst this Measure would undoubtedly help the two institutions it would, in the terms that I proposed and which I put to him, provide a new problem. It would widen the area of controversy and it might be held to affect many more institutions. It might invite more litigation and, therefore, cause more delay in the solution of the general problem. The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South confirmed that view.
The Minister then pointed out, quite properly, that he had already told the House that he was considering the whole complex range of matters covered by the Pritchard Committee's Report, and a very complex series of problems involving varied classes of rating problems, and that he wanted to consider the matter as a whole.
Thirdly, he pointed out that in regard to some aspects of the matter—especially the universities—there were unresolved problems, the subject of continued litigation, on which a final decision had not been given.
Fourthly, he pointed out that what action he took must be a matter of Cabinet decision, and that the scope and priority of any future legislation was a matter for the Cabinet and not for him. We agree with that, despite the recent Ministerial statement in Chicago.
But the Minister convinced us that he was anxious that this matter should be brought to a head, and I am grateful to him for holding that view. He was plainly anxious to introduce measures to deal with the complex problems involved on a comprehensive scale. He convinced us that he was as anxious to
1296
do this as reasonably soon as a careful consideration of the problem and the determination of existing litigation permit. I was grateful for his statement, although it placed me in some difficulty. I had to come away from that deputation hoping that a future Parliamentary poet would record that
"Never blew the Legislative rose so red
As where some buried Ten Minutes Rule Bill bled."
I was on the horns of a trilemma. If I went straight forward I was trying to explore a road which was not open; if I diverted to the right I was breaking an undertaking conveyed to the Minister, and my attention was called to the fact that if I diverted to the left it was technically possible to say that I might be transgressing a comparatively recent Ruling of Mr. Speaker's, in which the legal maxim well known to him, reprehending simultaneity of approbation and reprobation, had been applied in singularly exceptional circumstances to a Bill introduced under the Ten Minutes Rule. I can only throw myself humbly upon your mercy, Mr. Speaker.
The present difficulty in which I find myself reminds me of a question once put to me by a client, who said. "Mr. Hale, I am an habitually truthful man, but is it not permissible for me to depart from the norm in a situation in which, if I tell the whole truth, I shall at once be convicted of fraud?" My difficulty is that I have had expressions of sympathetic interest from both sides of the House, from a large number of Members, with definite promises of support from some, and it would be impossible for me to take my Motion off the Order Paper without consulting them, in a period in which that was physically impracticable.
I felt, therefore, that I might commend to you, Sir, the well-known event in the life of Nelson and hope that, having put this case, I might conclude by saying that the Minister's arguments appeared to me convincing at the time, and that, as put by me today, they seem unanswerable. I think that I have thanked him for the courtesy of his reception, and I am grateful. If ever he comes to Oldham again I will not only stand him a lunch, but I will invite the mayor.
In the circumstances it was essential in the public interest that I should make this statement. I think that it would be desirable, in the public interest, that,

1297
having made the statement, and having tried to take the sense of the House, I should seek to proceed no further. If it be permissible for me to say that I will not proceed further with the Motion, in what I think is the best interests of the societies concerned, I should like to do so, Mr. Speaker.
If it be necessary for you to put the Question, Mr. Speaker, I shall have to say that, although my heart is in the coffin with this statutory Caesar, I hope that in the best interests of an early solution of the problem the Motion which I moved in all sincerity will now be negatived.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that it is necessary to pull the hon. Gentleman's heartstrings. I do not think that, technically, Motion is moved in the circumstances.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  WAR DAMAGE (CLEARANCE PAYMENTS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.51 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I think it a tribute to those who framed the war-time War Damage Act that it has stood the test of fifteen years after the war before this very small amending Bill has been found necessary. In fairness to the House, I think that at the start of my remarks, which I will make as brief and as clear as I can, I ought to say that I recall a distinguished speaker from the Opposition Front Bench warning new Members at the start of this Session that they might have to sit through somewhat arid debates; so if they are reminded of that remark at the end of my speech they cannot say that they were not warned beforehand.
  This Bill is concerned with buildings which sustained war damage involving "total loss" as defined in Section 7 of the War Damage Act, 1943. That is to say—I think that this a fair layman's way of putting it—buildings which it would have been uneconomic to restore to their former shape. Where war damage has caused total loss, the appropriate payment under the 1943 Act was what was called a value payment and the amount of a value payment has always been the depreciation in value caused by the damage, assessed by reference to prices ruling on 31st March, 1939, and increased by 45 per cent.
  The War Damage Commission, the body responsible for making payments in respect of damage to land and buildings, was authorised by a direction issued by the Treasury in May, 1945, to make, in addition to a value payment, a payment of cost of works for the removal of useless remains from total loss sites, and to assess the value payment on the basis that the site was cleared of such remains.
  I can explain quite simply what is the purpose of this brief Measure. The 1945 direction has recently been found to be ultra vires and the purpose of this Bill

  1299
  is simply to revoke this direction to validate past payments made by the Commission in consequence of this direction, and to authorise the Commission to make payments for clearance on the same basis in the future.
  I think that the House would wish me to say a few words about how the 1945 direction came to be made. This was a number of years before I came to the House and even, I think, before the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) became a Member of this House.
  Sir Frank Soskice: Two months before.
  Sir E. Boyle: Yes, it was two months before.
  The point is that by the middle of 1944 the Commission had completed the first stage of its work of classifying all damaged properties as eligible either for a cost of works payment or a value payment. The next stage was the issue of provisional estimates of the value payments to owners of total loss properties. Here, the Commission immediately found itself up against a difficulty which arose from the presence on war damaged sites of useless remains.
  The amount of a value payment is the depreciation in value caused by the war damage; and to arrive at the amount of the depreciation the Commission has always had to assess the value of property in its state before the war damage, and in its state after the war damage. At the time when the valuer inspected the property he might find useless remains still on the site or, alternatively, they might have been removed by local authorities in the exercise of their emergency powers. But where a site still had remains on it, the after-damage value would be assessed on the basis of what was called an encumbered site—that is to say, the value of the site as at 31st March, 1939, less the net cost of clearing the remains at that date.
  Clearance by local authorities under their emergency powers was treated as war damage, and where they had cleared the sites the after-damage value would be assessed as a site cleared of remains. Of course, the effect of local authority clearance of useless remains was normally, as the House will realise, to increase
  1300
  the value of the property after damage and, therefore, to decrease the amount of the value payment. But there were other cases where the presence of useless remains decreased the value of the property after damage, and this increased the amount of the value payment normally by the 1939 net cost of clearance.
  As I think the House will realise, this state of affairs caused inequality of treatment between different owners; the owner who had his site cleared for him by the local authority received, in effect, the current cost of clearance, while the owner left with an encumbered site could not receive in his value payment more than an allowance related to the 1939 cost of clearance.
  In the circumstances, the Commission came to the conclusion that the only fair and practical way of removing this inequality was to pay for the actual cost of clearance when the work was done by the owner and to value all sites after damage on a cleared site basis. I use the words "cleared site basis", by which I mean a site cleared of debris and useless remains of buildings and structures, but in the normal case disregarding foundations, site concrete and retaining walls which were regarded as an inherent part of the site.
  Accordingly, the Commission asked the Treasury to issue a direction under Section 20 of the Act to enable this to be done. Section 20 empowers the Treasury to give directions to the Commission for securing that in relation to a number of matters the provisions of Part I of the Act should be executed in conformity with the public interest. To give effect to such directions the Commission has power, where war damage in respect of which a value payment would otherwise be appropriate is made good in the public interest, to make a payment of cost of works in respect of the works executed in the public interest.
  At the time when the Direction was made in 1945, in the view of the Commission and that of the Treasury, it was reasonable to say that there was a definite public interest not only in securing equality of treatment of claimants, but also in having war damaged sites encumbered with ruins made ready for redevelopment as soon as conditions permitted; it had been recognised early in the war that the clearance of bombed

  1301
  sites for the sake of making them tidy, and so maintaining public morale, was desirable in the public interest.
  In May, 1945, the Treasury issued a direction, Direction No. 11. I do not propose to weary the House by reading it out, but I will make this comment. If hon. Members look at the direction, they will see that the powers given in it were not to be exercised where they would have caused injustice to the owner.
  For instance, if the owner, at the time of damage, had since sold his property at a figure which was reduced because of the presence of useless remains, it would clearly be unfair to assess the value payment on a cleared site basis, and to allow the new owner to claim the cost of clearance from the Commission. The same argument applied to sites compulsorily acquired by public authorities while still encumbered with ruins. In these cases, the after-damage value was assessed on an encumbered site basis, and the 1939 cost of clearance was reflected in the amount of the value payment to the original owner.
  Now I should say a brief word or two about the practice of the Commission under this direction of May, 1945. When the Commission came to make its formal determinations of value payments, the notices of determination included a statement that the Commission was empowered to make, in addition, a payment of the reasonable net cost of clearance, and that the value payment had been calculated on this basis. This meant that owners of sites still encumbered were able to sell them in the open market with a prospective right to claim the cost of clearance from the Commission; but in cases of authorities with powers of compulsory acquisition the Commission was not empowered to pay this claim until October, 1958. The Commission interpreted the Direction No. 11 as authorising it to pay for the cost of removing loose debris resulting from the bomb and standing remains which detracted from the after-damage value; that is to say, such remains which the local authority would have removed under its demolition programme.
  Later, however, there came about some easing of building restrictions, and large scale redevelopment of total loss sites became practicable. The Commission extended its practice to cover the
  1302
  cost of removing foundations, site concrete, and so on, provided that these remains were structurally unsound, and only in so far as the unsound remains got in the way of the development that was being undertaken.
  Recently, in considering the scope of its commitment, the Commission took legal advice on certain points, and was advised that Section 20 (1) of the War Damage Act could only authorise payments of cost of works for making good war damage, and the clearance of remains could not in itself be considered to be making good war damage. It follows from this that the direction and the bulk of the Commission's payments made under it were, in fact, ultra vires, and it was that legal ruling which led to the present Bill.
  I ought, in fairness to the House and out of courtesy to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, to explain why it took so long to discover this point. As I understand the position, the War Damage Commission and the Treasury took legal advice on the matter in 1944, when the Commission encountered the difficulty of dealing with total loss sites encumbered with rubble, and the Treasury direction was based on the legal advice that was then received. As a result of that, it did not occur to anyone to question its legality. But in 1958 the Commission took counsel's opinion as to the scope of its powers under this direction, and in this opinion, counsel also cast doubt on the vires of the direction itself.
  I see the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) in his place. Perhaps he feels as I do, that this is rather like the kind of difficulty that sometimes arises out of our system of public education. I will not pursue that point, but sometimes it does take a remarkably long time for a legal problem to be fully brought out into the open.
  Mr. Ede: I was wondering how high in the judicial system the person who gave the original ruling has now reached. Can we be informed?
  Sir E. Boyle: I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman an answer to that question, though, on this point, I thought that it was only right for me to be truthful with the House about what actually happened.

  1303
  This matter was reported to the Treasury, and legislation was devised which we had hoped to introduce immediately after the General Election. But the present time has proved to be the earliest occasion on which we have been able to seek Parliamentary authority for past and future payments.
  I very much hope that it will not take very long to pass the Bill through both Houses of Parliament in order to put ourselves right with the law. I think that we should be able to pass this amending legislation into law reasonably soon. The Treasury has authorised the Commission to continue its former practice in the meantime. Nobody, I am sure, will doubt but that this is perfectly reasonable and sensible.
  I should now say a few words on the Bill itself. Subsection (1) of Clause I revokes the direction, but validates all payments made by the Commission in consequence of it. That is perfectly straightforward. Subsection (2) authorises the Commission to make payments for clearance in the future, and, in the very rare case where the value payment has not already been determined, to assess the value payment on a cleared site basis. The clearance payments will not be cost of works payments as defined in the War Damage Act, but will be assessed in the same manner as cost of works payments, and will be payable to the person who incurs the cost of carrying out the work.
  Subsection (3) defines the works of clearance for which the Commission may pay, and puts on a statutory basis the practice approved by the Commission since the 1945 direction was issued. It excludes remains which, in the opinion of the Commission, can reasonably be used in reinstatement of the building, and remains which cannot be so used, but which the Commission is satisfied do not interfere with the proposed reinstatement or redevelopment of the site. This latter class, is, generally speaking, foundations and other works below the lowest floor level of the old buildings, and is often located in parts of the site which will not be covered by the new buildings.
  In conclusion, I should like to say that it is never a pleasant task for any Minister, senior or junior, to have to come to the House and ask for a validation
  1304
  Measure of this kind, and to have to admit that we have been acting outside the law; although I think that I can fairly say that since the mistake was discovered we have been reasonably prompt in coming to the House and asking for the situation to be regularised.
  I should like to take the opportunity of paying tribute to the work which the War Damage Commission has done since it was set up by the original War Damage Act in March, 1941. The Commission has paid over 4 million cost of works claims and nearly 180,000 value payment claims. Its total payments to date, are in the region of £1,255 million. Payments in the last calendar year were £13½ million, and it is clear from the facts and figures which I have seen that payments of this order must continue for a year or two longer. The cost of clearance payments is estimated at £2½ million, and that includes the whole of both past and future payments. This is a very small amount in relation to the total of war damage payments.
  The administration of war damage payments has been in the hands of a largely independent body which, while subject to general directions, has been responsible for practice and day to day administration. In administering such a complicated Measure as the War Damage Act, there has, naturally, been room for some controversy, and this has increased with the passage of time. But the War Damage Commission has carried out a very large and difficult task with a very small amount of friction. I therefore trust that Parliament will see fit to accord the Commission and its public the justice and convenience which the present Bill offers.
  4.9 p.m.
  Sir Frank Soskice: I think that the Financial Secretary has explained the purpose of this rather small Bill in a manner which nobody would seek to describe as arid, or unnecessarily arid. He has clearly indicated how the mistake arose, and I think that he will have satisfied all of us that, as soon as it was discovered, he took appropriate measures to come to the House and ask its authority to put the matter right.
  Before I rose to address the House, I was relieved to discover that the Order was made in May, 1945. Therefore, so far as I am concerned, it was cutting

  1305
  it a bit fine, but the illicit Order was used during the period of the Parliament of. 1945–51 as well as later, and, therefore, I am bound to concede that the Law Officers, during the course of that Parliament, were not less negligent than were their successors.
  Obviously, the right thing to do is to put the matter right. I should like to know from the Minister, if he would be so good as to tell us, how much of the £2½ million is attributable to money paid out already unlawfully under the Order, and how much is estimated for future payments. He said that the war damage payments will last for something like a year longer. I suppose that these payments will continue for approximately that time, although I imagine that most sites have been unencumbered of debris and remains.
  I think that we all agree that of the many Measures which have been passed since the beginning of the Second World War, the War Damage Act, 1943, and its predecessor in 1941 were among the most complicated. There are a number of others, for example, the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and similar Measures. It would be surprising if, occasionally, their provisions were not misinterpreted and advice given that something could be done within their scope which afterwards was found to be defective. This is a typical case of that sort. I should have thought it was a mistake which could easily be made when one considers the wording of Section 20 (1) of the 1943 Act and the complementary subsection (3).
  As far as I am concerned—and I think that I speak for all my hon. and right hon. Friends—I do not think we would offer any objection at all to giving the Bill a Second Reading. I should like to compliment the Minister for having explained so clearly how the mistake arose, what it consisted of and satisfying us all that he has come to the House at the earliest possible moment to put it right.
  4.12 p.m.
  Mr. James H. Hoy: I wish to say a few words about the Bill because, although my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) described it rather small, it is an unusual Bill. Having had to
  1306
  take legal opinion which you, Mr. Speaker, will be able to appreciate more than most back-benchers, one cannot help feeling a little surprised to find that we were misled when the Measure which this Bill amends was put through the House.
  The Minister said that even at this late date the War Damage Commission has had to provide another £13½ million for war damage. In my constituency, Leith Town Hall was one of the earlier casualties of the war. Apparently. Edinburgh Corporation and the War Damage Commission have not yet reached agreement about how much is to be paid. I can well understand the difficulty which might have arisen, but I should like to know from the Minister whether, if we agree to a Second Reading of the Bill, it will facilitate the negotiations going on between Edinburgh Corporation and the War Damage Commission with a view to providing cash necessary to build a new town hall in Leith. It would be the one public hall we have in Leith.
  I raise this matter with all due deference to my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who accuses the Scots of being a little parochial. Whatever he may say, this is important to a community like mine. I should like to feel that if I assent to the Bill being read a Second time the War Damage Commission will hurry on with the agreement with Edinburgh Corporation so that we can have the town hall which has been denied to us for so many years.
  4.15 p.m.
  Sir E. Boyle: I speak again by leave of the House in reply to the two speeches which have been made.
  I am very grateful for the extremely courteous speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice). I can say in answer to the question he put that the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum attached to the Bill says that the cost of all past and future payments is unlikely to exceed £2½ million. It is not possible to be more precise than that, because the payments made hitherto have, in error, been regarded as cost of works payments and not separately accounted for.
  It is virtually impossible to separate them now, but, in the opinion of the War Damage Commission, supported by the

  1307
  evidence of recent months since we contemplated introducing this Measure, the past payments amount to rather less than £2 million and the amount of future payments will not exceed £½ million.
  In answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy), I do not think that I should ever accuse him of being particularly parochial as Scotsmen go, if I may put it that way. I do not think that the Bill will make much difference to the question he raised, but if he will write to me on it I shall make inquiries and see if anything can be done.
  With those words, I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

  WAR DAMAGE (CLEARANCE PAYMENTS) [MONEY]
  [Queen's Recommendation signified.]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).
  [Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise payments in respect of the clearance of war-damaged land, it is expedient—

  (a) to validate payments made before the commencement of that Act and purporting to be made in consequence of any Direction under section twenty of the War Damage Act, 1943, and

  (b) to authorise the charging on, and issue out of, the Consolidated Fund of sums required by virtue of provisions of the said Act of the present Session authorising payments in respect of the carrying-out of clearance work on developed hereditaments which have sustained war damage.—[Sir E. Boyle.]

  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow.

  DISTRESS FOR RATES BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. J. E. B. Hill.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
  4.18 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dennis Vosper): I beg to move,
  That the Parliamentary Constituencies (Coventry and Mid-Warwickshire) Order, 1959, a draft of which was laid before this House on 27th July, 1959, in the last Parliament, be approved.
  This and the subsequent 13 Orders give effect, without modification, to the recommendations made by the Boundary Commission for England in its Report submitted to the Secretary of State on 20th July, 1959. The next three Orders give effect to the recommendations in the Report submitted on 1st January, 1960.
  These Orders are submitted under Section 2 (3) of the House of Commons Redistribution Act, 1949, and are made in pursuance of subsection (5) of that Section. This and the subsequent Orders all make minor adjustments to constituency boundaries to conform with recent alterations of local government boundaries. They thus resemble a series of previous Orders approved by Parliament. As required by the principal Act, the proposed recommendations were published in at least one newspaper circulating in each constituency and facilities were afforded to those who wished to do so to submit recommendations about the proposals.
  The Orders will not affect any Parliamentary election until the next General Election after they come into force. I shall be very glad to answer any questions on this or the subsequent Orders if hon. Members are interested.
  Mr. James H. Hoy: On a point of order. Are we discussing simply the first Order, Mr. Speaker, or are we taking them all together?
  Mr. Speaker: I understood that it would be for the convenience of the House if, the Minister having made his general observations on the first Order, all the English ones were then put in succession, and perhaps a Scottish Minister might deal in parallel fashion with the Scottish series, if that be convenient. The present position is that the Minister has proposed the first Order only. I shall have to put the Question on each Order separately.
  Mr. Hoy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I merely wanted to make sure that we would have an explanation from the Scottish Office about how the Scottish constituencies concerned would be affected.
  Mr. Speaker: When we reach that point, I will allow an opportunity for that to occur.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Parliamentary Constituencies (Coventry and Mid-Warwickshire) Order, 1959, a draft of which was laid before this House on 27th July, 1959, in the last Parliament, be approved.
  Parliamentary Constituencies (Gateshead) Order, 1959 [draft laid before the House, 27th July. 1959], in the last Parliament, approved.—[Mr. Vosper.]
  Parliamentary Constituencies (Gloucester and Stroud) Order, 1959 [draft laid before the House, 27th July, 1959], in the last Parliament. approved.—[Mr. Vosper.]
  Parliamentary Constituencies (Grimsby and Louth) Order, 1959 [draft laid before the House, 27th July, 1959], in the last Parliament, approved.—[Mr. Vosper.]
  Parliamentary Constituencies (Ilford and Woodford) Order, 1959 [draft laid before the House, 27th July, 1959], in the last Parliament, approved.—[Mr. Vosper.]
  Parliamentary Constituencies (Leeds, York and Barkston Ash) Order, 1959 [draft laid before the House, 27th July, 1959], in the last Parliament, approved.—[Mr. Vosper.]
  Parliamentary Constituencies (Lincoln and Grantham) Order, 1959 [draft laid before the House, 27th July 1959], in the last Parliament, approved. [Mr. Vosper.]
  Parliamentary Constituencies (North Somerset and Wells) Order, 1959 [draft laid before the House, 27th July 1959], in the last Parliament, approved. [Mr. Vosper.]
  Parliamentary Constituencies (Oxford and Henley) Order, 1959 [draft laid before the House, 27th July 1959], in the last Parliament, approved. [Mr. Vosper.]
  Parliamentary Constituencies (Portsmouth, Langstone and Petersfield) Order, 1959 [draft laid before the House, 27th July 1959], in the last Parliament, approved. [Mr. Vosper.]
  Parliamentary Constituencies (Preston South and South Fylde) Order, 1959 [draft laid before the House, 27th July 1959], in the last Parliament, approved. [Mr. Vosper.]
  Parliamentary Constituencies (Reading, Newbury and Wokingham) Order, 1959 [draft laid before the House, 27th July 1959], in the last Parliament, approved. [Mr. Vosper.]
  Parliamentary Constituencies (South-West Lancashire) Order, 1959 [draft laid before the House, 27th July 1959], in the last Parliament, approved. [Mr. Vosper.]
  1310
  Parliamentary Constituencies (Wandsworth, Kingston-upon-Thames and Richmond) Order, 1959 [draft laid before the House, 27th July 1959], in the last Parliament, approved. [Mr. Vosper.]
  Parliamentary Constituencies (Barnsley and Wakefield) Order, 1960 [draft laid before the House on 9th February], approved. [Mr. Vosper.]
  Parliamentary Constituencies (Middlesbrough) Order, 1960 [draft laid before the House, 9th February], approved. [Mr.Vosper.]
  Parliamentary Constituencies (Walsall) Order, 1960 [draft laid before the House, 9th February], approved. [Mr. Vosper.]
  4.24 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): I beg to move,
  That the Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (West Fife and Dunfermline Burghs) Order, 1960, a draft of which was laid before this House on 9th February, be approved.
  This Order and the following two Orders, concerning West Renfrewshire and Greenock and Midlothian and Edinburgh, are laid before the House under Section 2 (5) of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1949. They conform with the recommendations contained in the report of the Boundary Commission for Scotland submitted to the Secretary of State on 9th January, 1960 (Command 73).
  As the Report stated, the alterations proposed are in conformity with the provisions of Rule 4 (1) (b) of the Second Schedule to the 1949 Act which states:
  "in Scotland, no burgh other than a county of a city shall be included partly in one constituency and partly in another".
  Mr. James H. Hoy: I have only one thing to say. Any alteration in boundaries is important, although, perhaps these alterations are not quite as important as other alterations which have taken place. It might not be a bad thing for the Scottish Office to tell the people of Scotland who constitutes the Boundary Commission. This is exceedingly important. I do not know whether the Joint Under-Secretary can give this information, but boundaries are important to any parliamentary constituency. If suggestions are to be made concerning alterations in the boundaries, at least the people of Scotland should know who makes the recommendations. I should have thought that on an occasion like this the Joint Under-Secretary

  1311
  might have been able to tell us who the people were.
  Mr. N. Macpherson: The Chairman of the Boundary Commission is, of course, Mr. Speaker. The Vice-Chairman, who, under the terms of the 1958 Act, must be a judge, is Lord Guest. I am not at the moment in a position to give the other names, but the hon. Member will be aware that there are two assessors, one of whom is the Registrar-General and the other the Director of Ordinance, who are able to speak on their particular subjects.
  Mr. Hoy: What steps do they take to inform people in the constituencies that these alterations are to be made and what steps are open to the people to raise objections? How do the electors within these constituencies object to any alterations which might take place?
  Mr. Macpherson: This is all controlled by the 1949 and 1958 Acts. It is all fully reported in the Report of the Boundary Commission for Scotland, which is laid before the House and to which I have referred. By the terms of the Act, notice must first be given by the Secretary of State that a report is to be made. Then, the report is published in the Edinburgh Gazette and opportunities are given for representations to be received. No representations have been received in respect of any of these Orders.
  Miss Margaret Herbison: I am sure that if the Joint Under-Secretary is unable to give the House the names of the members of the Commission on this occasion, he will let us have them in due course.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (West Fife and Dunfermline Burghs) Order, 1960, a draft of which was laid before this House on 9th February, be approved.
  Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (West Renfrewshire and Greenock) Order, 1960 [draft laid before the House, 9th February], approved.—[Mr. N. Macpherson.]
  Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (Midlothian, Edinburgh East, Edinburgh South, Edinburgh West, and Edinburgh, Pentlands) Order, 1960 [draft laid before the House, 9th February], approved.—[Mr. N. Macpherson.]

  OCCUPIERS'LIABILITY (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  OCCUPIERS'LIABILITY (SCOTLAND) BILL

    Clause 2.—(EXTENT OF OCCUPIER'S DUTY TO SHOW CARE.)
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. James McInnes: I beg to move, in page 2, line 14, to leave out "is reasonable to see" and to insert:
    "will ensure as far as it is reasonable to do so".
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman undertook, in Committee, to have a look at this question. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I feel that "ensure" or "secure" is more enforceable than "see". We regard "see" as inoperative, indefinite and in no way meeting the situation. What consideration has the right hon. and learned Gentleman given to this question in view of the undertaking he gave in Committee?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. William Grant): I can assure the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) that I have considered this matter with considerable care. Indeed, when it was considered in Committee, I promised to examine it further to see whether any better form of words could be devised. I was frank in Committee, saying that I was not entirely satisfied with "see", but that I had not at that stage been able to find a better formula.
    After much cogitation I am still in that position. The difficulty is that "ensure"—which, with "secure", seems to be one of the only two possible alternatives—is much too strong. In law, the word "ensure" carries with it in a reparation action for damages the implication that there is absolute liability. It is to be found in the Factories Acts, the Coal Mines Acts, and so on, where the liability depends not on failure to take reasonable care, but on the mere breach of obligation, irrespective of the amount of care taken. That is much too high an obligation to place on the ordinary occupier or person in control of property, and it would go far beyond what has ever been the law in Scotland in the past.
    We did not slavishly copy the English Act, because we originally started with

    1313
    a different Act. The word in the corresponding Clause in the English Act is "see". I do not say that that is by any means a conclusive reason for retaining "see". We must keep in mind that in the English Act of 1957 Parliament did for England what it now seeks to do for Scotland. If we have a different phrase in what I may call the basic provision of the two Acts, courts will be agile to say that if Parliament means one thing in the English Act it must mean something different in the Scottish Act.
    I have tried to look up precedents. The only one I can find is a case dealing with the Building Societies Act, where the words are something like "take reasonable care to ensure". That is not unlike the phrase which the hon. Gentleman has in his Amendment. In that case, the judge said that he was much puzzled by the use of the word "ensure" in that context. I feel that judges would be somewhat puzzled if we used "ensure" here. Indeed, they might well have to address themselves to a different question from that to which we want them to address themselves. We want them to answer the question: has the defender in this case taken reasonable care or not?
    If the Clause was amended in the way suggested, the courts would have to decide whether it was reasonable that there should be an absolute guarantee, which is a rather different thing. Accordingly, although with regret, I cannot conscientiously as a lawyer accept the Amendment. However, I assure him that I have made a search to see whether the phrase could be improved. I regret that I have not been successful.
    Mr. James H. Hoy: I find the Solicitor-General's explanation very unsatisfactory indeed. All he said in his very long explanation was that he felt that he could not do this in a Scottish Bill because it might say something different from what was contained in its English counterpart. That is not an argument. I remember clearly that when we had the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act—which was a separate Measure, distinct from its counterpart for England and Wales—we insisted in the Scottish Grand Committee that the businesses concerned should be made to register.
    1314
    That was a wide departure from what had taken place in the Measure as affecting England and Wales. The Secretary of State for Scotland at that time, who then represented the Moray and Nairn constituency, listened to the argument of Scottish Members. After a fairly long argument, which is not unknown in the Scottish Grand Committee, he came to the conclusion that all the arguments were in favour of this change in the legislation. As a result, the Scottish Measure differed very distinctly from that which affected England and Wales. The argument advanced by the Solicitor-General carries no substance.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the law should be different in the two countries, or not?
    Mr. Hoy: I do not know why the Solicitor-General asks me that. He knows that the law in Scotland is in many respects very different from that in England and Wales. For instance, Scottish courts can pronounce much wider judgments than courts in England and Wales. In England and Wales they can find the accused either guilty or not guilty. Courts in Scotland have that privilege, but, in addition, have the privilege of finding a verdict of not proven. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument carries no weight at all. If it proves anything, it proves to me that he has not directed his attention to what is intended by the Amendment.
    By the Amendment we seek to provide that, as far as it is reasonable to do so, certain things will be ensured. I should not have thought that that was very difficult and that, on the whole, its language was very clear and distinct. It may be difficult for the courts to interpret, because so often we wrap Bills and Acts up in such verbiage that it is difficult for courts to make a clear statement of the position. However, that is no reason for rejecting the Amendment. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman intends to reject the Amendment, he should at least produce a much better argument than he has so far.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am sorry if I gave the hon. Member the impression that I was merely following the English, and using that as an argument. I tried to make it clear that

    1315
    that was only one of several reasons. My main objection to the Amendment is the use of the word "ensure", particularly in connotation with the words "reasonable care". As I have said, the combination of "reasonable care" and "ensure" has already puzzled at least one judge, and I believe that if we used it in this Bill it would puzzle many more. Although that might be a good thing for the lawyers—and I speak as one—I am quite sure that it would not be a good thing for the ordinary litigant.
    I am not suggesting that the law should be the same in Scotland as in England merely because the English have a particular law. The English, in 1957, altered their law to bring it into line with what Scots law used to be. Now we are making progress by taking a step backwards—if I may put it in that rather Irish way—and bringing Scottish law into line with that in England, which is in line with what the Scots law used to be. We are, therefore, back where we were in 1928, or thereabouts, when the law was in a much more satisfactory condition in this sphere than it is at present.
    Mr. Hoy: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that we are coming into line with England, why did he interrupt me to ask if I wanted to make the law in Scotland the same as that in England?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Merely because I thought that the result of this Amendment would be to make the law different whereas, in this case, we really want to make it the same, because England has already adopted what was the law of Scotland.
    Amendment negatived.
    Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    4.41 p.m.
    Mr. McInnes: I am dissatisfied with Clause 2 as it now stands, and I am surprised that the Solicitor-General for Scotland should have asked my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) whether he desired the law in Scotland and that in England to be different. Perhaps I may remind the
    1316
    right hon. and learned Gentleman of what was said by his hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State when we were discussing the principle of the Bill. His hon. Friend then said:
    "I shall shortly come to the reason"—
    for the alteration in the law—
    "but I hardly think I need apologise in this Committee for the difference. Indeed, the Committee recommended that legislation should be drafted independently of any English Statute dealing with comparable subjects."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 1st December, 1959; c. 6.]
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland recognised that the law on this subject was different in the two countries. We may be taking, as he said, a step backwards, but the fact remains that the very reason for the introduction of this Measure was that there was a difference in the law in the two countries. I do not want to go back into all the questions involved in that difference—licensee, trespass, invitee, and the rest—but, on this issue, the law in Scotland and in England is entirely different.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that we on this side were somewhat concerned in Committee about this word "see". The real meaning of the word is "to perceive mentally", because the verb "see" is naturally associated with vision. Therefore, a reading of the Clause as it stands would be "to perceive mentally". How can an obligation rest on an individual when the basis of that obligation is to perceive mentally?
    Frankly, I am disappointed by the inability of the Solicitor-General for Scotland to find an alternative word. I thought that we had gone a long way to meet the situation by the words in the Amendment. Originally, we put down the word "ensure" in the existing context of the Bill, but we altered and enlarged the Amendment to leave out the words "is reasonable to see," and insert:
    "will ensure as far as it is reasonable to do so."
    I cannot appreciate the right hon. and learned Gentleman's observation that this was far too high an obligation to put on the occupier of property. Why is it far too high an obligation? Surely the occupier, as well as the owner, has an obligation, and we want to see it operating equally in both directions. As

    1317
    I say, we are disappointed that he has not found it possible to accommodate us on this Amendment. At the moment, I feel that he has been largely guided by the fact that the word "see" appears in the English Measure, and, to that extent, the Solicitor-General for Scotland does not desire that the legal terminology of the Scottish Measure could be, or should be in any way different.
    I do not accept that. The very basis of this Bill is that the Scottish legal terminology was not accepted in the English Measure. There is the principle of culpa. It was merely a question of legal terminology that compelled the Government to introduce this Measure, and now the right hon. and learned Gentleman argues that it would be wrong to alter the word "see" because that word is now in the English law dealing with occupiers' liability. I do not think that his attitude is logical, and I can only repeat that I am exceedingly sorry that he did not find it possible to accept our Amendment.
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. E. G. Willis: First, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I must apologise for not having been here when the debate opened. The Bill has come before the House rather earlier than I thought that it would, and I was at another meeting.
    We have now reached the final stages of a Bill that implements the first Report of the Law Reform Committee. In passing, I must say that it has taken the Government a long time to implement one Report of that Committee. The Law Reform Committee has done a considerable amount of work up to now, and it is hardly paying to it the respect it deserves when we have to wait so long before its Reports are implemented. As a result of moves from this side, another of the Law Reform Committee's Reports has been implemented, and we hope that the others that have been produced will be given effect to much more quickly than has been the case here.
    The Measure abolishes the doctrine of the three categories of invitees, licensees and trespassers which was imposed on Scottish law by the House of Lords decision in 1929. It is interesting to note that, whilst the right hon. and learned Gentleman was anxious to stick to the English provision in respect of the word "see", this Measure still differs from
    1318
    the English one in that, as I understand it, the latter still recognises the category of trespassers. In this Bill we do not recognise the category of trespassers. The Bill wipes out the three categories and returns to the ordinary common law principal of culpa, which is in accordance with the recommendation of the Law Reform Committee.
    On this side of the House we still feel that the Bill does not go far enough. It does not carry out all that the Law Reform Committee recommended. It does not deal with the problem of the dangers arising from animals—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but, of counrse, on Third Reading we are only concerned with what is in the Bill and not with what is left out of the Bill.
    Mr. Willis: I am grateful to you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was making only a passing reference to the fact that the Bill did not include what the Law Reform Committee had recommended. I should like to ask whether the subjects which it recommended have now been remitted for further consideration to the Committee.
    During the proceedings on the Bill, the Solicitor-General for Scotland promised to look at a number of matters in connection with it. From the absence of any Amendments on Report, it would appear that the result of his deliberations were not very fruitful. They certainly did not give birth to any Amendments on Report.
    On one matter, which I raised during the Committee stage on two occasions, I think that something should be said before we finally leave the Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will remember that in Committee I raised the question of the liability of the occupier under the Bill when the owner of the property had disappeared. This is very common in Scotland. It is something about which most local authority representatives know, because it is their experience, when they take over houses or properties, that a number of the owners have disappeared. It is also known that in that event certain liabilities of the owner have, in fact, fallen upon the occupier.

    1319
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland said during the Report stage that he had listened to the arguments which were made and that he did not think that any of the liabilities of the owner under the Bill would be transferred to the occupier in the event of the owner disappearing. He said that, in view of the discussions which had taken place, he would certainly confirm whether or no this was the position under the Bill.
    This is a very important matter, particularly in respect of a great deal of the very old property, some of which has been almost condemned, that exists in the large cities. There is considerable concern as to what exactly are the responsibilities of the occupiers in respect of this property, and I think that we need a categorical assurance from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that as a result of passing the Bill we shall not, in fact, pass any of the obligations under it on to the occupier in the event of the owner disappearing.
    It would be out of order to raise some of the other matters which we dealt with in Committee, because I appreciate your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that we must deal with what is in the Bill. On this side we welcome the Bill so far as it goes. We hope that the Government will give some attention at an early stage to the matters that have arisen during the discussion of the Bill, particularly the recommendations of the Law Reform Committee concerning the defining of the responsibility of occupiers in respect—I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows to what I am referring—of dangerous agencies and animals. We hope that he will at least do that much more rapidly than the Government have attended to the matters concerned with in the Bill.
    4.52 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) for at least giving a qualified welcome to the Bill. I gather that he is in agreement with most of what is in it, although he would like to see more in it.
    I can assure him that we shall keep in mind the points which he has raised. I cannot tell him offhand whether the question of liabilities for injuries caused
    1320
    by animals has yet been referred to the Law Reform Committee but, if not, it is on its way. I will find out and let him know the exact position.
    The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) complained, once again, that I had been following the English. That is not so. As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, East pointed out, we have differed from the English in as much as we have washed out trespassers and they are included in the ordinary common ruck to whom reasonable care has to be shown. So we have left the English behind on that.
    On the question of laying down the standard of care, we have taken the broad view that it is better—and the Law Reform Committee recommends it—still to lay down that a reasonable standard of care must be observed rather than go into detail of examples of the type of matters that must be taken into consideration. That, again, we did deliberately and differently from the English. So far as the basic standard of scare is concerned—that is, the question of culpa—the English did just what we are doing. That is to say, in 1957 they adopted what I would call the Scottish doctrine of culpa as the basic principle behind the Bill and we are doing it in this Bill, not because the English did it but because that was the law of Scotland before 1928 and it worked extremely well.
    As to the use of the word "see", it is not because the English use it that we are using it here but, first, because I cannot think of a better word, and I have not been able to find anyone who can, and also because the word "ensure", even if it is used with the words "reasonable care" attached to it, is a very dangerous word to use and would, in all probability, set a higher standard than the normal "culpa" standard of the common law, that is to say, it would impose on an occupier a higher standard than the ordinary standard of taking reasonable care in the circumstances.
    I referred to the English Act because the courts would be much more likely to take the view, I think, that the word "ensure" in a Scottish Act meant a higher standard of obligation if, in similar circumstances in a similar Section in an English Statute which admittedly incorporated Scots law, a different and

    1321
    less strong expression was used. That was the reason. It was not that I wanted the law to be the same in the two countries but merely because it would, I believe, lead to confusion if a different phrase were used.
    Quite apart from that, as I pointed out before the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East came in, in the only case I can trace where the word "ensure" was used along with the words "with reasonable care", the judge confessed that he was puzzled by the word "ensure". As far as I can understand it, he gave it a meaning, as it were midway between the normal standard and the insurance standard, which none of us wants to do. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have tried to meet him on this point. I am only sorry that we have been unable to do so.
    I have made inquiries about the position of occupiers when the owners have disappeared. At any rate, so far as I can discover, there have been no cases in Edinburgh or Glasgow, for example, where the local authorities have tried to foist the obligations of the missing landlord on to the occupier who is left in occupation. Equally, the Bill does not transfer what I might call the existing liabilities of the landlord on to the tenant in the event of the landlord disappearing.
    Let us suppose, under the present law and under the Bill, that the landlord of a tenement house is missing. There is a hole in the kitchen floor. That is
    1322
    fundamentally the landlord's responsibility, but if the tenant invites a friend in, does not put on the light and does not give him any warning, and the guest walks in and goes through the hole, there would be a very strong case against the tenant. This is not because he failed to repair the hole. It is because he failed to give reasonable warning and failed to give the guest an opportunity of seeing where he was going. The Bill does not in any way transfer liabilities from the missing landlord to the unfortunate occupier who is left stranded in the tenement house.
    Mr. McInnes: I know the legal difficulties, but I take it that that still means that the owner of the property is responsible.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Yes. I think that I said in Committee that, provided he remains the owner, that is so. We still have a problem if he transfers the property to a man of straw or to a company with a paid up capital of £1. In that case his liability ceases as from the date of transfer of ownership. But that is a matter outwith the scope of the Bill, and I know the problems which arise.
    I commend the Bill to the House because, whether early or late, it is an important Measure which will improve the law of Scotland.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  SCOTLAND (GENERAL GRANT)
  5.3 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I beg to move,
  That the General Grant (Increase) (Scotland) Order, 1960, dated 28th January, 1960, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.
  Under Section 1 of the Local Government and Miscellaneous Financial Provisions (Scotland) Act, 1958, this Order must be accompanied by an explanatory report, and this has been published as House of Commons Paper No. 82 and laid at the same time as the Order.
  The first General Grant (Scotland) Order made in 1958 prescribed the aggregate amounts of General Grant for the years 1959–60 and 1960–61. The Act enables me to increase the annual aggregate of the general grants for the current grant period in the event of unforeseen increases in prices, costs or remuneration the effect of which on the cost of providing the General Grant services is so large that it ought not to fall entirely on local authorities. This is what the amending Order is designed to do.
  The House will be aware that a similar Order to increase the aggregate grants for England and Wales has already been approved. The principal reason for this amending Order is the new scale of teachers' salaries which took effect from 1st January this year. It is estimated that this will add over £1 million to local authority expenditure in 1959–60 and £2·8 million in 1960–61. Salary awards to nursing and other staff in the employment of local health and education authorities and to officers in local government employment and other minor items have been taken into account, also.
  Discussions with the local authority associations concerned, that is to say, the Association of County Councils in Scotland, the Convention of Royal Burghs and the Association of Counties of Cities, have, I am glad to say, resulted in full agreement both on the items eligible for consideration and on the estimates of the increased costs resulting from each item.
  The Order provides that the aggregate of the general grants for 1959–60 and 1960–61 should be increased by £1·16 million and £2·33 million respectively.
  1324
  This additional grant will be distributed to local authorities in precisely the same way as the original grant, in accordance with the formula set out in the Second Schedule to the Act.
  The original grant settlement agreed with the local authority associations made a fair allowance for reasonable development which could be foreseen at the time. This amending Order fulfils the undertaking given to local authorities that they would not be asked to bear alone significant rises in the cost of General Grant services which neither we nor they could predict at the time of settlement.
  I commend the Order to the House.
  5.7 p.m.
  Mr. Harry Gourlay: I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State is keeping the promise made and giving an increase where unforeseen rises in expenditure have taken place or are expected to take place. Local authorities, naturally, always welcome any crumbs which fall from the table. It is right to say, however, that in this instance the proposed increase is insufficient to meet the increased expenditure which can be foreseen at this time.
  In the House of Commons Paper we are given an estimate of the increase for 1959–60 as £1·13 million and for 1960–61 as £3·73 million. In my judgment, no account has been taken of certain increases in education. It is true that there is a reference to teachers' salaries, but there are other items of expenditure in education which, obviously, will increase this year and next year. I have in mind particularly the fact that the bulge in the school population will, this year and next year, in many counties, reach the secondary departments. Everyone recognises that it is more costly to provide education facilities of one kind and another in the secondary departments of our schools than it is in the primary departments. For example, the equipment is certainly much more expensive.
  There is a growing number of pupils in the top forms of the high schools of Scotland. This is something which we very much welcome, but this in itself brings about another increase in expenditure inasmuch as many of the pupils are entitled to higher school bursaries. We welcome, also, the increase in the

  1325
  number of students entering universities. There was an increase in university bursaries last year and, no doubt, that will be taken into account, but the fact that more students from the various counties are to enter universities will bring about a further increase in expenditure which I doubt very much has been taken into account in making the calculations.
  In addition, the Betting and Gaming Bill now in Committee will, if it becomes an Act, lay upon local authorities further commitments in respect of the licensing arrangements required under it. Also, I very much doubt whether any provision has been made for increased expenditure as a result of the mental health legislation now before the House.
  Most important of all, there is no reference whatever in the Paper to the recent increase in the Bank Rate. Obviously, an increase of 1 per cent. in the Bank Rate has tremendous repercussions on the revenues of local authorities. There are four authorities in my constituency. Kirkcaldy, which is the largest of them, reckons that in a full financial year an increase of 1 per cent. will cost something like £25,000 in terms of its rate poundage. That would require an increase of about 9d. in the £ in rates. No mention of that is made in the Paper.
  It would appear that the effect of the new grant structure will mean that local authorities will have to cut still further their housing programmes. Many housing programmes have already been cut by virtue of the reduced housing subsidies introduced some years ago, but this, obviously, will mean a further cut.
  I would draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that in the three years from 1954 to 1957 the capital debt of local authorities in Scotland increased by something like £51 million. In 1958 the increase in the debt had fallen to £46 million and in 1959 it had fallen to £39 million. I am quite sure that the present indication is that 1960 win see a further decline in the capital debt. That is a matter for regret because it means that many people in Scotland will have to wait much longer before being adequately housed.
  Paragraph 3 of the Report by the Secretary of State for Scotland, House of Commons Paper No. 16, referring to Section 2 (1) of the Act, states:
  1326
  "In fixing the aggregate amount of the general grants for any year the Secretary of State shall take into consideration"—
  then it sets out sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) to which I have referred—
  "the need for developing those services and the extent to which, having regard to general economic conditions, it is reasonable to develop those services."
  We can assume, therefore, that in the light of this qualification the Secretary of State deems it necessary that, owing to the general economic conditions of the country—despite the fact that we have been told in the last six months that we have never had it so good—the local authorities will have to cut back their housing programmes and many of the provisions which they are required to make for the benefit of the community.
  The reason for the reduction in grants was referred to in paragraph (17) of the Scottish White Paper, Cmnd. 208. It stated:
  "The reasons for this proposal, as explained in paragraphs 26 to 29 of the English White Paper, are briefly that local authorities now receive more from Government grants than from the rates."
  I suggest that that is an understatement, and, in fact, an attempt to cover up the real reason for the introduction of this form of grant. The English White Paper was much more specific when it said that the main reason was to reduce the amount of grants being paid to local authorities. It would appear that the Government are determined to achieve national solvency at the expense of local authority bankruptcy.
  When the increase in the grant formula was being discussed in 1957, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. George) said:
  "… we"—
  the Government—
  "have puzzled, mystified and bemused the councillors and officials and the tenants in Scotland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th July. 1957; Vol. 574, c. 1101.]
  I suggest that the mystification was quite deliberate. Several Measures which later became Acts were introduced in the House at that time, and their net result was that the ratepayer and the rent payer had to pay more. That was the extent of the mystification. The other result was a net increase in rates.

  1327
  I hope that, even if he is not prepared to increase the amount which he suggests for 1959–60, the Secretary of State will at least reconsider the position for 1960–61 and be a little more generous in making the allocation for the unforeseen expenditure which one envisages in that period.
  5.16 p.m.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: I speak as the representative of a constituency which forms part of a town that has benefited from the new General Grant, or, at least, from the method by which that grant is distributed. It is true, of course, that Edinburgh benefited as a result of the change in the rating of industry and of the new proposals to the extent of something like a rate of 10d. in the £. But, apart from that, there are one or two questions which I wish to ask the Secretary of State about this Order.
  Paragraph 2 of House of Commons Paper No. 82, explaining the Order, says:
  "Section 2 (2) of the 1958 Act provides that if it appears to the Secretary of State that during any grant period any unforeseen increase has taken place in the level of prices, costs or remuneration, and that its effect on the cost of providing services giving rise to relevant expenditure is of such magnitude that it ought not to fall entirely on local authorities, the Secretary of State shall by Order increase the aggregate amount of the general grants."
  In the course of his speech introducing the Order the Secretary of State said little more than, if as much as, is contained in the House of Commons Paper. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman would at least have given us much more information than is given in the Paper. If he simply intended to repeat what was in the Paper, then I am bound to say that it seems to me that he was—I was about to say wasting the time of the House, but he was not exactly doing that—hardly being fair to the House.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay) pointed out, what the 1958 Act says is, of course, something quite different. It says not only that the Secretary of State must take into account any change in the level of prices, costs or remuneration, but also, in Section 2 (1, b), that he must take into account
  "any probable fluctuation in the demand for the services giving rise to relevant expenditure,
  1328
  so far as the fluctuation is attributable to circumstances prevailing in Scotland as a whole which are not under the control of local authorities."
  Recent events seem to me to have created circumstances which would fall within the meaning of that subsection. I am thinking particularly of the events in West Lothian. The advent of large motor-car factories will cause extra local government expenditure.
  Other events are taking place in Scotland which, in my view, will increase the cost of local government expenditure, and I think that we are entitled to ask to what extent, if any, these events have been taken into consideration by the right hon. Gentleman in calculating the General Grant for 1960–61. As my hon. Friend pointed out, in Section 2 (1, c) of the 1958 Act we are told that the Secretary of State should also take account of
  "the need for developing those services"
  to which the Order applies.
  The first question that I want to ask is this. Why has not the Secretary of State, in the preparation of this House of Commons Paper explaining the provisions, mentioned anything about these two subsections of Section 2? He confined himself solely to the considerations which fall within Section 2 (1) of the 1958 Act. It also appears, when we study the estimates of the additional expenditure, that he has taken into account nothing other than awards to teachers, nurses and allied staff, local government officers, doctors, dentists, janitors, domestic helps, manual workers, domestic staff, firemasters and retained firemen, the increased cost of schoolchildren's transport and the effects of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1959.
  My hon. Friend was right in referring to some of the responsibilities which local authorities in Scotland have to face. On 30th July, 1959, the treasurer of Edinburgh, in presenting the accounts and fixing the rates for 1959–60, said:
  "Since the making of the first grant order several unforeseen increases have already taken place in the costs of relevant services in the United Kingdom—medical, dental, teaching, administrative and other salaries, such items as the chiropody service, pension increases, higher prices for electricity, and so on—and there looms also the likelihood of a great expansion in the mental health service."
  We discussed the matter of mental health last week, and the burden of

  1329
  every speech was that the Mental Health (Scotland) Bill cannot be implemented without a vast expansion of mental health services. We heard about the increased number of workers who would be required by local authorities and about after-care centres and occupational therapy centres which would be needed. Speech after speech, particularly from this side of the House, dealt with that matter. Hon. Members also spoke about the extra accommodation which local authorities would have to supply for elderly people. There is still a very large programme of work to be undertaken by local authorities for the provision of accommodation for old-age pensioners.
  This Order appears to me, from the Explanatory Note, to take no account of the increased expenditure that local authorities might have to bear. The Treasurer of Edinburgh, who, incidentally, is not a Socialist, said in his speech on 30th July:
  "Freedom to make decisions without central sanction"—
  which was the great argument of the right hon. Gentleman—
  "has little attraction if financial difficulty renders it quite nugatory."
  Miss Margaret Herbison: He was late in learning it.
  Mr. Willis: Yes, but at least he has learnt it. What he says is very relevant. Perhaps I might read it again to the right hon. Gentleman:
  "Freedom to make decisions without central sanction has little attraction if financial difficulty renders it quite nugatory."
  It is obvious from the White Paper that local authorities will continue to be faced with increasing financial difficulties. This will render meaningless a great deal of what the right hon. Gentleman spoke about, because local authorities have not the elbow room in which to express themselves as they should.
  My hon. Friend mentioned a number of other services. I have no intention of repeating what he said. I do not know the increase in expenditure for the present year, 1959–60, for other local authorities, but in Edinburgh the increase in the net revenue expenditure for this year alone is over £500,000. When one compares the population of
  1330
  Edinburgh with the population of Scotland—roughly 10 per cent. or probably less—it seems to me that, if the same pattern applies throughout Scotland, the increase in net revenue expenditure for Scotland will be about £5 million or £6 million.
  Mr. James McInnes: That is what it is.
  Mr. Willis: It is against that background of £5 million or £6 million increase in net revenue expenditure that we must consider the additional assistance being given by the Government, which is £1·16 million—less than a quarter of the increase. That does not seem to me to be helping local authorities to meet their obligations or to carry out the programmes announced by the Government—expansion of mental health and technical education services and a great expansion in schools, and so on.
  Surely the Government should be far more generous in their treatment of Scottish local authorities. It seems to me that the assistance to be given by the Government is too small. As the treasurer of Edinburgh said—I like to quote him because he is a Tory—
  "… the financial problem is growing no less but rather is becoming greater …"
  He went on to give the figures. It seems to me that the Government are not treating Scottish local authorities fairly, nor are they facing up to their responsibilities. I think that the right hon. Gentleman should give us much more information about what he visualises will happen in Scotland during the current year and the ensuing year, for which this grant is being fixed. If it is limited to increases in salary alone, as it seems, frankly, it is not enough. Account should be taken of the other factors which we have mentioned, about which I should like some information.
  I ascertained the figures in respect of education in Edinburgh to see whether we were any better off under the present system than under the old system. While it is difficult to calculate, I very much doubt whether Edinburgh is better off. I think that probably Edinburgh is worse off and that the assistance in education under the present system is less than the amount we could have expected under the old system. I have gone into the

  1331
  figures, and it seems to me that Edinburgh is slightly—not greatly—worse off. That is not good enough. We ought to have a great deal more information before we approve this Order.
  5.30 p.m.
  Sir David Robertson: A year or two ago, when we were discussing the Bill under which this Order was made, the Caithness County Council wrote to the Secretary of State for Scotland and then to me. The county council was apprehensive that under the change from the old system to the General Grant system it would be a loser. This was a matter of great concern to Caithness because of the great Dounreay development and what would flow from it in the need for new schools, new roads and so on. The county council pressed its case, and I was glad to support it.
  I have a letter from the Secretary of State, dated 15th December, 1958, in which he gives me a categorical assurance that the county council would incur no loss in the first of these years and not more than 10 per cent. in the second of these years.
  There is a dispute between the Scottish Office and the county council on this issue. The county council says that its loss is £11,700. Hon. Members need no imagination to realise what that means to a landward area in which almost every subject is derated and in which heavy indents have to be made on the two small towns of Thurso and Wick. Thurso is faced with a rate of about 35s. in the £ as a result of this, and of course the people there are very upset.
  I do not like to suggest that the Secretary of State has defaulted, but I have his letter and I have shown it to him. I have met him, and he has kindly written to me about it in the last twenty-four hours, but it is a long and technical reply and I have not yet had time to read it.
  I felt that I must raise this issue because there is no doubt that the county council believed what was written in that original letter. So did I. I urged the county council to accept the Secretary of State's assurance that no loss would be incurred, and the county council blames me for asking it to accept that. Of course, it would have made no
  1332
  difference whether the county council had done so or not.
  What makes a great difference to the community is that every one of the items on which expenditure has been incurred, principally new schools which are needed because of this great inflow of population, has been authorised by the Secretary of State. They are all in accordance with the code of education laid down by the Secretary of State. These things were known at the time. It was known that they were about to happen. Indeed, that was the case which the Secretary of State had to consider, and he allayed the apprehension of the county council by saying, "Your losses will be met in the first year and to within 10 per cent. in the second year." That has not occurred, and but for a fortuitous revaluation of the Dounreay development plant, raising the income of the Caithness County Council by over £11,000, the county would have been £22,000 or £23,000 worse off.
  This is a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation. These counties cannot afford such losses. The depopulated and decaying county of Caithness has had the great plum of Dounreay, which has been a great advantage, but it cannot bear rates in any way approaching the figures I have mentioned. I urge the Secretary of State in presenting this Order to make certain that he has sufficient funds to meet the needs not only of my constituency but also of any others which are similarly situated.
  5.35 p.m.
  Mr. A. C. Manuel: We are debating an Order of very great importance to the people of Scotland. We are dealing with an increase in the general Exchequer grant to make provision for increased salaries in connection with the social services operated by the local authorities. Hon. Members should have a deep interest in these matters because they condition the ordinary everyday lives of the people in their relationship with local authorities and the social services which they receive. I recognise that we cannot deal with the general principle of the block grant, but we are considering how local authorities must decide to prune one service against another in order to spread the block grant over all the services.

  1333
  The Government are compelled to bring forward this Order because of recent increased costs or negotiated wage awards. It is important for all Scottish Members on both sides of the House to show their concern, and I am very pleased that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) has done his duty to his constituents, although I see great, empty spaces on the other side of the House, where apparently no regard is being paid to this increase in the block grant which will augment the local authorities' finances. We have a situation in which the Secretary of State has to augment the previously agreed Exchequer block grant, and in that situation it is imperative that Scottish Members should make certain that the suggested increase is large enough to cover the services which it is supposed to cover.
  Listed in the House of Commons Paper, Local Government Finance (Scotland), we see an "award to teachers." We know about that and we need not discuss it other than to say that in some respects it is quite insignificant. We also see an
  "award to nursing and allied staff".
  Will the Secretary of State indicate what that covers? Does it mean all the other people in and around hospitals? I am not referring to the domestic staff, who are covered in the last item,
  "Other increases in costs and pay".
  Does this item cover the gardening staff, the technical staff and the boiler staff? Who are covered by the award to nurses and allied staff'?
  We ought also to take note of the fact that the increase in General Grant is for the current year and for next year. Has the Secretary of State estimated as nearly as possible the upward trend in costs in arriving at the amounts which he has allocated to these years? The Bank Rate has been increased to 5 per cent. Has he paid attention to what that will mean annually in increased loan charges for all the local authority work in Scotland which will take place during this year and next?
  The right hon. Gentleman recognises, I am sure, that much local authority work has been left in abeyance since the war. Take our roads programme, for example. There has been patchwork here and there, all the big schemes being
  1334
  held up. The local authorities are now urging on every occasion they can that much more of the road works be carried out. Has the right hon. Gentleman made an estimate of what will be the impact on the local authorities of the cost of all the schemes of road works, including the renewal and the widening of bridges, which are cluttering the books of local authorities awaiting consent for them from the Department? Has he estimated that in arriving at this General Grant increase for the two years ahead?
  I stressed during the Second Reading of the Mental Health (Scotland) Bill that in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum it was stated that there would be no net increase in costs because of the Bill. The Joint Under-Secretary of State, in reply to me, said that there would be a fairly substantial increase in costs and that they would be met by direct Government grant—in other words, the block grant, which is the only way the local authority purposes can be met in providing more special schools for children who cannot attend ordinary schools. Much more money will be spent. I take it that the Secretary of State expects that there will be a start with expenditure of that sort within the next two years. Or is he telling us tonight that that Bill will not come into operation and will have no effect at all on local authority expenditure until the end of the financial year 1960–61?
  The same question arises in connection with the Betting and Gaming Bill. Local authorities, I understand, are to be licensing authorities for the betting shops which are to be scattered up and down Scotland. There is to be a special licensing authority set up, with officials and so on. All this will cost money. Has that been allowed for? We know that there will be a tedious period in Committee on the Betting and Gaming Bill, but do the Government think that that also will be delayed in the next two years and not brought into operation before?
  I want to ask one further question and I shall be content with that for now. We see on page 3 of the Paper that included in increases in costs and pay are
  "pay awards to doctors and dentists, janitors, domestic helps and manual workers, domestic staff, firemasters and retained firemen".

  1335
  It is on that category of firemasters and retained firemen I should like to ask a question.
  Am I correct in thinking that the increase is to allow only for the added wages or remuneration of firemasters as such and of part-time firemen? This is an important point and I want the Secretary of State to be seized of it. It is an important matter for his constituency as well as mine. Does the term "retained firemen" mean "part-time firemen"? Does it mean part-time firemen retained in the services of the local authorities?
  I take it that it means that, and, if that is so, there is no doubt that the ordinary fireman has been altogether left out of the calculations of this Order. If the ordinary firemen up and down Scotland have not been brought into the right hon. Gentleman's calculations, I think he is making a very big mistake indeed, because there is very great resentment on their part. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the basic wage of these firemen is only £10 7s. 6d. a week, less £1 deductions for insurance and so on?
  The are having a very big struggle to keep their homes going on this wage. The Press are becoming quite scathing in their remarks about it. The Guardian—of Manchester—dealing with the problem on 3rd February had this to say:
  "Firemen have, like the police, suffered a loss of status since the war. Today a fireman's pay is well below the national average for industry and this, coupled with the long hours and turns of night duty, have had a bad effect on the standard of recruits."
  This applies to Scotland as well as England, and these conditions are leading to headlines in our local Press, which says that "Scotland's firemen are burning with rage", that they are "inflamed about their conditions", that they
  "angry at conditions within their service and claiming that they are becoming the Cinderella of the public services."
  It is significant when a national paper like The Guardian comes to the aid of the Scottish Press in pinpointing what the firemen have to say about the great injustices in the pay structure for firemen. The Secretary of State ought not to be giving a General Grant increase only for firemasters and retained firemen, for by doing that he will only
  1336
  excite in the service even more resentment, and the local authorities are having difficulty enough through their joint boards in recruiting the sort of personnel they want for this very necessary service of protection against fire.
  I hope that we shall have some explanation why the firemen have been left out. If the Secretary of State has not and does not intend to have some sympathy with the pay claims of firemen which have been pressed unceasingly for a long time now, can he tell us at least when he will grapple with this problem, and whether there will be a further General Grant increase to cover the firemen as well as the other categories mentioned?
  5.50 p.m.
  Mr. William Ross: I want to assure the Secretary of State for Scotland straight away that there is no danger of Scottish Members voting against the Order. After all, there is to be an increase in respect of 1959–60. But let us remember that most of that year has already gone and that one of the great glories that was claimed for the block grant was that we should be dealing in advance with the local authorities. Here we are, so shortly after its introduction, already trying to catch up with arrears. Indeed, the fact that the Secretary of State, just after a year's experience of the first Order, has had to introduce an amending Order is itself one of the weaknesses of the whole block grant scheme.
  We are getting an increase on 1959–60 of £1,160,000. When, just over a year ago, the Secretary of State said to the local authorities, "You get £50,125,000" we did not quite expect that before a year had passed he would say that he would have to increase that sum by over 2 per cent. When he introduced the original Order he said, looking ahead, that prices would rise by about 4 per cent. and that, therefore, instead of getting £50 million, the local authorities would get £52 million. He now tells us that they must have £54·4 million. Between the original sum laid down for 1959–60 and the new sum in respect of 1960–61 there is an estimated increase of nearly 8 per cent.
  I am tempted to ask why the Government are so late in bringing in this revised block grant, because the first

  1337
  part of it deals with the year 1959–60, which ends on 15th May, and that is not very far ahead. The Government should have appreciated that some of these increased costs were bound to come some time. Has it come as a surprise to them that teachers are receiving an increase in salary? After all, that increase came into force on 1st January.
  I put it to the Secretary of State that if he had gone to the country just before the General Election and said that the cost of living had risen by so much, that salaries and remuneration had risen and that the Government had to ask the taxpayers for an extra £1,160,000 in respect of the current year and an extra £2⅓ million in respect of the next year, it would have made part of Tory propaganda—that the party had kept down the cost of living—look silly.
  At the same time, the right hon. Gentleman has met an obligation which he accepted under Section 2 of the Local Government and Miscellaneous Financial Provisions (Scotland) Act, 1958. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay), in a very able speech, quite rightly reminded him, Section 2 contains other things and the right hon. Gentleman could have revised the grant to cover new services being introduced.
  This Order is related purely and simply to increases of salaries, wages and pensions. There is no question here of meeting a great surge of local authority services. This, from a local authority point of view, is a depressing document. It relates to what has actually happened and to the salaries which are being paid at present. The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland knows very well what is happening in my constituency. We have a new school at Kirkstile, but we cannot open it because we have not got the teachers. I understand that it will be opened now some time in March. The opening has been postponed of a new school, urgently needed for the provision of primary education, which could not be opened in time because there were no teachers available.
  I looked at the documents and tried to find out whether the Government are confident that the shortage of teachers in Scotland will be tackled, but the sum mentioned in the Order is what the
  1338
  authorities will receive not in the year ending in 1960 but the year ending in 1961. If there had been an extension of the services, an increase in the number of teachers as well as increases in salaries for teachers, we should have had to face a far bigger bill. Therefore, I want to ask the Secretary of State whether he is budgeting in this increased sum for an increase in the number of teachers.
  I can remember hon. Members opposite making bold speeches about all this during the election. There were to be so many more new teachers, and places were to be provided here, there and elsewhere. No wonder they are now silent.
  Mr. James H. Hoy: They are not here.
  Mr. Ross: But that fact will not prevent their going on the platforms and telling us that we have been holding up House of Commons business by discussing matters which are vital to Scottish local authorities.
  I do not know whether the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) is smiling. When he tells his local authority that it is to receive an increased sum, the local authority will tell him that the Government are not meeting the whole bill and that, in respect only of eligible services, the local authorities this year have to raise £750,000 throughout Scotland.
  In other words, all the calculations of the town chamberlains in Scotland in the aggregate are out by £750,000 and in the current year they have to find, in addition to what they might well have expected in relation to the block grant, another £1,400,000. In other words, the rates are going up.
  I do not think that the hon. Member for Argyle will smile when he meets his local authority and its members tell him their side of the story. It is most likely that he just will not go and meet them, or that he will give them only one bright little picture—that the Government are giving the authorities a little more.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will answer quite a number of the questions which have already been asked in the debate. Among the people who are receiving an increase under the provisions made by this Order are teachers. By the way, has the Secretary of State turned down the claim of those teachers who think that they have been dealt with

  1339
  unfairly in the recent salary negotiations? What about the certificated, non-graduate women teachers who were trained between 1919 and 1926 and who, from my personal experience, are the backbone of the primary departments in Scotland? They are far from satisfied that they have been treated justly and they want an increase.
  Has the right hon. Gentleman answered that question by way of this Order and they are not to have any more? We want to know all this by the time we come to make speeches in relation to the ordinary teachers' salaries. Does the laying of the Order mean that he is obdurate to the pleas made by these people, or does it mean that he accepts that their pleas are justified and that they should have an increase in salary to bring them up the scale in relation to the men who were trained at the same time, on the basis of equal pay, and that he will introduce yet another increase Order in relation to the general grant? I think that that is what it means, but we must have an answer.
  Then there are the local government officers. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me which local government officers are covered by the Order? It is not so long ago—a matter of weeks—since notice of yet another increase for local government officers came before the Ayr County Council, which decided not to pay it. When one thinks of the hullabaloo that there is about the railwaymen getting another Is in the £, and how easy it is for some other people to get increases almost unknown to those who have to foot the bill, I think that we are entitled to know whether the latest notice of increase to come before the Ayr County Council is additional to the one which is covered by the Order.
  Also covered are doctors, dentists, janitors, domestic helps and school children's transport. The Order deals with unforeseen increases in the level of prices, costs or remunerations, and there is no provision for new services at all, and no provision for expansion of the present services, many of which, as the Government themselves frankly admit, are not adequate.
  There is also the question of the increased number of teachers. I wonder
  1340
  whether the Government, who pride themselves upon their school building programme for this year, appreciate the cost which will be involved in staffing these schools. Have they increased the number of teachers available to take into account the needs of these schools? What about staffing for technical education? There is to be a great increase in technical education and the teachers engaged in it. Has that been provided for, or has the local authority to meet the cost from this vague, generalised block grant in which nothing is placed aside for any particular services and which eventually leads to certain financial difficulties within local authorities?
  I imagine that the Secretary of State for Scotland will have some explanation to give us in respect of the Mental Health (Scotland) Bill. I am glad that some of my hon. Friends have mentioned this subject. We were quite taken with the fact that we had a great new Bill, which is in many ways a tremendous advance, providing new services, or seemingly new services, and placing certain responsibilities upon local authorities. Yet we were told that it would not involve a new net charge. What about it? Is the Bill not to be in operation during the year 1960–61? If it is, will it involve local authorities in increased expenditure in respect of the services which are laid down in Part II or an expansion of the existing services?
  The Secretary of State for Scotland met our criticism on Second Reading by saying, "It is covered by the block grant provisions. The money will be provided in that way." However, when we scan the block grant provision we find nothing relating to an increase. Indeed, there is provision in the block grant related to 1957, and there is no increase in services provided for. Or does the Secretary of State intend to think again and come along with yet another block grant? He might well do so. If he does he will be proclaiming the inadequacy of the block grant procedure in relation to planning two or three years ahead. It is a fairly blunt instrument for planning when one cannot make provision for a specific service which one wants to see advanced and developed speedily and widely.

  1341
  I wonder whether the Secretary of State realises what has already been the effect on local authorities in respect of many of the services outside the block grant by reason of the inadequacy of what has already been provided and, certainly the inadequacy of the present increase. It has led to considerable financial stringency within local authorities and to the cutting of many services which some people may not consider absolutely essential, but which are certainly helpful in local authority life and in life of some of our towns. For instance, less maintenance work is being done on the roads and less repair work is being carried out. There is sometimes even a cutting down of essential cleansing work in respect of collection. All these services are equally affected by rises in costs and remuneration.
  I wonder whether, in calculating the block grant and the increase, the Secretary of State for Scotland has paid any attention to the effect of increased traffic. Does he doubt that during 1960–61 there will be congestion on Scottish roads? This will throw more work on the police. I know that the police are outside the block grant provisions, but their motor patrols are not. I hope that the Secretary of State will correct me if I am wrong about this.
  Mr. Manuel: More money is required for motor patrols.
  Mr. Ross: I am sure that more money will be required for that purpose, but under these provisions the local authorities will not get any more money for that purpose.
  I have said that I think that the Order is a pessimistic document because it is a recognition by the Government that they have failed to halt Tory inflation. In fact, the inflation is greater than the Government estimated when they set up this procedure in 1958. The Order is even more depressing because, given the Government's willingness to expand certain essential services in relation to education and mental health, the fact that they do not do anything in this latest look into the future shows that they realise in advance that they will fail.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will dispel some of the gloom. I hope that he will be able to tell us that he has all these things in mind and that as soon as he is convinced that they can be done
  1342
  he will hasten to the House of Commons, with a host of supporters behind him—
  Mr. Hoy: They are not here tonight.
  Mr. Ross:—the vigilant Scottish Press will not, I am sure, notice that—and place before the House yet another Order for an increase in the block grant. Only if he does that will he meet the needs of Scotland in respect of the services at present being conducted and as we hope to see them being developed.
  6.8 p.m.
  Mr. James H. Hoy: I wish to say a few words on this subject in support of the case which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel). I should like to feel that if there is one category of public servants whose claims are to be given attention under the Order it is the firemen in Scotland. They give tremendous service to the public.
  One finds it a little difficult to understand why the Government, when they can increase the defence Estimates by £150 million, should find it so difficult to make provision for this admirable form of public service. Indeed, I think that it is a commentary on the Order which we are discussing that when we have increased the Service Estimates from £1,500 million to £1,650 million we have the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) wondering how his local authority can be compensated to the extent of £11,700. It seems to me absolutely ludicrous that the Scottish provisions should present a tremendous difficulty to many people in that part of Scotland while so much money appears to be available for other purposes.
  One can well understand—I think it was right—that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland should raise this matter. We have had the development at Dounreay, which we all welcome, as the hon. Gentleman does, but it brings with it certain commitments which the local authority cannot avoid. The hon. Gentleman is right to try to ascertain whether the burden which has been placed on the local authority has been foreseen by the Scottish Office and whether provision has been made to meet it. These are two things which strike one immediately one comes to consider this Order.
  One thing stands out in Scotland, and certainly in the City of Edinburgh, and

  1343
  no doubt it applies to many other cities and burghs. If one takes the capital city, the rate expenditure there has been doubled and the local authority says that this is placing an intolerable burden on the shoulders of the local ratepayers. One would like to feel that when the Government come to make up their mind about these measures they give consideration to problems of this kind. It is no use the Government saying that we are living in better times, that we have never had it so good, and that more people are driving and owning cars if they are not making provision for roads on which those people can travel. In Edinburgh we have to carry this tremendous burden. One would like to feel that when the Government came to make up their mind on this particular measure they took into consideration the burden that Edinburgh—and Glasgow very soon—has to face in connection with the Order.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) raised the question of teachers and whether provision had been made for increases in their salaries. For a certain section of teachers it would not require an Order from the Government to make provision for this. I have teachers in my constituency, who, as a result of the new agreement, find themselves enriched by the handsome sum of 7½d. per week. They regard this as rather insulting and are wont to place the blame on the Educational Institute for Scotland as if, in fact, the Institute had reached this agreement.
  This is an insulting increase to people who are doing such a magnificent job in education. I am bound to tell the Secretary of State tonight that that section of the educational community is not going to be satisfied with miserable increases of that kind and is going to make further demands on the local authorities to meet what it thinks are rightful increases in salaries. If it does so, and the local authorities have to carry the burden, then the local authorities are entitled to be assured that the central Government will make adequate provision to meet such increases.
  It has been said that a Conservative Government would bring about price stability. However, when we hark back to the old days in Edinburgh of the 7s. 11d. rate we go back to the days of
  1344
  the Labour Government. The rates of Edinburgh have gone up to 17s. 10d. with the advent of a Tory Government. That is the situation, and the local ratepayers in Edinburgh place the responsibility fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Government, who throughout these years, have thrown the burden of taxation more and more on the local ratepayers. One has only to think of the way in which they got rid of the housing subsidies and placed them on the shoulders of the local authorities to realise why the rates have gone up so much.
  The Government are responsible for increases in the rates, but the local authorities have to carry them. We have to ensure that the burden will become no heavier because of lack of foresight by the Government. We want an assurance tonight that for teachers, for firemen—to whom we are indebted for such loyal service—and for roads, the Government will make adequate provision for satisfying the needs of the local authorities.
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;
  House counted, and 40 Members being present—
  6.16 p.m.
  Mr. A. Woodburn: In the circumstances I ought to say "Welcome strangers" to some of the Conservative Members opposite.
  Whatever else we may say, in a way we welcome this Order which does, at least, make good some of the extra expenditure which has been incurred by the local authorities. There was a considerable suspicion when a General Grant Order was introduced that more and more of the local authorities would be left high and dry with extra expenditure without the Government necessarily increasing the General Grant. I am not clear upon one point and I would like the Secretary of State to explain it. When expenditure increases, perhaps as a result of Government policy or instructions, does the local authority bear the extra cost until such time as a General Grant increase brings in an increased income, and is that retrospective to the time when the additional expenditure starts? It is quite true that this is being

  1345
  introduced to compensate for increased salaries, but, if these increases were retrospective to June last year, would the General Grant reimburse the local authorities for the increased expenditure in a particular year?
  One of the great difficulties from which we in Scotland suffer in wage negotiations and changes is that we are very often about six months behind England and that our people lose on the delay. Have the local authorities always a gap to make up out of their own expenditure or will the Government, as a result of increased expenditure, automatically reimburse them back to the date of increase?
  This Order is being introduced to meet an increase in teachers' salaries. That increase had for its purpose the attraction of teachers to the profession. Have the Government solved the problem by this? I understand that at the moment they are applying a kind of direction of labour to the teachers in Scotland. I understand also that in the West of Scotland, where, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) says, there is a great scarcity of teachers, and in Glasgow, where there is also a very great dearth of teachers, the Government are trying to solve the problem by placing what is almost a prohibition on education authorities in the East of Scotland from recruiting the teachers who would normally come to them.
  Are the Government putting pressure on other local authorities to lower their intake of teachers in order to compel teachers to go to the West though they may not desire to do so? Surely it is a queer way to recruit teachers for the West by creating gaps in the East. Is this the policy?
  Before the war, Glasgow Education Committee always paid a bonus—at least, until 1931—as a way of attracting teachers. Has any consideration been given to a change of policy in that respect? If Glasgow and the West of Scotland paid a bonus to attract teachers, would the Secretary of State be willing to reimburse such local authorities out of the General Grant?
  I welcome the large programme of school building and school improvements. For many years it has been one of Scotland's terrible tragedies that children have had to go to school in
  1346
  what have almost amounted to slum properties. They have not had the necessary facilities or sanitary arrangements, and I am very glad to hear that the Secretary of State has given instructions for a considerable programme of rebuilding, repair and improvement, as well as new schools, to be embarked upon.
  I am not clear about whether the cost of all that will be recovered from the rates, without assistance from the General Grant. In the old days, it would have come out of the general fund, but as that was happening in England as well, we would automatically have benefited. Will local authorities be compensated out of the General Fund for money which they spend on the large school building programme with which the Secretary of State has instructed them to proceed?
  Several other questions which I had intended to raise have already been covered by my hon. Friends, and there will no doubt be others put to the right hon. Gentleman. Since I have no wish to give him too many headings with which to deal, I will close with that.
  6.22 p.m.
  Mr. James McInnes: This Order will provide that the aggregate of Scottish grants will increase in 1959–60 to £51 million and in 1960–61 to £54,405,000. Will the Secretary of State for Scotland say whether in his conversations with Scottish local authorities and local authority associations, considerable hostility was displayed to his proposed figures and, if so, why he remained adamant on the issue and refused to meet local authorities on the many other issues which they raised?
  In case the right hon. Gentleman wants to know the source of my figures, I am about to quote from the Municipal Treasurers' Annual Review. In 1958, local authorities in Scotland had a gross expenditure on education of £70,316,000. In 1959, that figure increased to £75,704,000. It is expected that in 1960, if the general pattern is followed, expenditure will be about £80 million. Thus, in three years we have seen an increase in Scottish educational expenditure of about £10 million.
  I want to relate that expenditure to the provisions of the Order and to do so adequately and properly I shall have to consider the last year of the specific grant

  1347
  arrangement. In 1958, under that arrangement, total grants covering all services came to £47 million. In 1959–60, the total General Grant will be £51 million and in 1960–61, £54 million. While local authority expenditure on education alone has increased by no less than £10 million, the total General Grant will have increased in those three years by only less than £7 million. The General Grant will cover not only education, but services such as health and fire, which now come within the provisions of the grant. Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to relate those figures to the provisions of the Order?
  About two years ago, the right hon. Gentleman set up a committee, under Professor Knox of St. Andrew's University, to consider local contributions to universities. That committee reported a few months ago and recommended that local authority contributions, which come from the education fund in Scotland to the universities, should be increased from £60,000 to £155,000 a year. Has provision been made for that proposed change?
  During the last three years of the specific grant arrangement, the grants increased, peculiarly enough, by £4¾million a year. I observed that in the Order there is no indication of such an increase occurring with the general fund. Indeed, the grant will jump from £52 million in 1959–60 to £54 million in 1960–61. Had there been an increase of £4¾million, the grant would have been £57 million. I am positive that local authorities are getting a raw deal under the new arrangement and that anyone with any knowledge of local authorities will admit the inadequacy of these provisions.
  6.30 p.m.
  Miss Margaret Herbison: It is evident from the course that the debate has 'taken that great dissatisfaction is felt, not only on this side of the House but by the only hon. Member from the other side who spoke, at this method of financing local government spending by the Government. I know that we cannot debate the principle of a General Grant Order now, but I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland is fully aware of the difficulties created by this method of giving financial aid to local authorities.
  1348
  My hon. Friends raised many important points. The tone of the debate was admirably set by my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay). He has great experience of local government. He knows the difficulties facing local authorities, and he put many points to the Secretary of State for Scotland. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will answer them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he had had with local authorities, and what attitude had been adopted by them. Page 2 of the House of Commons Paper No. 82 says:
  "Discussions have taken place with representatives of the appropriate local authority associations and agreement has been reached with them about the factors of which account should be taken and also about the amounts which it would be appropriate to include in respect of them."
  That is very different from the information that I have. It appears from the Paper that agreement has been reached with the local authorities. What does the Secretary of State for Scotland mean by "agreement"? Some councils have criticised the amounts it is proposed to give them. That criticism is not in line with the specific statements made in the Paper.
  I want to discuss the Order on two grounds. First, we are told that the amounts to be given are to cover any unforeseen increase. Did the Minister have no information about the proposed increase in teachers' salaries when the original Order was made? The Minister knows what must be done before arrangements for increasing teachers' salaries are finalised and those increases should have been allowed for in the original Order.
  Secondly, it has been decided that the amount specified in the Paper is to be provided for extra local government expenditure in 1959–60 and 1960–61. Is that sum intended to cover all the expenditure foreseen by the Government? Very probing questions have been asked from this side of the House, because it is obvious that if local authorities do their duty there will be other aspects of local government which will call for increased expenditure. My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs raised the question of education.

  1349
  Teachers' salaries, and an improved supply of teachers, have also been mentioned.
  Will improved teachers' salaries provide us with more teachers? Because of the time required for training, even the training of graduates, it seems unlikely that the increased demand for teachers will be met by 1961. One way in which we could be almost certain of increasing the number of teachers would be to accept the strong recommendation made by one of the Minister's own committees, that of giving those graduates who are willing to enter a training college a grant on the basis given by D.S.I.R. If that were done, it would be a great step forward in increasing the number of graduates, which is the category of teacher we badly need in Scotland. Has the Secretary of State for Scotland given that suggestion any consideration?
  In about two weeks' time we shall begin the Committee stage of the Mental Health (Scotland) Bill. This Bill was welcomed in the House, and. I am glad to say, in Scotland. The Bill envisages great improvements in mental health treatment in Scotland. It places on local authorities many more duties than they have now. It will probably be on the Statute Book by the end of July. If that happens, what will local authorities do between July of this year and May, 1961. Has the Secretary of State for Scotland thought about the urgency of some of the provisions in that Bill?
  From July of this year to May of next year there will be an opportunity for local authorities to exercise some of the powers given to them. I know that we could not set up the centres and provide the services laid down in Clause 7 of the Bill by May, 1961, but there are other provisions which would enable local authorities to do a good job of work if they had the money.
  It appears that the Secretary of State for Scotland has not thought about that, although Section 2 (1, b) of the Act which deals with this, says that:
  "… any probable fluctuation in the demand for the services giving rise to the relevant expenditure …".
  Surely the Secretary of State wants local authorities at least to begin to provide those services which, under the Mental Health Bill, they will be asked to provide. Surely he wants local authorities
  1350
  to give more attractive grants to university students who will enter training colleges, if he is not going to do it himself.
  When the Bill was being discussed we were told that it would give local authorities much greater freedom than they had ever had before. Judging by some of the speeches of my hon. Friends, and also from what I know about local authority rate increases, it seems to me that the Bill gives local authorities freedom to raise rates—a freedom which they do not want—while taking away from them the chance properly to plan the many services for which they are responsible.
  One of the most important is education. I do not want to go over all the points about the bulge, and the need for better provision for technical education for the many more children whom we hope will stay on at school after this summer. Has the Secretary of State taken account of these matters? In the light of the Secretary of State's report concerning the agreement with local authorities, I am prompted to ask him whether any of the points that I have raised were discussed in the talks with local authority associations. The more I see of the working of these General Grant Orders the more I am convinced that if we want to give local authorities the chance to plan well ahead for their services in education, health and mental health, we ought to go back to the old system of specific grants.
  Meantime, so long as we have a Tory Government we must make the best of this legislation. But I warn the Secretary of State that each time this kind of Order comes before the House there will be a debate on it, and some very probing questions will be put to him.
  6.42 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I am sure that the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) will realise that I far from take exception to her last remark. We always envisaged that these Orders would provide an opportunity for the House to consider what is happening. But I confess that this afternoon the normal interest of Scottish Members on both sides of the House has been expressed in a series of detailed questions, and that if I succeed in answering

  1351
  every one of them I shall be very surprised. Nevertheless, I shall deal with as many as I can.
  Many hon. Members have commented upon the fact that this is not the occasion for a debate upon the principle of the General Grant. I am not as ingenious as some of them were in succeeding in debating the principle after having made that observation, but on that subject I will merely say that some time ago, when I was talking to somebody about what was happening under the General Grant system, when we all had some anxieties about how it was going to work, this wise person said, "There was an awful row in 1929. There has been great anxiety every time a change has been made in the form, structure, or method of financing local authorities, but it has always settled down, and in time people have seen the changes as real advances." It is understandable that people should have some concern about the question, and we cannot be quite certain how it will work out in all aspects of local government, but that is the way things are when we try to make progress.
  As for the discussions which took place with local authorities, all I can say is that the advice I have received is to the effect that they went very smoothly. The main discussions were between the officials of my Department and officials representing local authority associations, and at the end of those discussions one local authority association expressed considerable satisfaction with the agreement reached in connection with the additional general grant over the two years.
  Miss Herbison: The right hon. Gentleman now says that the information he has is that at least one local authority association agreed. That is quite different from what is stated in his Report.
  Mr. Maclay: I did not say that only one agreed. They all agreed, according to my information. I was merely indicating that I happen to have in front of me information relating to the association which took the trouble to express its actual satisfaction about the way in which the matter had been proceeded with. It was the County Councils' Association. I have no reason to believe
  1352
  that any other local authority association was disgruntled at the result.
  Mr. Gourlay: The right hon. Gentleman said that discussions took place between his officials and the officials of local authority associations. Is it not a fact that the elected members of local authorities have not yet had an opportunity of discussing these proposals, and are, therefore, faced with a fait accompli.
  Mr. Maclay: I understand that local authority associations are so organised, by committees and delegated responsibility, that that kind of situation is fully met. The position is that we have the official agreement of local authorities to this order.
  I now turn to Section 2 (2) of the Local Government and Miscellaneous Financial Provisions (Scotland) Act. Many questions have been based this afternoon upon the view that we are working under Section 2 (1), but we are not; the relevant provisions are contained in subsection (2). Some hon. Members asked why paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (1) were not dealt with. This is a Section 2 (2) operation, and that subsection states
  "If it appears to the Secretary of State that during any grant period any unforeseen increase …"
  We are not dealing with the normal fixing of grants under subsection (1), but with the exceptional conditions that arise under subsection (2). That answers many questions, but I shall see if I can deal with some others in greater detail.
  The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay), in a well-informed and interesting speech, raised the question of education services. The answer is that in making our original determinations for the first two years certain progress was visualised in advance and the first General Grant Order, made in 1958 and fixing the grant for 1959–60 and 1960–61, took account of the likely trends in expenditure, including educational trends. I seem to remember that at that time a good deal of favourable comment was made about our having envisaged these trends. The relevant expenditure in 1959–60 was £80,234,000 and in 1960–61 it was £83,285,000.
  I found it difficult to follow the detailed figures given by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), but I suspect that he was adding in some

  1353
  capital figures as well as current expenditure figures. Before I could understand what he was talking about it would mean my sitting with him, with a cold towel round my head at least.
  Mr. McInnes: I clearly stated that I was dealing with the gross revenue expenditure, as revealed in the Municipal Treasurers' Annual Review.
  Mr. Maclay: I still should need a cold towel. Any hon. Member who has tried to deal with this subject will realise that in such circumstances a cold towel is a good thing to have about the house. I hope that what I have said answers that question of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs.
  The hon. Member also asked a question about the increase in the Bank Rate. I have some detailed figures which I shall have to discuss with the hon. Gentleman, because it is impossible to explain now that 1 per cent. is not necessarily the appropriate rate, even though it arises. That is not one of the points dealt with in this Order, which I should have thought, was obvious.
  Questions have been asked about the housing programme, but housing is not subject to General Grant and I cannot with propriety, and because of the degree of preparation which I have accorded to this debate, go into the whole detail of a housing debate. One of the fascinating things about the discussion on this Order is the interpretation put upon it, at least by some hon. Members. They seem to think that we are entitled to have a debate on everything which is happening in Scotland. But I am advised that that would not be relevant. I am trying to keep within the rules of order and I have not the slightest intention of being drawn into such a discussion. This Order has a limited purpose. It is to deal with unforeseen increases in expenditure resulting from specific pay awards.
  A number of hon. Members asked about the Mental Health (Scotland) Bill and the new services arising under it. The expected increase in local government expenditure on mental health will be taken into account in fixing the General Grant for 1961–62 and later years. Obviously, we cannot anticipate legislation, but that is one matter which can come under consideration as relevant expenditure. I cannot forecast exactly
  1354
  what will happen, but it will be considered.
  The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) produced a stream of questions. The hon. Gentleman's passion for information is admirable, but I cannot always meet it in its full glory. He asked about nurses—
  Mr. Manuel: Not nurses.
  Mr. Maclay: Yes, the hon. Member asked about nurses and I am jolly well going to answer him about nurses. He talked about nurses and allied staff.
  Mr. Manuel: Yes, allied staff.
  Mr. Maclay: The point is that "nurses and allied staff" is a technical term for one grade which I understand comes under the Whitley procedure. I think that the hon. Member will realise that it has nothing to do with the hospital service, it is a local authority matter.
  Mr. Manuel: But nursery nurses—
  Mr. Maclay: The point is that these nurses come under the local authorities.
  One or two hon. Members asked about roads—
  Mr. Manuel: The right hon. Gentleman is making it appear that I have very little knowledge of the nursing staffs being covered by the National Health Service. I was referring to nursery nurses and not to nurses as such.
  Mr. Maclay: I am sorry. I misunderstood the hon. Member. I thought that he was straying from one type of service to another, but now it is quite clear to me.
  Road expenditure attracts specific grants and I do not think that we can consider that in the context of this Order. The point is that this Order takes account of specific payments which were not expected when the first settlement was made and, therefore, the provisions of Section 2 (2) come into operation. There has been no similar change in respect of full-time firemen—
  Mr. Manuel rose—
  Mr. Maclay: I am sorry. I cannot give way. If I give way so often I shall never be able to deal with the other questions.
  Mr. Manuel: But this is important. I am deeply grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene again. There have been representations made to many hon. Members on this question. Does the Secretary of State anticipate that over the next two years he will not have to face the question of pay awards for firemen in Scotland? If he does, he is completely out of touch with the situation.
  Mr. Maclay: It would be quite wrong for me to comment on that on this occasion, because it is irrelevant. I cannot foresee what will happen and, therefore, I cannot put these matters into this Order. We are dealing with pay awards which have been made in the past.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) referred to the problems of Caithness. The distribution of the General Grant between counties was carefully worked out by a working party which included local authority representatives. It was recognised that there would be gainers and losers and the transitional arrangements were introduced to help the losers. It is clear from the House of Commons Paper that those gains and losses were to be calculated with reference to a year about which full information was available, and 1957–58 was the year specified by the Act.
  The gains and losses are the difference between the sums which individual authorities received in that year by way of Government grant and what they would have received under the General Grant and other changes in the Act if they had applied in that year. I am sorry that if any statements made either by myself or my colleagues have been misunderstood on the point. All such statements were made on the assumption that they referred to gains and losses as defined by the Bill.
  It has been suggested that the distribution formula is unfair to certain counties, including Caithness. The distribution formula cannot be changed without legislation and it should not be condemned on the experience of one year. We are bound to review the transitional arrangements when changes in the 1961 revaluation become apparent, and to review the equalisation grant arrangements before 1963. It would be possible to examine the distribution formula in the light of that review.
  1356
  The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) opened his speech in a surprising way, but he soon fetched up more or less in his usual form. He started by saying that he positively welcomed this
  Mr. Ross: No.
  Mr. Maclay: It was very unexpected, but the hon. Member started by being positively enthusiastic. He then went on to complain of a very curious thing. He complained that we were actually implementing the provisions of the Act. Some other hon. Members expressed surprise about that, but the hon. Member for Kilmarnock complained about it. When we drafted the legislation we foresaw that at any given moment there would be things happening which would increase expenditure, salary awards, and so on, which were not foresee-able. Therefore, we included this Section and now we are implementing it.
  We are fulfilling the promises we made at the time when the legislation was going through the House which I think is to our credit and I do not consider that anyone can complain about that. I am glad that some hon. Members appreciated that all the horrible warnings given when the legislation was going through have proved to be wrong.
  The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) asked detailed questions about education. I do not think that it would be proper for me to go into the question of efforts to attract teachers and similar matters. The right hon. Gentleman asked a hypothetical question. He asked whether, if there was a special bonus payment for Glasgow, it would be included. It is an unforeseeable possibility and I should not like now to forecast what precise extra charges or costs could come under the provisions of Section 2 (2). It will be seen from the Order now before the House that we are rather broad in our interpretation, and that we have gone rather wide in what we are trying to do to implement the whole spirit of Section 2 (2).
  Mr. Woodburn: The right hon. Gentleman has not mentioned whether these provisions are retrospective to give cover to the beginning of these payments, or whether, in the interval, the local authorities will have to bear the cost until the Order goes through.
  Mr. Maclay: I am sorry that I missed that point, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that they are retrospective. In fact, in some cases they go back to before the original general grant in tidying up some of the things which were not foreseeable, and this is made retrospective. I am quite sure that I am right about this, but if I should be wrong, I will write to hon. Members. It may be that I have put it in a rather sweeping way, but I am certain that we are making it retrospective, so that there will not be the gap about which hon. Members have been anxious.
  I have answered quite a number of questions, and I hope that the House will now agree to the Order.
  Mr. Ross: I asked the right hon. Gentleman a question about local government officers.
  Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member has interrupted me again, when I was just finishing and was asking the House to accept the Order. I have forgotten what it was that the hon. Gentleman asked me, but perhaps he will speak to me, write to me, or ask his question again. I now commend the Order to the House.
  Mr. Gourlay: Before the Minister sits down—
  Mr. Speaker: I understand that the Minister has sat down, and that he is not sitting down in the sense of permitting an intervention.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the General Grant (Increase) (Scotland) Order, 1960, dated 28th January, 1960, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.

  OFFICES [MONEY]
  [Queen's Recommendation signified.]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).
  [SIR GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further and better provisions for health, welfare and safety in offices, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums payable by way of Rate-deficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland.—[Sir E. Boyle.]
  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND
  Ordered,
  That one-tenth of the sums deducted or set aside in the current year from the salaries of Members of Parliament under Section one of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act, 1939, and one-tenth of the contribution determined by the Treasury for the current year under Section one of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act, 1957, be appropriated for the purposes of Section four of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act, 1948.—[Mr. J. Griffiths.]

  SCOTLAND (BARLINNIE PRISON)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooman-White.]
  7.5 p.m.
  Mr. William Reid. I rise to call the attention of this House to the state of affairs at Barlinnie Prison, Glasgow. This prison is situated in my constituency of Provan. Since the beginning of the year, I have received a large number of complaints—(1) allegations of ill-treatment of prisoners; (2) the treatment of a prisoner, one of my constituents, who wished to write to me; (3) the concern of my constituents living in the vicinity of this prison about risks from escapes.
  Since the beginning of the year, the happenings at this prison, as reported in the Press, have been astounding—hooch parties, riots, sabotage, assaults, smuggling of whisky, smuggling of cigarettes, and even a plot to murder the governor. This state of affairs is a blot on the fair name of our city and a challenge to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland to take immediate steps to deal with the unsatisfactory state of affairs existing at this prison. The Secretary of State has gone elaborately into these allegations, and I wish to take this opportunity of congratulating him on issuing such an honest and straightforward reply. That reply confirms all the allegations which I have made, although we may differ as to the deductions to be drawn from these facts.
  The most serious complaint of all is the one sent to me by a prisoner who is one of my constituents. He made a complaint to me in writing and handed it over to the governor to send on to me as his Parliamentary representative, but that letter never reached me. It was suppressed by the governor. Not only that, but the man was punished for writing it by being put into solitary confinement for six days. These facts have been admitted by the Secretary of State. When I read these admissions, I could scarcely believe the evidence of my eyes. Did anyone in this House ever believe that such a state of affairs—dictatorship in its vilest form—could exist in the greatest democracy the world has ever known? Every citizen in this country
  1360
  has a constitutional right to complain to his Member of Parliament regarding legitimate grievances, but the Governor of Barlinnie says, "Not if I can stop it."
  It is alleged that the prisoner, when in solitary confinement, broke all his cell windows. Is it surprising that such a prisoner, being so brutally treated, should go berserk? No one in this House has a greater respect for law and authority than I, but I take the view that prison should be a place for reformation as well as for punishment. Good government should see to it that prisoners are treated with kindness as well as firmness so that when they leave prison they do so determined to go straight and become honest members of society.
  One thousand prisoners were confined in their cells for six days in succession. The official reply to this allegation is, "Nothing unusual has taken place". These facts demand an immediate public inquiry into the management and control of this public institution. This prison has outlived its usefulness. It was built eighty-two years ago. When it was built it was out in the country. Now it is surrounded by housing schemes. The inhabitants of those houses are seriously concerned about the happenings there and the possibility of escapes.
  I suggest to the Secretary of State that he should agree to the early demolition of this prison. It is now too old to modernise and bring up-to-date. The ground would be eagerly snapped up by Glasgow Corporation on which to build houses in an area where there is a clamant need for them. A new prison could then be built in some country district far removed from this great city's teeming population. I seriously and strongly appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to agree to a public inquiry to dispel the fears and anxieties of a great mass of our city's population.
  There is one other constitutional point that I wish to put to you, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a breach of Privilege for a governor of one of Her Majesty's prisons to retain, suppress and confiscate a letter handed over to him by a convict to send to his own Member of Parliament? Should this matter not be reported immediately to the Law Officers of the Crown?
  Mr. Speaker: The concluding words of the hon. Member appear to be

  1361
  addressed to me. I do not think it would be right to take up the time of the House about it now because, if a matter of Parliamentary Privilege were to arise on the matter he raises, he will appreciate that he is speaking of something which happened some time ago—this alleged suppression of a letter. Therefore, from my point of view the matter would not have been raised at the first possible opportunity.
  7.14 p.m.
  Mr. A. Woodburn: I understand that the procedure is that a prisoner is entitled to ask for a form so that he can write a letter. I understand that he cannot send that letter to the Secretary of State or to anyone outside without it being censored by the governor. If that is the case, is there not sufficient control over the letters without the governor having the power to prevent that letter coming beyond the Secretary of State to the Member of Parliament?
  I think that this point was raised some years ago by Mr. McGovern, who used to be a Member of this House and who had some problems about Peterhead. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. W. Reid) is raising a much bigger question about this prison tonight.
  I went to Polmont when I was P.P.S. to Mr. Tom Johnston, to look at what was happening there, where people were to be reformed. At that time there was a great deal of violence taking place among the prisoners. I was of the opinion, having some knowledge of the subject, that shutting up these virile young men in cells at five o'clock at night automatically raised resentment and left them for long evenings to do nothing but nurse grievances.
  I suggested at that time that their energy ought to be used in something else, that their cells ought to be opened and physical recreation and other education provided, and that they should be treated as human beings so that when they came out they would at least have been acclimatised to behaving properly. When they were under control they could be educated to proper behaviour, because many of them were like children.
  These reforms were carried out and I am very glad that they have been extended. I was also anxious, when I
  1362
  had the responsibilities which the Secretary of State now has, to try to get some of these reforms introduced into the prisons themselves. I am very glad that some of the governors were anticipating this by allowing people to engage in normal work. In Perth Prison, at that time, many prisoners were allowed to go out and work in the open country, under guidance, on parole. To a large extent that was successful. Since then the right hon. Gentleman has inaugurated an open prison in Kirkcudbrightshire. I understand that that has been quite successful so far as it has gone.
  I believe that the time is coming when much more of this must be done. If people are shut up in cages they develop all sorts of grievances against society and against the warders. Bad blood develops and the kind of violence which my hon. Friend has explained often results. Sometimes a prisoner and a warder become positive enemies, just because they get on each other's nerves. A great deal of the violence my hon. Friend has mentioned arises simply because of this solitary confinement and because of the conditions inside prisons of that kind. One of these days the Secretary of State ought to make a policy statement about the general development of prisons.
  There is nothing like fresh air for getting rid of bad blood. I agree with what my hon. Friend said. It would be much better if we got prisoners away to one of the islands off the West Coast that are used for sporting purposes. There they could engage in open air work and do something to restore the land to its proper use. It would be a civilising medium for many of these prisoners. Many of them have been brought up in slums and have had no experience of the countryside and fresh air.
  Many years ago my German professor used to tell me how the Germans had been working on this problem. I was anxious to see if we could adopt something of the same kind. They built a house for the prisoners, who reclaimed land from peat. After they had reclaimed the land the house which the prisoners had built became a farmhouse and the land became a farm. The prisoners moved on to reclaim more land. We have a great deal of land of that type in Scotland and methods of reclaiming it have been found. If the prisoners could be out doing a useful job such as this.

  1363
  instead of being shut in prison, many of the episodes and incidents to which my hon. Friend referred might be avoided.
  In addition, there ought to be some selection of prisoners. Obviously, they are not all criminals. People who are sent to prison for some offences are never likely to be violent. They will accept their punishment. That is the type of man who is being moved to an open prison. There ought to be more accommodation of that kind, and many of these out-of-date institutions ought to be closed. It would be a great step if this institution were taken at least some distance out of Glasgow. The only difficulty is that my hon. Friend might find that the relatives who want to visit their sons and husbands in prison would find it inconvenient to travel to the Western Isles, but whether that would not be an additional reason for taking the prisoners to the Western Isles is a matter for consideration.
  Our prisons are not in a good condition. We have seen many escapes, both in England and in Scotland. The warders' conditions have a little to do with this, and there may be a shortage of warders. Has the Minister sufficient warders? Is he getting the right type of people to be warders? Is he giving them the necessary remuneration to compensate them for being themselves virtually prisoners? When a warder is in prison he is almost as much a prisoner as the criminal himself.
  Conditions ought to be such that these people can live in a certain amount of good will, because if enmity develops then danger results and anything may spark off a tragedy in prison which everyone would regret. I hope that the Secretary of State will go beyond explaining the details of the Barlinnie incidents and will tell us whether he has any positive reforms to propose, or whether he is considering any positive reforms, to bring about a better state of affairs.
  7.23 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I understand very well the very proper concern of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. W. Reid) about what has been happening in Barlinnie, and I appreciate the way in which he put the matter before the House. I am, however, anxious to keep
  1364
  this matter in its proper perspective, because it can get a little out of perspective if we do not try to explain in a little detail what happened, what led up to it and what is the position today. I hope, therefore, that the House will forgive me if I seek to cover a certain width of ground, which I think will meet some of the points made by the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn).
  I do not propose to devote much time to the incidents at Barlinnie in the New Year, because when I wrote to the hon. Member on 3rd February I set them out in considerable detail, and I understand that, with his agreement and mine, that letter received considerable publicity. What I had written to him became common knowledge.
  Summarising what happened, there was a group of incidents over the New Year period which began with the insertion of shirt buttons into the locks on cell doors. As far as I can guess—and this has been said on a television programme by somebody who is in a position to know, although I do not know whether the hon. Member saw the programme—this was probably intended as a Hogmanay prank. It started like that. After prisoners whose cells were thus put out of use had been allocated to others, there were two disturbances, but the normal running of the prison was resumed on 4th January and eleven prisoners were awarded punishments, ten of them by the Disciplinary Sub-Committee of the Visiting Committee. The other one was dealt with by the Governor.
  Between 25th and 27th January there were further disturbances and demonstrations; and communal dining, working and recreation were suspended for the majority of prisoners on 28th January. Normal routine was restored again by 4th February. Hon. Members will realise that the suspension of communal activities may well be necessary for the good running of the prison when there is unrest among prisoners. It is obvious that the inhabitants of Barlinnie are by their nature not the most law-abiding of our citizens in Scotland.
  Three prisoners were punished, all by the visiting committee, in connection with these incidents. Another man, who has been transferred to Aberdeen Prison

  1365
  on route to Peterhead, has appeared before the visiting committee there and has been awarded punishment.
  The point which I wish to make is that although there have been disturbances, only a very small minority of the prison's population of 1,100 were involved and only fifteen prisoners were put on a disciplinary charge. Step have, of course, been taken to make some of the things which were done, such as interfering with the lights, more difficult in future. As I have stated, certain prisoners have been awarded punishments by the disciplinary subcommittee of the visiting committee.
  Mr. George Lawson: The right hon. Member speaks of punishments being "awarded". It is rather strange that prisoners should be "awarded" punishment. Surely punishment is inflicted?
  Mr. Maclay: I should not like to argue a point of wording. "Awarding" punishment is a phrase which I have known all my life, certainly since it was awarded to me good and hard. I think it is a normal phrase.
  Certain prisoners have been awarded punishments—I think "inflicted" has a different meaning—by the disciplinary sub-committee of the visiting committee. Perhaps I should make it clear that the full committee consists of thirty-eight members appointed by twenty-nine local authorities with, in addition, two ladies appointed by myself. I will repeat that because it is very important to realise what the visiting committee is. There are thirty-eight members appointed by twenty-nine different local authorities plus, at the moment, the two ladies I have mentioned. The hon. Member for Provan has served on this Committee in the past, I think, and certainly the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), who is not in his place, has served on it.
  The full committee is meeting later this month to consider reports by the sub-committee, and I have asked it to report to me on the general situation in the prison as disclosed by these incidents. I shall be very glad to tell the House the Committee's conclusions if the hon. Member will put down a Question in a week or two. Perhaps I can discuss that with him. It might
  1366
  also help if I reminded the House of the statutory rules.
  Mr. Woodburn: It might be difficult to obtain evidence from people who are still in prison. Would it not be a good idea to find out from some people who have been there, ex-consumers, so to speak, what they think about the prison and whether there are things which ought to be put right?
  Mr. Maclay: I think that it is better for me to await what I shall learn from the visiting committee before making any comment or giving any indication of what I might do afterwards.
  It might help the House if I reminded hon. Members of the statutory rules, approved by Parliament, under which the visiting committee works. I am doing this deliberately because I feel that the visiting committee's part in these matters, probably inadvertently, has been denigrated in recent weeks. It is a very important body drawn from a very wide selection of local authorities and from men of the highest integrity. They are doing a difficult job only because they know that it must be done. They are completely dispassionate in their approach to the problem.
  The Prison (Scotland) Rules, 1952, provide that the governor may, with the Secretary of State's approval, report serious offences against prison discipline to the visiting committee, and that the visiting commitee may, if it wishes, delegate the duty of hearing them to a sub-committee. The Barlinnie visiting committee has a disciplinary sub-committee by which the cases arising this year have been heard. The governor may be present to explain the charge against the prisoner or, as sometimes happens, to give information about his record, which may well be in the prisoner's favour and need not necessarily be the other way. The governor attends, however, only by the permission of the committee, and the committee can ask him to withdraw at any time.
  I have dealt with this point, although it was not raised by the hon. Member, because there has been some discussion whether the governor should be present on these occasions. I repeat that the governor attends only by permission of the committee and that the committee can ask him to withdraw at any time.

  1367
  This applies equally if the committee is hearing a prisoner's complaint against a member of the staff. The Rules provide that the visiting committee
  "shall have free access … to all prisoners and may see any such prisoners as they desire, either in their cells or in a room out of sight and hearing of prison officers".
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned a matter which is causing considerable concern, namely, the arrangements governing the writing of letters by prisoners to Members of Parliament. The prison Standing Orders on this subject provide as follows:
  "Complaints about prison treatment in letters to Members of Parliament will not be allowed unless the prisoner has already exercised his right of making his complaint through the appointed channels, that is, by seeing a member of the Visiting Committee, or petitioning that Committee, and/or petitioning the Secretary of State. So long as a petition about prison treatment is outstanding he will not be allowed to write about the same matter in a letter to a Member of Parliament."
  The principle behind this Standing Order was adopted over ten years ago and was explained to the House by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) on 29th July, 1949. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I quote his words, because what he said is very relevant.
  Mr. Ede: It is on the record.
  Mr. Maclay: I wondered if the right hon. Gentleman could bear to hear it again.
  Mr. Ede: It was phrased in the way it was partly to protect Members of Parliament as well as prisoners.
  Mr. Maclay: In explaining the arrangements which are now followed the right hon. Member said:
  "… if a prisoner is to be allowed to use a letter to a Member of Parliament for the purpose of making complaints about his treatment, which he would not be allowed to make in an ordinary letter, and which he has never made to the prison authorities"—
  that is the important point—
  "the result would be that a prisoner could by-pass the appointed channels for the investigation of such complaints, and could make with impunity the most malicious and unfounded allegations against particular officers. This seems to be most undesirable and likely eventually to undermine the authority of the Visiting Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1949; Vol. 467. c. 182.]
  1368
  The question of prisoners' letters to hon. Members has subsequently been raised in the House, I think on four occasions. To quote only one of these, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary stated on 21st November, 1957, that he saw no reason to depart from the judgment of the right hon. Member for South Shields in this matter. I have looked at it afresh in the light of what has been going on, and I confess that I still think that this is the right conclusion to reach.
  I must admit that Barlinnie, like nearly all prisons, is at present overcrowded. The prison has accommodation for 969 male prisoners in single cells, but a few larger rooms of varying size can be used. About two years ago the number of admissions rose sharply and has since remained at a level much higher than for many years. The highest figure we reached was 1,215 a year ago today. At present the population is kept at a fairly constant level of about 1,100. We have got it down, but I do not deny that the prison is still overcrowded. Overcrowding has been alleviated to some extent by the reconditioning in 1959 of a hall at Perth Prison to which groups of prisoners who would normally be retained in Barlinnie are transferred as necessary. The position should be further improved once a hall of about 130 cells at Peterhead Prison, disused for many years, is reconditioned and brought into operation. That is hoped to be towards the end of this year.
  Another way of relieving pressure is to keep offenders out of prison altogether. In this way the construction within the next few years of a remand centre for young people and a remand prison for persons awaiting trial or sentence should further ease the position. Plans for these establishments are now in preparation, and a site is under consideration. As I said in reply to a Question yesterday, the Scottish Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders has been considering the questions of short terms of imprisonment and custodial sentences on young offenders, and its reports will be published as soon as possible. I assure the House that we think ahead the whole time on this problem.
  The fact is that there was one of these periodic waves in crime which seem to

  1369
  happen. We are all struggling desperately to discover why they happen and to ensure that they do not happen again. There are signs that at the moment we are at least on a plateau. The trend is not rising. We have steadied it. We hope that we shall begin to see signs of a fall, but it is very difficult to forecast.
  Although the overcrowding at Barlinnie will be relieved in the ways I have described, I cannot contemplate closing the prison in the near future. I understand very well that householders near Barlinnie should feel some apprehensions about their large neighbour, but I am sure that so far there is no evidence that there is any real cause for alarm. As I said in my letter to the hon. Gentleman, at no time during last month's incidents was the security of the prison in danger, and, although there have been seven escapes from Barlinnie during the past three years, including the man who absconded last month and gave himself up the same day, there is no record during this period of any prisoner escaping from Barlinnie having attempted to break into any of the private houses in the neighbourhood.
  I do not think that the hon. Gentleman tried to suggest that the discipline exercised by the governor and his staff is too strict or too lax. He did not make that point. I am not clear whether he has any charges on discipline. This is one of the questions which doubtless the visiting committee will examine when it meets at Barlinnie later this month. I am sure that the House will agree with me that the task of maintaining good order in a penal establishment on the basis of humane treatment is very difficult and that prison governors and prison officers of all ranks deserve all the support that hon. Members can give them in doing their duty in accordance with the high standards expected of them. I am therefore very glad to be able to assure the House that the reports made by members of the visiting committee after each of twenty visits to Barlinnie last year are uniformly good, and that the last one dated 23rd December explicitly commends the
  "satisfactory manner in which discipline was maintained, and the efficiency and courtesy of the administration."
  It is only right to put that on record.
  I should not like to end without recalling the aims which guide the staff in its
  1370
  treatment of prisoners. Rule 5 of the Prison (Scotland) Rules, 1952 says:
  "… the purposes of training and treatment of convicted prisoners shall be to establish in them the will to lead a good and useful life on discharge, and to fit them to do so".
  The object is to inculcate habits of personal hygiene and steady application to work, and, by providing opportunity for prisoners to mix together for a large part of the day while at work, at meals and during leisure time, to instil a sense of self-discipline and responsibility towards their fellows. I hope that the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire will feel that we have the same objectives in this respect as he had in his mind when he had my responsibilities.
  Every endeavour is also made to clear up, while a man is in custody, any personal or domestic difficulties which may impede his training and prospects of rehabilitation. The senior staff on the discipline side, the chaplain or visiting clergyman, the medical officers and the welfare officer are all available for approach and assistance on matters of this kind.
  I hope that the House will not feel that I am ranging too wide, but it seemed to me to be essential on this occasion to put the whole matter in perspective—not to shirk any of the incidents which have occurred, but to try to explain what we are doing. All this work is done by an adequate but not excessive number of staff, who depend not on rigorous supervision but mainly on moral influence. The right hon. Gentleman asked me if this was a problem of staffing. I am advised that it is not and that the prison is up to establishment. I have been able to visit several prisons during my term of office, and I have always been extremely impressed by the very fine quality of the prison officers I have met on these occasions. That has been universal whenever I have visited prisons.
  As the prison staff work so much by way of moral influence and not of repression or with excessive numbers, it is not surprising that they have to face disturbances or New Year pranks of this kind. It is also not surprising if discharged prisoners sometimes take exaggerated reports of such doings out of the prison and give them to the Press. I think that we should keep our eyes not on these incidents, but on the wider objectives of

  1371
  criminal justice. I know that it is not easy to do so, particularly for the daily Press which must be interested above all in news. At the same time, I acknowledge that on occasions the Press has been very helpful indeed. I give as an instance the articles published by the Scotsman last month on the open prison at Penninghame. They were a very useful contribution towards explaining what we are all trying to do.
  It is at Penninghame that we see the last stage of "training for freedom" for selected prisoners. Frankly, this is the object of all prison administration; to train the offender so that he will use his freedom, when he regains it, for the good of society. It is one to which the Government intend to give continuing attention, both in the running of the prisons and other institutions and in examination of the causes of crime and the best ways of treating it.
  I am glad that the hon. Member for Provan (Mr. Reid) has raised this subject, and I hope that he will feel that I have tried to deal frankly with the points he has raised.
  7.40 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: The Secretary of State for Scotland quoted from words I used in 1949 in defence of the policy which I, in conjunction with the then Secretary of State for Scotland, adopted when we had this similar trouble about letters from prisoners to Members of Parliament. There is no need for me to attempt to amend any of the statements I then made because, as I said when interrupting the right hon. Gentleman tonight, it is sometimes as necessary to protect Members of Parliament from undue correspondence on these matters as it is to watch the interests of the prisoner.
  From what the right hon. Gentleman said, I gather that if any letter was suppressed in this case it was because it was written, as one might say, prematurely, that is to say, before the channels open inside the prison had been used to attempt to secure redress. It is important that that should always be clearly understood. It should be clearly understood that no offence is committed by the prisoner if, after having exhausted all those opportunities, he still feels that he has a genuine grievance.
  1372
  No proceedings will be taken against the man who, having exhausted what one might call the internal facilities, desires to use his Member of Parliament to ensure that he shall not be unjustly treated, if the Secretary of State believes that there has been some failure in the action of the visiting committee.
  That is making no criticism of visiting committees. They are exceedingly conscientious and public-spirited people who, in my experience, do a very great deal toward seeing that justice is done within the scope of the prison regulations. We all know that most of us desire law for other people but justice for ourselves—and sometimes we are very lucky when we escape getting what we wish for.
  I join with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) in what he said about the future of prison life, and the opportunities for making it more suitable for enabling men who have been sentenced to prison to get out of their experiences a sense of personal responsibility for their lives. The most depressing thing in what the Secretary of State has said this evening is that he is bringing back into use some of the accommodation in Peterhead that has been out of use for a considerable number of years—
  Mr. Maclay: I may say that it will be very much improved.
  Mr. Ede: And it can do with it.
  I am quite sure that all who have been actively associated with these responsibilities realise how much we are hampered by the fact that, in the main, we have to use buildings that were constructed when the whole attitude towards imprisonment was different from what it is today. I hoped very much that before I left office Dartmoor would be a thing of the past. I understand that there are now proposals by which it is hoped that the present Dartmoor Prison will be discontinued.
  My right hon. Friend spoke of prisons being put in the country. There is much to be said for that, but staffing problems become much more acute once we get our prisons in the country. The prison officers, their wives and children are put in positions that very often make their social life very difficult to maintain. I

  1373
  once visited Dartmoor Prison unexpectedly. I took good care that I got there before news of my being in the neighbourhood spread around. When I presented myself at the door of the prison and said who I was, the gentleman who looked at me through the wicket gate said, "Oh yes?"
  I there had an interview with officials of the Prison Officers' Association. To be eight miles from a doctor and for one's children, if over 11 years of age, to have to go at least that distance to get a secondary education, is imposing on these people conditions that make men reluctant to go there, or to serve there for very long. I sincerely hope that the Home Secretary will be able to find some site other than Dartmoor for the security prison that will have to replace the present building.
  I join with my right hon. Friend in expressing the hope that more employment may be provided from which the prisoner can get satisfaction; that the work shall not consist merely of routine jobs that are obviously made so that the person shall be doing something rather than doing nothing. When I visited Dartmoor I saw six men doing an obviously made-up job because I was there. I said, "If I were not here, those six men would be doing nothing. Let them go and do it as well as they would have done it had I not been here".
  Perhaps the House will allow me to give an example of what can be done to give men the sort of job from which those who have had no great skilled training in any occupation outside of prison can get some satisfaction, and realise that there is some satisfaction to be got out of a useful job. Hon. Members will recollect that towards the end of the war there was an explosion in an underground arsenal that had been constructed near Burton-on-Trent. The explosion was very violent, there was considerable loss of life, and the whole surface of the earth round about was so disturbed as to be rendered quite useless for most ordinary purposes.
  The then governor of Stafford Gaol thought that this would be a good opportunity for outside work for his prisoners, and sent a small party of, I think, fourteen men. They lived on an antiaircraft site in three huts that had been used by the Army. They were there for nearly two years. Of those men, thirteen
  1374
  had been unskilled labourers, and the other man was a draughtsman—not a Parliamentary draftsman, but an architectural draughtsman. He drew a plan of the site as it was, another plan of the site as it was to be when the job was completed, with the terrain restored to its proper use, the roads reinstated, the houses rebuilt, the trees planted and all the rest. At the end of each week he brought the second plan up to date, so that the men could see how they were working towards the end that had been designed for the place.
  The greatest difficulty of this experiment was that local people taking an interest in it would break the rules by presenting the prisoners with tobacco. There are occasions when Lord Nelson's principle of turning a blind eye has to be adopted in circumstances which one would not be able to defend in this House, but which one would be able to defend if one were before an even greater tribunal than this one. During the whole of that time, although the men could walk out of the site at any moment, only one man tried to escape and that was in the first fortnight before the experiment really started.
  I wish that the Prison Commissioners were able to find similar opportunities in which work that produces results that men can see from the beginning towards the calculated end could be made more plentiful for these men. I am quite sure that it is that sort of thing which has the best reformative effect upon many people who, for one reason or another, have never had the opportunity of getting into that frame of mind when they are dealing with their own problems.
  I understand that, in conjunction with the Home Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland is considering the whole question of penology and the surroundings of crime in this modern, affluent society, as we call it. I hope that they will be able to get from their colleagues the appropriate buildings in which to house people and get the appropriate staff. I am quite sure that there is nothing more likely to bring people into this service than the belief that, if they give their life to this work as a vocation, the surroundings in which they have to do their work will be brought up to date.
  We have to face the fact that there has been no great building of prisons

  1375
  during the last fifty years, that our ideas regarding the treatment to be given to people have changed and that the standard of education of the least educated people who get into prison is very much better than it was 100 years ago before, in the case of England, compulsory education had been adopted by the State.
  If there is one part of our social services which needs an enlightened view to be taken of the service itself and of the buildings in which it is conducted, it is the Prison Service. I wish the right hon. Gentleman and the Home Secretary every success in their efforts to enable that state of affairs to be brought about.

  SCOTLAND (ROAD PROGRAMME)
  7.55 p.m.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: It is rather fortunate that we finished the last Adjournment debate so early because, with Scottish Ministers present, it allows a number of hon. Members, including myself, to raise a matter about which, when we saw that the previous Adjournment debate was likely to end, we gave some notice to the Government Whip. We hope that the Minister will listen to what we have to say. We do not expect that he will be able to reply in detail because we appreciate that he has not had time to prepare a reply. At least, he may be able to give us some information about what is happening.
  The subject which we want to raise is the present road programme in Scotland, the progress that is being made with it, and the effects of some of the more recent happenings in Scotland on that programme. We are proceeding with the building of the Forth Road Bridge and, as far as I know, the work on that bridge is up to schedule. The Government have decided to build after that the Tay Road Bridge. There is a fair amount of concern as to whether or no the Government will in fact have built an adequate approach road system to the Forth Road Bridge by the time it is completed. I have tried to follow the Government's plans and I am bound to say that I do not know the answer to that.
  At present the Government do not seem to be pushing on very quickly with the making of the A.1 into an adequate
  1376
  road. If we regard that as one of the main approaches we have to ask ourselves a number of questions. I remember when you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I may say this, raised very often the question of the Dunbar by-pass. In connection with the A.1 trunk road coming from the north-east, which is the road most used during the winter, there is no doubt that that bypass is not good enough. That can be said of part of the road as it goes through Berwick.
  When we come nearer to Edinburgh, the general proposition is that we should have a ring road around Mussel-burgh and Edinburgh. I was particularly disappointed yesterday to learn from the Joint Under-Secretary that this proposed ring road was at present only a line on a proposed development plan which had not even been approved by the Secretary of State. This is too bad. If I may say a word about part of my own constituency first, Musselburgh—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Austruther-Gray): Order. The hon. Member mentioned his own constituency and he is, of course, quite in order, as he and the House know, in raising any subject on the Adjournment. He made the point that he had warned the Minister that he intended to raise this matter, but I think it right to point out to the House from the Chair that these unexpected subjects raised on the Adjournment without warning to other hon. Members may be a little unfair to hon. Members whose constituencies may be affected, but who have had no notice of the subject coming up for debate and, therefore, are unable to make a contribution. I put that point to the House because I think that it is my duty to do so.
  Mr. Willis: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for saying that. I quite appreciate that there is a certain suddenness in this matter, and it might appear to be unfair. I certainly do not wish to be unfair to anyone. The opportunity has occurred tonight, and the subject I am raising is an important one about which many people are concerned. There has been much correspondence and many articles in the Press about it and it has been the subject of discussion within local authorities and between the various local authorities concerned. I

  1377
  felt that the opportunity should be taken to say something about it. Once again, I say that I have no desire to be unfair. I have no doubt that others would have something to say in pressing the needs of their constituencies, although they might not, perhaps, say exactly what I have in mind.
  To return to the subject of the ring road, the roundabout at Wallyford has now been completed. In passing, I must say that the very high wall which has been built around it does not meet with much approval. It obscures the view and makes driving round the roundabout rather hazardous, because one has no idea what other traffic is coming round. But that roundabout has been completed now, and we want the proposed by-pass for Musselburgh.
  In Musselburgh itself, everyone is greatly concerned at the increasing volume of traffic along the high street. I understand that the Musselburgh Council has put this matter to the Secretary of State and urged the need to proceed with the by-pass. This is something which has been discussed for a great many years. I raised it myself, I think, as long as five or six years ago during private Members' time one Friday. The by-pass should be linked to a ring road around Edinburgh so that the traffic which might be expected as a result of the opening of the Forth Road Bridge does not all have to come through Edinburgh.
  We already have serious traffic problems in Edinburgh. Indeed, they have led to a very peculiar thing happening in one of the most beautiful squares in the city, Charlotte Square. The main road has been lowered several feet below the pavements there because the corporation wanted to make sure that the heavy traffic which was to be expected around the square would not endanger the foundations of property on the north side. I do not profess to be an expert on these matters, but I am bound to say, judging by the results, that that seems to have been an act of vandalism in the square.
  The traffic problems of Edinburgh are becoming worse every day as the volume of traffic coming into and passing through Edinburgh increases. We do not want added to this all the additional volume of traffic which may be expected to use the A.1 in order to reach the Forth
  1378
  Road Bridge. We want a ring road around Edinburgh for that purpose. Also, we want a ring road to gather up the other roads which come into Edinburgh and to divert traffic making for the Forth Road Bridge. The A.68 which comes down from Dalkeith is another way across the Border from Newcastle. It does not quite come into my constituency, but it is on the borders of it. This road, again, comes into a crowded part of Edinburgh. All round Edinburgh one finds roads which come in at very awkward places.
  The Government ought to be making plans to make the way clear for what is likely to happen. At Bathgate, West Lothian, there is to be a big industrial development, and this development is expected to lead to a great increase in the use of the roads. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor) has already raised the question whether the present A.8 from Glasgow to Edinburgh should be a dual carriageway road. Alongside the A.8, on the verges, there is a considerable amount of land. I am not an engineer and I do not know about these things, but I imagine that, although a substantial sum might have been involved, it would not have cost so very much to have made the A.8 a dual carriageway road. Accidents happen upon it. Three-lane roads usually tend to be rather dangerous because of the manner in which people use the centre lane.
  What is happening in central Scotland indicates that there will be a very great increase of traffic, particularly industrial traffic. Industrial traffic, of course, even more than private motoring traffic, demands better roads, because of its weight and size. The time has surely come for the Secretary of State to think seriously about the A.8.
  There are other ways in which the present road programme for Scotland is not good enough. We debated this matter in the Scottish Grand Committee last year, in July, I think it was. It was pointed out then that we had in Scotland an expenditure equivalent to the Goschen proportion of the national expenditure, that is to say, about eleven-eightieths, or whatever it is. This is really not good enough. I do not know whether the position has changed since then. After all, the land area of Scotland is two-thirds the land area of

  1379
  England and Wales, and some of the terrain is very difficult.
  We are trying to bring about a great increase in tourist traffic. Mr. Hugh Fraser and his committee are considering all sorts of plans in an effort to open up some of the areas of Scotland for more tourists. The fundamental requirement of tourism, of course, is roads, the more so when branch railway lines are being closed in the north-east of Scotland, such as the line which took traffic to Dornoch and other places. The problem is one of roads.
  I know that the Minister is doing something about certain of the roads, the road to Mallaig, for instance. What about the road to the Kyle of Lochalsh? Everyone knows that that is a disgraceful road. If we want to attract a large volume of traffic, we must do something about that.
  Whenever I speak to people in London, I say to them, "You should go to the Highlands. There is no finer scenery in the whole country, indeed in Europe." There is no need for people to flock abroad. Some people take my advice, and after they come back, I say to them, "How did you enjoy your visit?", and they have nothing but praise for the Highlands, but they always end up by saying, "But, oh, my goodness, the roads. I would not go back there again, not because of what is there, but because of the roads". Surely it is time that the right hon. Gentleman tackled this problem. In north-west Scotland, there is some of the finest scenery in the world. Is it not time that we showed far more vision and tried to make the road system adequate?
  In June and July, I suggested in the Scottish Grand Committee that what we needed was an extension of the A.9 right round the north coast of Scotland and down the west coast. I also suggested that some of the difficult crossings ought to be bridged. I should have thought that Ballachulish could have been bridged. What progress is being made with the road around Loch Carron in order to avoid the Strome Ferry?
  With the best will in the world, I say that I do not think that we are getting anywhere near our proper share of the road programme. I am convinced that if the Glasgow—Edinburgh road were
  1380
  situated in the Midlands or in the south of England, it would have been a dual carriageway years ago. No one in the south of England would tolerate such a road as the Glasgow—Edinburgh road for five minutes, and therefore we should not tolerate it. I often go to Norfolk at the weekends and motor round the rural byways, which take two lanes of traffic. When I was last in north-west Scotland I was astonished to find that single-track roads with passing places were still being made. These are main roads, not rural byways, along which we hope to invite thousands of tourists to travel. A much better and bigger road programme than we have at present is required to solve the needs of our industrial belt, of our cities, such as Edinburgh, and of the tourist trade which we are trying to build up in north Scotland.
  I apologise for having raised this subject at such short notice, but in this House one has to take the opportunities which arise. I have done that, not in an endeavour to try to score off anybody or to gain any political advantage, but because I am convinced that the vast majority of people in Scotland, whether they are motorists or pedestrians, are concerned about the roads. If they are pedestrians, they are concerned because they cannot get across the streets in Musselburgh to do their shopping. If they are motorists, they are concerned about the narrowness of the roads and the loads which are being carried. The same applies in Edinburgh, and many other places in Scotland.
  While my hon. Friends and I appreciate that the Joint Under-Secretary of State cannot answer all these points in detail, I hope that he will be able to tell us something about what is going on.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. James H. Hoy: We are indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) for raising this matter tonight. In a debate earlier this evening, I referred to the roads in the City of Edinburgh. Like most other cities, we are faced with tremendous expenditure on road renewal to carry modern traffic. This is imposing a tremendous burden on local taxpayers. I raised the matter because I thought that the Scottish Office, when considering these matters, might take into consideration the burden which

  1381
  is falling on local taxpayers. After all, if the internal roads of the city cannot cope with modern traffic, tremendous congestion will be caused throughout the country; and that would be very costly for industry.
  We all know that one of the most expensive items today is transport. The more we can facilitate the smooth flow of traffic, the better it will be for the country as a whole. Like some other cities in Scotland, we in Edinburgh have this problem, and I hope that the Scottish Office will pay attention to it. As my hon. Friend has said, a ring road round Edinburgh becomes more and more imperative. Not only the normal increase in traffic, but the development of the new Forth Road Bridge makes this matter extremely urgent. If traffic is to move, it is essential that this ring road should be provided.
  I hark back to the question of industry. If we in Scotland are to attract the industries we want to attract we must have suitable roads. I should like to mention the road between Edinburgh and Glasgow, the A.8, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor) in a Question to the Scottish Office less than a fortnight ago. I am sure you will remember, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the building of that road was promoted by the Government to alleviate the appalling unemployment which there then was in Scotland.
  It was intended, in the first place, that that road should be a dual carriageway from Edinburgh to Glasgow. Despite the endeavours of the Government to create employment, because of the outcry about cost the Government cut it down to a single track road. I am told that the original intention was to have a dual carriageway, and that there is sufficient space along the road, with very few exceptions, for a dual carriageway to be built. I should have thought that, in view of the great development in traffic, since those appalling days of unemployment a case had been made out for a dual carriageway on the A.8 between Edinburgh and Glasgow.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East said, we expect considerable industrial development along that road. If the British Motor Corporation carries out its intended development
  1382
  at Bathgate, which is only 14 miles from Edinburgh, it is essential that we should have a modern road.
  I now wish to say a word in what might be regarded as a parochial sense. If the industry is to prosper, we in Leith should obviously expect to be carrying a considerable part of the traffic which will come on to the roads as a result of the British Motor Corporation development at Bathgate. With our shipping services between Leith and Scandinavia and Leith and the Continent, we are admirably suited to carry the traffic. We have a port and the facilities to carry the traffic. However, we need roads to meet the situation.
  We raise this matter tonight in, I hope, a very constructive way. If we are to have development in Scotland, roads must be one of the top priorities. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will be able to say something about the matters that we have raised, and certainly about the road connections between Edinburgh and the West, and the ring road round Edinburgh, and, if I may put this in third place, the cost of new roads to the local authorities, including the City of Edinburgh.
  8.21 p.m.
  Mr. Harry Gourlay: I am sorry that I have been unable to inform the Joint Under-Secretary of State about certain matters which I wish to raise concerning my constituency, because it was only a short time ago that I knew that this discussion would take place.
  We are all very pleased that the Forth Road Bridge is in course of construction. Naturally, we shall be delighted if it can be completed by the scheduled date in 1963. I have previously asked the Secretary of State for an assurance that that would be so, and he gave me the assurance that, to the best of his knowledge, the bridge would be completed by that date.
  The Forth Road Bridge will be of great advantage to the people of Kirkcaldy Burghs in gaining access to Edinburgh and the South. But we require an access to the North just as much, and that brings me to the subject of the Tay Road Bridge. I regard the Tay Road Bridge and the Forth Road Bridge as complementary, and I believe

  1383
  that it would be in the interests of Scotland in general, as well as of Fife, Dundee and Angus in particular, if both projects could be completed at the same time.
  Since the cost of the Tay Road Bridge is only about one-fifth of that of the Forth Road Bridge, one would assume that, if the Secretary of State's road programme were sufficiently wide, arrangements could be made to have the Tay Road Bridge completed at about the same time as the Forth Road Bridge. That would give great advantage to persons in Fife and the north of Scotland who will be using the Forth Road Bridge, and would inevitably ease the burden borne by industry on the North-East Coast and help to bring to that part of the country some of the light industry which is so badly needed to alleviate unemployment.
  There is also the question of access from Fife and the rest of the east of Scotland to Glasgow. It is almost a nightmare for a motorist to undertake the journey on the road between Fife and Glasgow, for at any time of the day or night the motorist will find himself behind a heavy diesel lorry and be completely frustrated through lack of even a three-way carriageway, which would, in some cases, assist the motorist considerably. I am certain that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) said, if the same conditions obtained in England they would have been remedied many years ago. The road to which I refer is a most important thoroughfare between the east and west of Scotland.
  Another aspect arises from the introduction of part of the car industry into the middle of Scotland. I understand that there will be the possibility of cars being exported from Burntisland as a result of a reciprocal agreement which may be made by a local industry in Burntisland. The ships which bring certain raw materials into the port will be so constructed that they can carry cars for export. Therefore, once the bridge is completed and the new car industry is in full swing, we shall require a considerable improvement to be carried out on the coast road between Inverkeithing and Burntisland.
  1384
  I wish to draw attention to the apparent inadequacy of the roads programme in relation to my constituency. We had a central development in Kirkcaldy which necessitated the widening of Charlotte Street, which is causing a complete bottleneck in that part of the town. It was only as a result of very strong representations made to the former Minister of State when he was making a courtesy visit to the burgh, that we eventually obtained permission to go ahead with the development.
  But that is only one of the many developments which are necessary in the burgh. I would draw to the attention of the Joint Under-Secretary the necessity for giving a grant for the construction of a viaduct over Valley Gardens, which is part of a new housing estate on the west side of the burgh. In some respects it is tied up with the Forth Road Bridge road system and the cross-town roads in Kirkcaldy. Also, tied up with the provision of the viaduct is the very important question of improving the sight lines and corners at Bennochy Road and Forth Park Gardens.
  These may seem to be rather parochial points, but they are extremely important in relation to the road system of the Royal Burgh of Kirkcaldy. I hope that the Secretary of State will do his utmost to ensure a tremendous improvement in the Scottish road programme in the future.
  8.26 p.m.
  Mr. William Ross: I hope that my hon. Friends from the east of Scotland will not worry too much if a voice from the west is heard in the debate.
  Mr. Willis: We welcome interventions by the west, because that will help to strengthen our case about the inadequacy of the present road programme.
  Mr. Ross: I am sure that I shall have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) in anything that I say about our needs in the west of Scotland. I also hope that I shall have the support of the Joint Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson), because he also represents a constituency which straddles one of the main roads in the west of Scotland leading from the Border through Dumfries to Glasgow.

  1385
  I am concerned about the whole aspect of this problem. It worries me to hear people talking about the Goschen formula. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East spoke about it in relation to roads. I am a supporter of the Forth Road Bridge. I help those who raise their voices for Scotland about that project and, indeed, about the Tay Road Bridge. But these things should be treated as national projects and should not be taken into account when the ordinary road programme is being calculated. Without these two items the programme becomes fairly small and must concern everyone who has the wellbeing of Scotland at heart.
  We are having our hopes revived about the coming of industry to Scotland, but many ancillary industries, which depend upon these larger industries that are coming, may decide whether or not to establish themselves in Scotland on the basis of how good our roads are. No one can look at Scottish roads today and be satisfied, both from the point of view of industry and of what is held out as one of the great hopes of the Highlands—tourism. We cannot have tourism without roads. We are to close railway branch lines. If we are to have roads do not let us make the mistake of having roads on which one car cannot pass another and, indeed, can hardly pass a bicycle.
  Can one imagine English tourists on Highland roads discovering that they have to reverse for half a mile to a small passing spot? Yet I believe the Secretary of State is thinking of single-track roads in the North.
  Mr. Willis: He is building them, let alone thinking of them.
  Mr. Ross: That is quite wrong. I hope that we shall have more realistic plans for roads and more imaginative ones for the Highlands. No doubt we can build up tremendous tourist industry in Scotland, but much of it will never get past Stirling unless we wake up our ideas. It will have to stop at Dumfries, which will probably suit the Joint Under-Secretary of State. Unless he does something about the centre of Dumfries, tourists will probably have to stop there.
  Attracting these smaller industries depends a great deal on roads, and the roads just are not there. It is terrifying to go into an ordinary Scottish town on
  1386
  a Saturday morning, or on a Monday morning. We are in the middle of winter, but a motorist going into Kilmarnock or Ayr cannot find a parking place. What is will be like in July, I do not know. What is the Secretary of State doing about the by-passing of the burghs on main roads? Is he facing up to the problem of the Ayr-Kilmarnock road? Work is in progress on the bypass between Kilmarnock and Prestwick, but it is a long way from being finished. When will it be finished? Is the work up to the standard deadline?
  I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State realises what will happen when it is finished. It is only in the first stage, which is to carry extra traffic to by-pass Prestwick, taking it across country to Whitlets, and then it is in the heart of a new housing estate. It joins that road 100 yards from school No. 1, Whitlets School, and 200 or 300 yards down that road one comes to school No. 2, Braehead School; another 200 yards or so along is the racecourse. I do not know what will happen when the schools are not on holiday on race days. A few hundred yards further on there is yet another school, St. Margaret's. Over the railway bridge there is Wallacetown School and the road there leads to another school, Russell Street.
  This is the road which is to carry the additional by-pass traffic until the bypass is complete. The traffic will go through one of the oldest streets in Ayr, George Street. What that will be like in the summer I do not know. We then arrive at the wrong side of the new bridge in the very heart of Ayr.
  The alternative is that after passing the racecourse traffic would have to go along Somerset Park and down the side of the racecourse along Craigie Road, winding along a road to the station. That traffic will mean an extra road for a bridge which was never intended for this amount of traffic and which Ayr Town Council found last summer that it had to repair and which it will now have to rebuild, more or less, all because the Department did not build the bridges first, as should be done in any road programme. A new bridge is necessary to carry that extra traffic and yet, when the by-pass is complete, the bridge will be used by only half the traffic for which it will have to be designed.

  1387
  I wonder whether, even now, the Secretary of State could not reconsider this second stage of the by-pass. I am not satisfied that it will save motorists time, or that it will be to the advantage of the town. The police will have many problems in dealing with traffic which will stream down to the North side of the new bridge. Parents of young children will have much cause for anxiety, because three of the schools I have mentioned are primary schools and one is a nursery school. This is far from an ideal position.
  All this additional traffic will still have to cross Prestwick Airport. Do the Government have any thoughts for the future? Are they content that the second airport in Britain and an alternative for London Airport should have a main road, from Glasgow to Ayr, crossing a runway? Every time an aircraft lands or takes off the road has to be closed. The state of affairs last summer was fantastic. What it will be like in two or three months, with the by-pass still not ready, I cannot imagine.
  I know that this is not entirely the responsibility of the Secretary of State, but he must have overall supervision of the Scottish road programme. The position this summer will be serious and it would be as well if the Government thought about it now. In what little work they are doing on main roads I hope that the Government will not forget one point. If they have not appreciated it from their experience of traffic on Scottish roads last summer, they will appreciate it from experience in the coming summer.
  In such conditions traffic is forced off main roads on to secondary roads, which are the administrative and financial responsibility of local authorities. The state of these roads today is worse than pre-war. The standard of maintenance and repair is below what it was pre-war because local authorities have no money available to pay for keeping them in good repair.
  During our earlier debate on the General Grant Order we were chided by the Secretary of State for Scotland because we mentioned roads. He said that they were not covered. It would be unwise if I did not deal with roads in Scotland now. I hope that now that we
  1388
  are discussing a subject which covers roads I can talk about them. We do not require legislation, which is one of the faults that we might have strayed into in this Adjournment.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is no longer out of order to refer on the Adjournment to a matter which might require legislation.
  Mr. Ross: That allows me considerable scope, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I will spare the Joint Under-Secretary and not ask for new legislation. I would be giving him the answer to my questions if I put something that obviously required legislation. He would be able to say that there was no time for legislation. The legislation is there. What is required is additional finance for the local authorities who have been clamouring for help for a long time. Such assistance would enable them to keep our roads in Scotland up to the standard required by local authorities, and the standards which will be demanded by the traffic being syphoned on to these roads from the main roads.
  Can the Joint Under-Secretary hold out any hope for the people of Scotland that, in addition to the road work that is going on, efforts will be made to tackle the bottlenecks in towns? People in Dumfries are fortunate in having a wide causeway beside the river, but once one leaves that and crosses to the other side one gets into a certain amount of trouble. It is not too bad in Dumfries, but, in Ayr, what was once a fine arterial road which went straight through the town is now becoming impossible for traffic and pedestrians, particularly on holidays and Saturday afternoons.
  We were promised a by-pass, and one was planned before the war. I suppose that one day the Government will provide it, but when they do they will find the road flanked by housing developments all round the Western Road. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will assure us that congestion within our towns will be tackled, and that special financial inducements will be given to local authorities to tackle the problem.
  There is one place which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) knows well. It is the road through Stevenston from Kilwinning. I do not know if the Joint Under-Secretary knows the place that I

  1389
  am talking about, but the standard of driving must be very much higher than one would expect from the standard of sentences given by some of those who mete out punishment. There are relatively few accidents, despite the hazards that drivers face when going through Kilwinning. Two cars and a bicycle cannot pass one another on the main street. Getting through Stevenston without an accident speaks highly for a driver's standard of driving.
  I would be glad to hear from the Joint Under-Secretary that at last the Government have persuaded the Treasury that in relation to the road programme in Scotland a question of eleven-eightieths will not be raised when dealing with major projects such as the Whiteinch Tunnel, the Forth Road Bridge and the Tay Road Bridge. Those projects are outside the scope of the Scottish Road programme and we should be treated on the basis of what we need in Scotland to ease the position. If the Joint Under-Secretary wishes us to exercise our influence and pressure in any way upon the Treasury or anybody else we shall be glad to help him.
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. Forbes Hendry: I do not want to keep the House late on a night like this, but it is essential that I should place on record the fact that some of the points made by hon. Members opposite are not entirely correct. We have had a long catalogue of very parochial matters. Many towns and villages which are congested in varying degrees have been mentioned, and we have been failing to see the wood for the trees. Somebody ought to say exactly what the position in Scotland is in regard to main roads. Listening to hon. Members opposite, one would gather the impression that there are no main roads in Scotland. Much of what has been said would tend to frighten away industrialists and tourists, whereas they can expect something completely different in Scotland.
  It may be that we were a little late in starting our road programme in Scotland, but that was not entirely the fault of the present Government. I motor a great deal in Scotland as well as in England, and my experience of Scottish roads is that generally they are better than the roads in England. Once a
  1390
  motorist gets north of Carlisle he finds a tremendous improvement on the road to Glasgow. In a short time there will be a double-track road the whole way. Every time I go home I see the road from Glasgow to Stirling, which will also be a magnificent double-track road. A good deal of progress has been made on this road. There are some excellent roads in Scotland, and the Government are doing a great deal to improve others.
  Mr. A. C. Manuel: Nobody said that they were all bad.
  Mr. Hendry: I believe that all the hon. Members who have spoken are from the south of Scotland. I do not know what experience they have of the roads northwards from Perth, but we have been told that there is nothing north of Perth. I would point out that from Perth to Aberdeen there is one of the best roads I have struck, considering the amount of traffic on it. I use it very frequently, and I would commend it to any hon. Member opposite who wants to see a really good road.
  Beyond Aberdeen there is a first-class road, in my constituency, to the heart of the Highlands at Braemar. If hon. Members opposite wish to see good road work I recommend them to drive to the Devil's Elbow in the midst of winter and see how it is kept open. It is a miracle, and somebody should pay a tribute to the people who look after that road by sweeping it and keeping it open.
  I merely wish to place on record the fact that industrialists and tourists who come to Scotland will find roads better even than those in England, and the House ought to commend the Government for the work they are doing in improving roads throughout Scotland.
  8.48 p.m.
  Mr. William Small: I want to take this opportunity to elicit some information from the Minister. The Boulevard is a road running through Clydebank to Loch Lomond, and on the edge of this road there is a development known as Drumchapel, which is as big as Stirling, but there is only one way to it from the main road. This has been built up to a huge community, but the fact that there is only one way in and one way out means a great deal of frustration for people working at Singers on Clydebank. They can spend as much as

  1391
  thirty-five minutes in a bus, getting home from work.
  Although it has not reached a sufficiently practical stage for it to be put before Glasgow Corporation, a plan exists which can shorten the distance by 50 per cent, or even more.
  What support have the Government given to such a proposition? Will the burden fall entirely on the local authorities or does it rank for grant? I think that this is more than a service road, but I should like to know. On these big schemes where there is only one road, workers become frustrated by the traffic delays which they experience.
  A tremendous number of vehicles are registered in Scotland, particularly in Glasgow, where it is difficult to find room to park a car within a mile of St. Enoch's Square. The cost of a Road Fund licence for a private car is £12 10s. and it is £20 or £30 for buses. It would seem that car owners in Scotland pay out a great deal of money, but little of that money is spent on the roads. It might be worth while estimating the amount of money collected in taxation and comparing it with what is spent on the roads. When the question of a tunnel at Prestwick was considered it seemed to be a case of either money or time, with emphasis on money and not time. I think that we might take a look at these matters.
  8.51 p.m.
  Mr. John Rankin: The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) has misunderstood some of the things which have been said during this debate. There was nothing parochial about the speeches which I have heard and I am certain that the part of the debate which I did not hear was of an equally high standard. But we welcome the intervention of the hon. Gentleman. We wish to encourage more Tories to support their Government openly in this Chamber. It is regrettable that the cut-and-thrust of debate is often absent from our discussions on Scottish affairs. It would seem either that the Government supporters have taken a vow of silence or that one has been imposed upon them. I hope that the example set by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West will encourage other Government back benchers, and
  1392
  that we shall hear more from hon. Members opposite than we have heard on many other occasions.
  An important matter is the road problem which has been created at Prestwick Airport. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), Prestwick is not just some little airport, it is the second international airport in Great Britain. It is the point of arrival and departure for one out of every four passengers who cross the Atlantic by air. By means of Questions in the House and in Adjournment debates my hon. Friends and I have pressed the Government to face this problem. They have not been doing so, and are still not doing so. Even the Government were not aware of its magnitude, and it was only a year ago last June when, through a Question of mine in this House, it was decided to take a count of the number of vehicles which cross the main runway at Prestwick.
  It was then discovered that on the average every day in the busy periods of the summer, 14,000 vehicles crossed that runway along the Glasgow-Ayr road. That is an enormous number, and every time an aircraft either lands or takes off, that procession has to stop. Indeed, on some Saturday afternoons, the procession, or rather the waiting queue of cars, extended from the verge of the runway almost into the town of Ayr.
  The one easy solution to this problem was to put the road underground, which would have prevented that happening and would have kept traffic going, but the Government refused to spend the £800,000 necessary for that purpose. Despite the fact that an inquiry, over which the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Sir W. Anstruther-Gray) presided, made a unanimous recommendation that, order to facilitate transport and provide proper road accommodation, that tunnel was absolutely necessary, they did not do it, but they proposed another scheme to make a road round the western end of the runway.
  Then, it was discovered, when appeals were being heard against the proposed road, that it would invade the private promises of a distinguished Member of this House. [Interruption.] I did not want to mention any names, but my hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire, Central (Mr. Manuel) has said that it was a

  1393
  former Deputy-Speaker of the House of Commons who is now adorning another place. So that solution has evidently quietly disappeared.
  Major Sir Frank Markham: I hope the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting—
  Mr. Rankin: No, I am not suggesting anything, because now I may be permitted to say that all the time I was in close consultation with that gentleman, who will appreciate what I am saying. He kept me in touch, and I do not think I am doing anything wrong in saying that when he is away from the House. I think the Joint Under-Secretary must have known that he did not look with favour on the proposals of the Government.
  Sir F. Markham: I find this monstrous. By implication, there is here a hidden charge that a Deputy-Speaker of this House used his influence to divert a public road scheme. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is the inference, and I think this House ought to take umbrage at such an inference.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did not take it that that inference was intended. I think that the hon. Member who has the Floor of the House can make it clear to the House that he did not intend any such inference.
  Mr. Rankin: We, of course, welcome the advent of the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham) to our debate. He is adding a little sparkle to the debate. Through no fault of his, he did not listen to the Adjournment debates in which I have spoken from this same spot in former Parliaments, nor to the Questions which, supported by others, I have asked on this matter. Consequently, he does not know the background, but I hope he will come more frequently to Scottish debates. Then he will be better informed.
  What I am saying has been published in local newspapers. The right hon. Gentleman to whom I referred made no secret of the matter and I think he made representations to the Committee of Inquiry established by the Government to go into the whole case. So I am not revealing anything, but merely saying it in the House of Commons. I hope that
  1394
  the House of Commons is a place in which one can speak freely and which will never refuse to listen to facts. All I am doing is giving facts without any bias and without emphasising them one way or the other.
  That road was made and I said at the time that captains of the great aircraft, like Boeings 707, which shortly will be flying in there, would not land or take off if there was traffic passing round the west end of the airfield. No captain today would risk taking off while moving traffic was underneath him, even though it was mostly below the level of the airport itself. The Joint Under-Secretary answered me, and he knows when it was—towards the close of the last Parliament. He said we were to have a new road round the east end, which would take away much of the traffic which presently crosses the runway. The 14,000 cars, bicycles and pedestrians would have the chance to use the new road.
  My last Question to him in the last Parliament was to inquire when the road would be ready. He said, very wisely, that it would be ready when the big jets were ready to come in. There is synchronisation. Delightful, is it not? We shall have the road waiting for the jets, not the jets waiting for the road.
  I asked about what period it would be ready and he said, in June of this year. All right, we shall wait and see. Today, in a certain place, those of us who are interested in these questions have been discussing aviation matters: I have been involved for nearly nine hours. The Boeings were to start coming in on 1st April this year and the road, which was to relieve the traffic, was not to be ready until June of this year, but the Air Registration Board has imposed on the Boeings certain safety devices which the Americans did not think necessary and has said that they are to be delayed for about six weeks.
  In any event, these machines, we hope, will be flying into Prestwick by the middle of May, but the road will not be ready at least until June. That flings the Answer of the hon. Gentleman out of the window altogether. I agree that there is not a very big gap, but the road will not be ready when the aircraft are ready to come in, which means that this summer we shall still be faced with this enormous amount of traffic seeking to go

  1395
  south and south-west and being held up because of the airport. Congestion will be caused such as has annoyed travellers for the past few years on one of the most popular roads of Scotland. The Government do not seem to be doing anything about it so far. As a result of the road planning in that area, there was a period when the plans threatened to cut off the little village of Monkton altogether from normal access to Prestwick and the south. Under former plans that would have happened.
  These are not parochial matters. They are very important matters which affect the movement of people who come to Scotland to spend money. Some of them bring dollars, and we do not scorn their dollars, nor do we scorn English £s. Yet when they come to Prestwick they will have to queue up outside Prestwick Airport, on either side, until the aircraft take off. I do not object to that because it is pleasant to sit and to watch aircraft movements. I hope that thousands of motorists will do that, and that, when they are fed up with sitting there, they will go into the airport and spend some money in the hotel. But if too many go into the hotel there will not be room for them, because it is too small, again because of bad Government planning. We should like to know what the Government are doing to provide hotels and other important amenities there.
  I hope that the Minister will try to reconcile his earlier answers to me and will also seek to explain the road conditions at Prestwick Airport.
  Mr. A. Woodburn rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has already spoken on this Motion for some minutes. I had the honour to be in the Chair at that time.
  Mr. Woodburn: On a point of order. I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, but so far it seems to have been taken as an additional debate. I appreciate the situation, however.
  Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, but it is not a separate debate.
  9.7 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): We have had a very pleasant and interesting debate, and I congratulate the hon.
  1396
  Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) on his intiative in opening it. It has enabled us to hear the points about which hon. Members are worrying, not only in their own constituencies but in Scotland generally. It has been a carpet slipper debate. Hon. Members have been at ease, and there has been a pleasant and agreeable atmosphere.
  Mr. Rankin: Is that an invitation to behave differently on the next occasion?
  Mr. Macpherson: No. I am glad that the debate has been conducted in this way. I hope that nothing takes place in what remains of the debate to disturb this agreeable atmosphere.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East talked first about the general progress of the road programme and then dealt with the Forth Road Bridge. He asked whether the approach road system would be adequate by the time the bridge is completed. The bridge is due to be completed by the end of 1963. We believe that the building of the bridge is well up to schedule at present. The north and south approaches will be part of the scheme and in due course will be let as separate contracts in order that they may be phased in with the building of the bridge itself. They are regarded as part of the scheme, and inasmuch as the scheme is to be completed by the end of 1963, the approach roads will also be completed by then. At any rate, that is the plan.
  Side by side with that, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay), who is not at the moment in his place, mentioned the Tay Bridge, as did the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East. The local authorities hope to be able to present the provisional order in respect of the Tay Bridge in 1961, just over a year from now. After the order has been enacted, the bridge has to be designed and built. It is physically impossible to expect that the bridge will be completed at the same time as the Forth Road Bridge.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East went on to mention the A.1, and in particular the ring road. He referred to the Question that he asked in the House yesterday. As I said rather hurriedly perhaps to him yesterday, procedures have to be gone through in this case. As he knows, after the plan is approved it will be necessary to make a trunk

  1397
  road Order, which may or may not be objected to and may or may not be the subject of an inquiry. After that, the road has to be designed. Then in due course we shall have to obtain the authorisation for building the road.
  Mr. Willis: Is it the intention of the Government to proceed with the project in this way?
  Mr. Macpherson: It is at present in the development scheme. If the development scheme is approved, the probability is that we shall go on with these proceedings. I should not like to raise the hon. Gentleman's hopes too high about the speed with which we shall do it. We are preparing our plans for the next period of the road programme, and it is by no means certain that it will be in that. We shall have to consider it. I shall not comment on what the hon. Gentleman said about A.68, because I have not looked into that question lately.
  There has been a good deal of interest in ring roads. The first step is to ascertain the amount of what is known as by-passable traffic which comes up to one side and out at the other, and does not have to stop in Edinburgh. For that purpose it is hoped that an origin and destination survey will be carried out. However, it is for the corporation to do that and we hope that it will shortly propose to do so. If it does, it will have our full support.
  The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Glasgow—Edinburgh road should be a dual carriageway throughout. Plans are being made just now for part of the western end to become a dual carriageway on the Baillieston to Newhouse section. That is the first scheme. It is already under preparation and will be authorised before 31st March this year.* The hon. Gentleman referred to anticipated developments in the Bathgate area. The traffic difficulties on A.8 arise mainly because of the number of minor roads coming into it, and not so much from the alignment or contours. This involves a great deal of planning. The fact that anticipated developments are on the horizon now means that we have to look at that section of the road all over again. The Scottish Home Department, the county council, the B.M.C. and others are discussing
  * Note: Mr. Macpherson states that he should have said "31st March, 1962."
  1398
  what should be done. This means that not only the trunk road, but classified roads as well will have to be substantially remodelled.
  Mr. Woodburn: One of the dangers on the A.8 is this three-lane traffic. Most people using the road have come to the conclusion that it would be better to have, say, a white line down the middle. At present, if two vehicles are approaching each other and then try to pass on the middle way there is a head-on collision, and it is thought that a number of accidents have been caused in that way. If there were a bar down the middle of the road, an accident would be the responsibility of the driver who crossed that bar. When this new traffic starts, when motorists have to pass long lines of lorries carrying cars the danger will be greatly intensified, because people will get into the middle lane and will not be able to get back.
  Mr. Macpherson: There is, of course, a great deal in what the right hon. Gentleman says, but I was saying that, on the evidence, the fact that it is a three-lane carriageway only is not the main cause of accidents on this section. The main cause are the many junctions with minor roads, and that difficulty is not entirely overcome even with a dual carriageway. That is why close examination, and planning of alignment is required in deciding whether or not to make it, in effect, a road more of the character of a motorway, with flyovers and so on. All that is therefore being closely examined.
  One thing mentioned by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was something that I once raised in a road debate, and I must say that I thought that after that it would never be raised again. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Goschen formula. This is a very difficult problem, and perhaps I may just say that in the present programme the proportionate expenditure in Scotland—admittedly, it includes the Forth Road Bridge and the Whiteinch Tunnel—is about one-sixth.
  The hon. Member for Kilmarnock said that that type of project should be regarded as a United Kingdom and not as a purely Scottish expenditure, but I must make the point that there are examples of the same kind of expenditure in England and Wales as well.

  1399
  That would have to be taken into account when considering any adjustments. I do not overrate it. I quite agree that the Forth Bridge Road and the Whiteinch Tunnel represent a large proportion of expenditure at the present time, but once those projects are completed we hope to be able to turn our attention more to the Scottish trunk road structure
  Mr. Woodburn: I have never heard of the Goschen formula guiding expenditure on roads. That formula was determined by the population of the country. Surely, road expenditure should be determined by the amount of roads there are. Can the Joint Under-Secretary tell us what length of roads we have in Scotland compared with England, and how the proportion compares with the one-sixth that he has mentioned?
  Mr. Macpherson: I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the figure now, but I know that he will find it in the Report of the Royal Commission on Scotland. However, it was not I who mentioned this formula tonight. In fact, I have said that I would be very wary of ever raising it again—
  Mr. Willis: What I said was that during our debates in July on the roads in Scotland it was pointed out that the proportion of the expense on roads in Scotland was in accordance with the Goschen formula. I then went on to say that that was quite ridiculous; that we really needed a lot more. I only said that that was what it turned out to be
  Mr. Macpherson: I quite agree with the hon. Member. All I say is that in the present four-year programme the proportion is one-sixth, but as the hon. Gentleman mentioned the Goschen formula I felt entitled to comment on it. He then went on to deal with roads for tourism and mentioned some of the roads on the West Coast. As the hon. Gentleman and the House know, the Secretary of State for Scotland attaches the greatest importance to the development of tourism in the Highlands, and we are doing quite a lot concerning the road, programme in the Highlands. For example, in the crofter counties programme the expenditure for 1959–60 is £750,000; for 1960–61, £1 million; for
  1400
  1961–62, £1·5 million, and thereafter £2 million. That was announced in the White Paper on the Highlands and it represents a very great increase.
  By the end of this year we are hoping that roads to the value of £850,000 will have been authorised in the Highlands. In addition, there are also the special roads that are to be built. The hon. Gentleman wonders whether they should be one-track or two-track. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) referred to the Mallaig Road. This is now being made into a two-track road. It had just been started the last time I went over it and I hope that it has gone a long way since then.
  I have mentioned all this to show that we are really doing something about the Highlands. It is very difficult ever to do as much as one would like to do, but at any rate we are actually taking steps to improve the position.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Kyle Road. As he knows, there is a diversion between the Glen Garry and Glen Moriston. It is being done as a two-track road and is a combined effort by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) spoke of the burden of road renewal in burghs and that was also mentioned by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small). This again is a very old story because it is a very long time since a settlement was made under which the burghs would be responsible for their own roads. By and large that remains so. The responsibility for roads are pretty well defined and known in the country as a whole now.
  I cannot answer the question of the hon. Member for Scotstoun about Drumchapel In certain cases it would be a question of the classification to give to a road. I would not like to give any particular answer to him on that question at the present time.
  I will certainly look into all the points raised. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East was good enough to say that he did not expect me to deal in detail with all the points that would be raised. The previous debate was on Barlinnie and this debate seems to be on bar nothing.
  Mr. Hoy: Whatever we are barring we are not barring roads. The city will

  1401
  be faced with a problem. I spoke about the A.8 and the approach to Edinburgh and to Leith docks. It may be that the corporation will be compelled to undertake major road expenditure. Has the hon. Gentleman anything to say about road development in that area and what assistance the Corporation might get if it were to undertake a major development there?
  Mr. Macpherson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are improvements going on in the west of the area now which can serve as a by-pass or a sort of outer ring road in due course. I would not like to go into detail because I should like to give more exact information when I get the chance.
  The debate has covered almost every area of Scotland. It began in the East, migrated to the West, and there was then a very welcome incursion from the North-East. I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) in paying a great tribute to the roads in the north-east of Scotland; they really are a treat to drive on. Also, we have had a little mention of the South and the North.
  The House may be interested to know just how the road programme is proceeding. The amount of Government expenditure to be authorised in the period 1958–62 is £40 million. In the first two years, £27 million was authorised, and that included the Forth Road Bridge, £15,500,000, and the second Clyde tunnel, £3 million. The work in hand, or expected to be in hand at the end of next month, will amount to about £30 million. This includes local authority contributions also. This leaves about £13 million or £14 million worth of work to be authorised by 31st March, 1962. It is too soon yet to make any prophecies about what may happen after that. We are at present considering the programme, and there may, of course, be some revision of it even before that.
  As the House knows, we have so far concentrated on two priorities, both of which happen to be classified road projects, namely, the Forth Road Bridge and the Clyde Tunnel. I am sure that no one objects to either of them. Now that they are fully committed and going ahead it will be possible to transfer more of the funds to trunk road improvements. Our proposals for 1960 and 1961
  1402
  will soon be made known in the Estimates.
  Work is proceeding on nearly every scheme which has been authorised. There are at present six schemes costing over £100,000 out to tender now. When these are let, there will be only one large authorised scheme still to go to tender. There are 20 miles of the Glasgow-Carlisle road now under construction and a contract for a further five miles is just about to be let. Apropos of that, I know that anyone who drives over that road at the present time encounters certain difficulties. One is always bound to encounter difficulties when roads are being improved. This, to some extent, is my answer to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock on what he said about the Ayr bypass. During the time when roads are being improved, there is bound to be trouble, and it is too early to say what the effect will be when the improvements are made.
  Mr. Ross: There is nothing there which should affect anyone at the moment. The roads are being constructed where there are no roads now. I do not really know what relevance the hon. Gentleman's comment has to the remarks I made.
  Mr. Macpherson: I shall carefully study what the hon. Gentleman said. I was not entirely familiar with the particular point he was raising. I thought he was saying that once one improved section of the Ayr by-pass had been completed and the other had not there would be a good deal of local trouble there.
  On the Carlisle Road, two more schemes, covering about six miles, are to be authorised in the next few months. This will mean that there will be about 30 miles under reconstruction, which is about as much as the traffic will stand, as anyone who uses those roads will agree. About eight miles of the Glasgow-Stirling road will be completed this year and then two sections will remain—the Cumbernauld-Castlecary section and the Denny bypass. Both are being prepared. We expect that if the two authorities, Dunbarton and Stirling, can prepare the plans in time, both will be put out to tender in the next financial year. Both have been held up by difficulties with the line of the road.

  1403
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) raised one of his favourite subjects, the question of Prestwick. We have often heard him speak about this matter during the last fifteen years. It has been agreed with the county council that the runway crossing will be reviewed when the jets are operating and when the effect of the by-pass is seen. I know the hon. Member's point of view on this matter. He had made it clear and with great persistency in the House, but I do not think that it is worth while pursuing it further tonight.
  Mr. Rankin: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can say when the bypass to A.77 will be ready for use.
  Mr. Macpherson: I would not like to say that without notice. I was invited to make a prophecy and I made it. That is always a rash thing to do. We can still hope that the prophecy will come true, but I am bound to say that I would
  1404
  not like to make the same prophecy so much closer to the event tonight.
  As I have said, I think that we have had a very useful debate. I should like to thank all hon. Members who have taken part in it and have borne with me what necessarily had to be a rather scratch answer.
  Mr. Woodburn: With the permission of the House, I should like to say how much my hon. Friends and I appreciate the courtesy which the Joint Under-Secretary of State has extended to the House in taking on this debate at very short notice and to thank him for the excellent way in which he has dealt conscientiously with every point which has been raised. He could not have dealt with the matter better if he had had a week to prepare his reply.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Ten o'clock.

  ALGERIA (BRITISH CITIZENS)
  ALGERIA (BRITISH CITIZENS)
  MEDITERRANEAN REGION (AGRICULTURAL AND INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION)
  MEDITERRANEAN REGION (AGRICULTURAL AND INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION)
  EGYPT (DESEQUESTRATION OF BRITISH PROPERTY)
  EGYPT (DESEQUESTRATION OF BRITISH PROPERTY)
COUNCIL OF EUROPE
  European Social Charter
  European Social Charter
  Refugees (Abolition of Visas)
  Refugees (Abolition of Visas)
TRANSPORT
  Road Driving Simulator
  Road Driving Simulator
  British Road Services (Finance)
  British Road Services (Finance)
  British Transport Commission (Land)
  British Transport Commission (Land)
  Driving Licences
  Driving Licences
  Policy
  Policy
ROADS
  Tower Bridge
  Tower Bridge
  Heads of the Valleys Road
  Heads of the Valleys Road
  South Wales (Fatal Accidents)
  South Wales (Fatal Accidents)
  Severn Bridge
  Severn Bridge
  Cardiff-Swansea Trunk Road
  Cardiff-Swansea Trunk Road
  M.1 Road (Snow Conditions)
  M.1 Road (Snow Conditions)
  Accidents
  Accidents
SHIPPING
  Lighthouse Keepers (Christmas Dinners)
  Lighthouse Keepers (Christmas Dinners)
  Shipbuilding Advisory Committee
  Shipbuilding Advisory Committee
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  East Germany (Army Formations)
  East Germany (Army Formations)
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  British Railways (Service Passengers and Freight)
  British Railways (Service Passengers and Freight)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Coal (Export)
  Coal (Export)
  Cotton Industry (Reorganisation)
  Cotton Industry (Reorganisation)
  Maize Starch
  Maize Starch
ROYAL NAVY
  Work Study Teams
  Work Study Teams
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Potatoes (Prices)
  Potatoes (Prices)
  Houses (Rents)
  Houses (Rents)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Ceremonial Unit
  Ceremonial Unit
  Service Hospitals (Civilian Patients)
  Service Hospitals (Civilian Patients)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Maternity Accommodation, Bristol
  Maternity Accommodation, Bristol
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Police (Press Allegation)
  Police (Press Allegation)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Universities (Building Work)
  Universities (Building Work)
  Income Tax (Retired People)
  Income Tax (Retired People)
POST OFFICE
  Knightswood Cross (New Office)
  Knightswood Cross (New Office)
EMPLOYMENT
  Dismissed Employees (Compensation)
  Dismissed Employees (Compensation)
  Plymouth
  Plymouth

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield

EXPORT CREDITS FOR CAPITAL GOODS
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their attention has been called to the recent remarks of the chairman at the annual general meeting of Messrs. Hawker Siddeley and whether they think that sufficiently generous terms of credit are available for the export of British capital goods.]
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are aware of the chairman's comments. In their view, British exporters of capital goods are at no general competitive disadvantage in the credit terms they are able to offer with the support of facilities available under the Export Guarantees Acts. Where that is not so, particular cases can be considered on their merits in the light of other demands on our resources.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer. Her Majesty's Government are doubtless aware that there are in the world many potential consumers of British capital goods who can afford to pay for those goods only out of the current revenue that they can produce from them. Cannot Her Majesty's Government produce some scheme for "pay-as-you-use" to meet this demand and enable this export trade to take place?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, such facilities do in fact exist under Section 3 of the Export Guarantees Act. Under these powers, since the Montreal Commonwealth Conference in 1958 credits totalling over £60 million on repayment terms extending beyond five years have
68
been provided by Her Majesty's Government to various countries for expenditure on British goods and services. They have up to now been restricted to Commonwealth countries, but there is no permanent reason why this should remain so.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his further answer to my supplementary question, and I am glad to hear that there is a chance that this scheme can extend beyond Commonwealth countries where the principal demand does lie.

REPORT OF MIXED COMMITTEE ON KRUPP ASSETS
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can state when the report (in preparation), including the deliberations, of the Mixed Committee set up to consider applications for the disposal of certain assets of Herr Alfried Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach under the 1953 Deconcentration Agreement will be available to them; and whether, when it is available to them, they will place copies of it in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I understand that the Mixed Committee are still considering a report. I think it should have been clear from my answers to the noble Viscount on previous occasions that there is no obligation under the Bonn Settlement Convention for any report to be issued by the Committee. Whether a report from the Committee would include an account of their deliberations is entirely a matter for the Committee to decide. On the second part of the question, as I have previously stated, it is for the four Governments concerned together to decide whether the Committee's report should be published or not.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I thank the noble Marquess for his

69
Answer, but, with great respect, he has not answered the second part of my Question, and that is whether this report will be available to Her Majesty's Government.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, with the greatest possible respect to the noble Viscount, I have answered that question. If the report is received, it will be made available.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Marquess, and I apologise. Then are we to assume that if this report is available to Her Majesty's Government it still remains for Her Majesty's Government to ask the permission of the Mixed Committee and the other Allied Governments as to whether they may make it available to the British Parliament and nation, so that they shall know why these extensions have been granted?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I do not want there to be any misunderstanding about this matter. If it is agreed by the four Governments that the report should be published, it will of course be made available to your Lordships and to everybody else.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, are we to understand that the reasons for not giving effect to policy approved by the British Parliament are to be decided by Governments other than the British Government, and that the rights of the British Parliament are to be circumscribed by four Governments? That is what I understand the noble Marquess to say. Cannot we know that when the report is ready it will be made available to the British Parliament and the British people?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, this Mixed Committee, as I think the noble Lord is well aware, is only concerned with one aspect of this question: that is, the question of an extension, and two extensions have been granted. As I have told your Lordships before, I hope and expect that a report will, in fact, be submitted which will be made available; but there is no question of this Committee overruling anything that has been passed by the British Government—certainly not.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, as I understand it, there have been two decisions to defer the policy which has
70
been agreed to by the British Government and the British Parliament; there have been two decisions to defer the implementation of that decision. Now we are told that we cannot have the reasons for the deferment unless other Governments agree. Surely the British Parliament is entitled to know why a policy which it
has accepted and agreed to is not being given effect to. We are entitled to know the reasons.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I appreciate the point the noble Lord is making. As he knows, this Mixed Committee
was set up by the four Governments concerned. The Mixed Committee is there for the purpose of deciding whether or not it is reasonable to allow an extension, and that is all. That is the function of this Mixed Committee—nothing beyond that. I hope that is clear.
LORD HENDERSON: May I ask whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to ask the other three Governments that the report shall be made public?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: No, my Lords.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: With great respect, and with the permission of the House, may I ask the noble Marquess whether this is not the position? If the reasons why this extension of time has been granted are available to the Government, will not the situation be intolerable and a humiliation to the British Parliament and nation if they are not allowed to see those reasons?
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, is it not a fact that, whatever the views of Her Majesty's Government may be, they have no power whatever to rewrite an international agreement?
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: May we ask what instructions were given by our Government to the British representative on the Committee?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, none.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Then he is an independent person who can make a report on policy which is to be secret from the British Parliament?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: No, my Lords; it is not a report on policy. This Committee has only one function. I want to make that clear. The function of this Committee is to allow or to disallow an extension—nothing more, nothing less.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, would the noble Marquess not submit to his right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary that the attitude revealed by the previous answer but one of the noble Marquess—that they, as a Government, are not going to press at all for the publication of this report to Parliament, is not likely to assist international relationships? What we want is a great and growing co-operation between the free nation of Germany and this country. Instead of promoting that, you are going to raise grave suspicions in the minds of the British public. I beg the Government to reconsider this.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I will certainly take careful note of what the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition has said.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: And the noble Marquess still contends that to give Herr Krupp another year to get on with his munitions work is not a question of policy!

SHORTAGE OF MIDWIVES
2.45 p.m.
LORD STONHAM:: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the concern expressed by the Association of Hospital Management Committees at the difficulties arising from the acute shortage of midwives in peripheral hospitals; and if the steps they are taking to deal with this problem include (1) consideration of the grant of higher pay to nurses who take the additional qualification in midwifery; (2) greater encouragement for enrolled assistant nurses to qualify as midwives; (3) ensuring that State Registered Nurses do not enrol for midwifery courses unless they express an intention of putting to practical use the knowledge of midwifery thus gained.]
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I regret that mine is a rather long Answer to a long Question. Her Majesty's Government are aware that while the total number of midwives employed in hospitals has recently been increasing, difficulties are being experienced in some hospitals because they are short of midwives. The problem has been studied by the National
Consultative Council on the Recruitment of Nurses and Midwives, and a number of special local surveys have been made. As a result it has been possible to make suggestions to hospital authorities about ways in which the shortage may be alleviated.
Practising midwives in the hospital service already receive higher pay than nurses. It is hoped that the substantially increased salaries agreed last year for all midwifery and nursing staff will lead more midwives to practise their profession. The length of training for enrolled assistant nurses who wish to qualify as midwives was reduced in 1959 from two years to eighteen months, and any other ways of encouraging more assistant nurses to take up midwifery which seem promising will continue to have the support of Her Majesty's Government. It would not, however, appear desirable to seek to restrict entry to midwifery training to registered nurses who express an intention of practising as midwives after qualification, as this might well have a very adverse effect on recruitment.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that most helpful reply, may I ask whether he does not agree that the crux of this difficulty is that out of some 3,000 nurses who qualify as midwives every year only about 800 are still practising midwifery three years later; and since it costs £600 to train each one of them that means an annual loss of about £1½ million. They qualify as midwives only in order, later on, to take senior nursing appointments. That is the crux of the difficulty, and if the noble Lord could look into that, it might be possible to get over it.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, certainly and naturally it will be looked into. At the moment, although I see the force and the pith of the noble Lord's argument, it is thought that many entrants to midwifery training may not wish to make up their minds about practising until later: they would be unwilling to commit themselves in advance,

73
and potential recruits may in this way be lost.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, will the noble Lord have regard to the fact that the reason why enrolled assistant nurses are most welcome as trainees for midwifery is because it is almost certain they will remain in that occupation? That is why it is necessary to encourage them, rather than State Registered Nurses who will perhaps not continue in midwifery at all.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I will certainly bring to the attention of my right honourable friend the point of view expressed by the noble Lord.

COAL INDUSTRY BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a, and to be printed.

THE YOUNGHUSBAND REPORT ON SOCIAL WORKERS
2.49 p.m.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM rose to call attention to the Report of the Working Party on Social Workers in Local Authority Health and Welfare Services; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper. The Working Party on Social Workers in Local Authority Health and Welfare Services was appointed in June, 1955, and published its Report last year. Those of your Lordships who have read the Report will no doubt agree with me that it contains not only far-reaching recommendations, but also a fund of most important detail which will be of the greatest value to many engaged in the social services. The Chairman, Dr. Eileen Younghusband, and the members of her Committee have received congratulations both from public bodies and from many others engaged in social work. I am sure that I am voicing the opinion of your Lordships' House when I say that we should wish to add to those congratulations and commend the untiring and public-spirited work which this Report represents.
It is now nearly five years since the Working Party was appointed and nearly a year since it published its Report. I realise that some of the implications of the Report are so far-reaching that Her Majesty's Government will want to have the opinions of a great number of bodies, including that of your Lordships' House. For that reason the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, and I have thought it wise to raise the subject matter of the Report in your Lordships' House to-day, and we hope that Her Majesty's Government will take the opportunity to announce their reactions to the Report, and that the noble Lord who is to reply on behalf of the Government will indicate that there will be no delay in implementing certain of its recommendations.
An announcement of the intentions of Her Majesty's Government on this Report is important for several reasons. Local authorities inherited many of the functions of the Welfare State when the National Health Service and National Assistance Acts were passed. Services which for 150 years had been primarily the responsibility of voluntary bodies are now a social responsibility of the State, although, of course, voluntary bodies still have an important and, indeed, a leading rôle to play. But the passing of Acts of Parliament does not make the services work, nor does it provide the personal relationships which are at the heart of social work. The lack of training and lack of status during the last fourteen years since the passing of the National Health Service Act has dissuaded many potential recruits from joining services which have little to offer except heavy case-loads, poor promotion prospects, low salaries and, I think, a sense of inferiority when working alongside others who are professionally qualified.
Those who have attacked the Report put their objection in this way: "We do not want a great horde of social workers 'snooping' into other people's lives." I believe that they have missed the main point. We should never dream of having schools without teachers, or hospitals without nurses; and we should never dream of having teachers or nurses without training. This Report provides an answer by suggesting that in the future there should be two types of social workers—the generally trained

75
and the professionally trained—supplemented by the help of welfare assistants who, though not termed "social workers", would provide recruits for the qualified status.
These recommendations apply to the Services to which the Younghusband Committee was confined by its terms of reference, but many of those recommendations could equally apply to a very much wider field. The Committee's inquiries covered a very wide field of social work—health centres, the care of expectant mothers, unmarried mothers and young children, after-care of tuberculosis and V.D. patients, the Mental Welfare Service and the Home Help Service, all of which came under the provisions of the National Health Service Act, 1946. But the Committee also inquired into services which came under the provisions of the National Assistance Act, 1948, including the care of the elderly, the blind, the deaf and many other classes of handicapped people. All this means that the Committee investigated services which are designed to assist many thousands of people within the community.
Some feel that the scope of this inquiry should have been much wider, and that it should have included the Probation Service, the Psychiatric Social Service, health visitors and voluntary bodies. I do not agree with that view, but I believe that it may be necessary to have another inquiry, with broader terms of reference, after certain of these recommendations have been implemented and put to the test. The service of health visitors, as many of your Lordships will know, has already been the subject of a separate Report, and I think it is relevant to say that the Younghusband Report recognises that this service is complementary to many of the recommendations which they incorporate in this Report.
The immediate reaction of social workers to the Younghusband Report is, I believe, one of awe that such a stupendous task has been accomplished. A second reaction is primarily one of relief that at last an attempt has been made to co-ordinate the set-up in order to achieve three main objects. The first is to produce the most effective service for the individual in need. The second is to ensure a more economic use of
76
social workers, and the third is to work out the best form of training for those social workers undertaking the various jobs. To-day we have the position that those who are actually doing the work are saying that they are not adequately equipped. They ask, "Please may we have some training so that we can do our work better?" The Secretary of the Institute of Social Welfare has written to me saying:
"Social workers have been deeply conscious of their limitations in what has rapidly become a skilled profession, due to the lack of facilities for training. We recognise the need for thorough training in social work, and applaud the Working Party's aims."
I believe it is true that the need for training has become increasingly acute, for a number of reasons. First, unless training and status are given we simply shall not get any recruits to staff the service. One might ask—in fact, numbers of people do ask—whether training and qualifications are necessary in social work in which one person helps another. I would suggest that the simple short answer is that in this modern world either we shall have to have trained workers or we shall have none. Secondly, the need for training is acute because of the quick expansion of duties imposed on local authorities to look after a very wide range of handicapped people; and, thirdly, the Minister, by regulations under the Mental Health Act, has imposed upon local authorities a duty to produce schemes for community care by April next. The fourth and last reason is the need to look after the ever-increasing number of elderly people. My Lords, those are the four main reasons, as I interpret it, which justify training.
What does social work training mean? Basically, as I interpret it, it means that the experience of many years is sifted, distilled and moulded into a course of instruction. Since my day as a social worker it has been discovered that there are certain underlying principles which run through all forms of social work; and to acquire the skill to practise these principles is a gradual and difficult task. In this field, as in any other, the knowledge gained through experience can be passed on to other workers. Training avoids the costly and often lengthy business of a social worker's learning from his own experience and by his own mistakes. And so, as knowledge has been accumulated, it has been recognised that

77
social work is a subject that can be taught and learnt, though it can be done well only by those who have been trained in practical experience and by those with a suitable personality and with a real wish to help others who are in trouble.
My Lords, it has been suggested that because the social worker uses knowledge and theory about human behaviour which is largely derived from sociology and psychiatry, he has pretentions to being "the poor man's psychiatrist". The noble Baroness opposite, Lady Wootton of Abinger, who I am very glad to see is to intervene in this debate, has made this kind of criticism, and I think she has recently supported her argument by quoting Virginia Woolf, who vividly describes such people as being tainted with
"… the peculiar repulsiveness of those who dabble their fingers self-approvingly in the stuff of other people's souls."
Although I, like many of your Lordships, have always been particularly sensitive to the interference by others in the private lives of individuals—and I agree that we must insist that this is in no circumstances done unnecessarily—I nevertheless believe that social workers who are trained do none other than protect, befriend and advise those who require help. I am told by my social-worker friends—and I think the Report bears this out—that the claims on them to help and understand those in need are more concerned with the neighbours and with the family life than with the particular trouble or disability from which the particular individual is suffering.
In deciding the kind of training that is required the Younghusband Committee made so hold as to classify three needs of those who use the services: those with straightforward problems requiring a simple service; those with more complex problems requiring systematic and continued help, and those with special or exceptional difficulty requiring the best skilled assistance available. The National Council of Social Service, the London County Council and many other bodies, so far as I can ascertain, agree that these divisions correspond with experience and that they are applicable to the personal problems of many who seek help. If it is proved, as many of the people who write to me indicate, that this division of needs and problems exists, it seems to me to justify the future scheme for training as envisaged in this Report.
My Lords, perhaps I may now be permitted to say a word on the pattern of training. Much routine work, says the Committee, could be undertaken by "welfare
assistants" who would be prepared for their work by a minimum of systematic "training in-service", and they would work under the supervision of other social workers. They propose a second kind of training, a basic social work training; and this would involve a two-year full-time course, including the necessary field work practice. The third grade requires professionally trained workers, which incorporates university or an equivalent degree; and those in this grade would be used for undertaking case work of exceptional difficulty and for the guidance and supervision of other social workers. The importance of these proposals can be set against the fact that 89 per cent. of the present officers have no qualification whatsoever in social science or professional social work. These three levels of need and staff are generally approved by social workers and the organisations that represent them, so far as I can ascertain. The majority of social workers say that, in whatever field they are required to specialise—and it is certain that in many fields specialisation is necessary—they should have a basic general work training.
There may be an impression—though it is quite incorrect—that the Working Party is proposing to enlist a whole new army of social workers. The total number of workers at present employed by the local authorities in these services is around 3,000. In the next ten years the figure would be raised to 5,000. Nor does the Report suggest that any other workers of long experience should be thrown out of their occupations. Your Lordships who have read the Report will see that special recommendations are included to provide that these workers should be helped over the transition period with refresher courses and other means of making them well aware of the new developments. It is suggested that many of these experienced workers will, in fact, act as key instructors in "field work training", practical training.
The National Council of Social Service stress two points. They say that if it is accepted that there should be a general basic training for all social

79
workers there should also be grants for similar training for those volunteer workers who work for voluntary agencies. They also say that any training schemes
which may be established by the proposed National Council for Social Work Training should include representatives of voluntary bodies. If your Lordships reflect on what happens to-day you will realise that a vast amount of work of the Welfare State is undertaken through the agency of voluntary bodies. This is a very big subject in itself: a whole chapter of the Report has been devoted to it. I am therefore very glad to find that the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, who has great experience of this aspect of the subject, is to speak this afternoon.
I do not want to detain your Lordships for too long, but may I now turn to, and underline, the urgent need for trained mental welfare officers? This subject has been fully stressed in the Report before us. In this field, particularly, schemes of training are long overdue. General progress in mental health has been arrested, and will continue to be arrested if training is not given. Those of us who took part in the debates on the Mental Health Act know that that Act puts heavy and inescapable responsibility on community care. Underlying the whole Act, as with the Report of the Royal Commission on which the Act was based, is the idea that patients suffering from mental disorder shall be helped within the community rather than in a hospital, if that can be done; and the idea of shifting the responsibility and emphasis from hospital care to community care is one of the great themes of our new legislation. The Royal Commission's Report started from the premise that many patients are being cared for in hospitals to-day for no better reason than that no other facilities, or no adequate facilities, exist to look after them elsewhere; and that proper community services, if they were provided, would avoid many people being in-patients at all.
As I have said, local authorities now have to prepare schemes for these community services, and obviously these services cannot work unless there are social workers who have special knowledge and skill. This is a fact well recognised by the Working Party, and the Report
80
emphatically states that the mental welfare officer should take a general social work training course, but with special emphasis on mental health. Many of the public have been alarmed by the idea that the Mental Health Act will throw on to the community a large number of mentally disordered people who need special care. The only way to reassure them is to provide a social work service—a service to which they can turn in the knowledge that effective help will be given.
My Lords, this is not a new idea. It has been recommended by a number of Committees, including the Committee which bore my name, which was convened nearly 25 years ago. In paragraph 526 of the Report of that Committee, entitled, Voluntary Mental Health Services, we said:
"There is an urgent need for greatly increased training facilities for social workers, and others who are concerned in their daily duties with Mental Health".
Also, I regret that what we then said, nearly a quarter of a century ago, is still true—that is:
"We find that a complete and fully coordinated mental welfare service is rare. In most areas … there is a lack of unification and each department runs in its own groove".
Although in those days the climate of opinion was such that one did not command a measure of public support, to-day things are very different. We have waited and waited for the Government of the day to get hold of this problem, yet there is still no training except that provided by my own association, which is limited to refresher courses. And to-day nearly half of the mental welfare offices are over 50 years of age, and 40 per cent. are due to retire within the next ten years.
Two years ago, almost to the day, I raised these questions in a Motion in your Lordships' House on the Report of the Royal Commission on the Law Relating to Mental Illness, and my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, whom I am very glad to see in his place to-day, said then [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 207. col. 848]:
"… the decisions on the future training of mental welfare officers should await the Report of the Younghusband Committee."
The noble and learned Viscount said then that miracles by way of increases of staff could not be expected overnight,

81
but that he did not want that to sound like a note of postponement. He added that it was an exhilarating and challenging time, and that the Government were determined to face the problems which it presented and, in consultation with local authorities, to make the maximum progress that resources allowed.
My Lords, a start must be made now. We cannot afford to wait further. My experience, for what it is worth, is that local government, if given the incentive and the lead, will implement any recommendations that come from the Government of the day. I do not want to be pessimistic; I do not want to sound a note of alarm. But unless the Government take the lead, and take steps to fill the appalling gaps in these services, there will be a spate of sensational incidents, perhaps involving violence and perhaps involving children. We can expect hands to be raised in horror, and widespread appeals for people to be locked up in more and in bigger institutions. When we see these things headlined in our newspapers we may ask: who is to blame? Certainly not the newspapers for exposing gaps in services which are the responsibility of local authorities. The big question is this: is the country going to accept wholeheartedly that people who are handicapped should be integrated, as far as possible, into normal life, following normal pursuits, and should have the chance of normal happiness? That way seems to me to follow most closely our idea of the Christian ethic. Or is the country going to be forced, by an administrative breakdown or by an unintelligent approach, into reactionary or retrogressive steps, and into saying: "Because there may be trouble, these people should be locked up until the end of their days?"
The Report of the Albemarle Committee, published only recently, censured the Ministry of Education for failure adequately to assist the youth services, with the obvious inference that such failure might have played its part in the increase in juvenile delinquency. I hope that similar censure will not fall on my right honourable friend the Minister of Health for not taking action to fill in these wide gaps in an otherwise comprehensive and enlightened service. My Lords, nothing can be worse than to do
82
nothing. The Government must undertake to meet the needs outlined in this section of the Younghusband Report: and the question is: how long do we have to wait for a start to be made? I beg to move for Papers.
3.19 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I was not present in the House the other day when those fine tributes were paid to the late Sir Charles Hendriks. Before coming to the Motion I cannot refrain from adding my own small tribute to one who was such a great friend to so many of us and so vastly helpful to all.
I feel that the noble Earl, Lord Feversham, has rendered a most important service in bringing forward this debate; and he has spoken, as I knew he would, in a very wise and knowledgeable way, and also, particularly at the end, in a very formidable way. I know that the noble Earl is a kindly man, but he is the sort of man I should not welcome to have up against me if I were a Minister—and I can pay an independent Peer, if I may so describe him, no higher tribute than that. I feel sure that what the noble Earl has said,
particularly at the end of his speech, will be noted very carefully by Her Majesty's advisers. He has paid tribute to the Younghusband Report and those responsible for it, and I certainly join with him there. He has said that the wide-spread feeling about the Report among those who have read it is one of awe. No doubt that is so, but it would take more than a Report to awe my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger. I should like to see the Government Report that would cow her spirit! And, of course, she has (if I may use a colloquialism) given this Report "stick" in no uncertain terms. As to this, your Lordships will be able to judge when we hear from my noble friend later. She has begun by saying, "Is this verbosity really necessary?", pointing to the fact that the Report runs to 328 pages. Last year, the noble Baroness delivered herself in 339 valuable pages—
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, the noble Lord will forgive me if I point out that the range of topics I dealt with is a great deal wider than the provision of training for social workers in a limited field—namely, the health and welfare services of local

83
authorities and the National Assistance Board.
LORD PAKENHAM: That is so profoundly true that I was about to say it. But I was also going to say that I shared her feeling at the end, that perhaps we could have done without 100 pages of the Younghusband Report and added 100 pages to the book of the noble Baroness.
In speaking first for my Party this afternoon, my task is perhaps just to this extent delicate: that though we have been studying this Report, the Labour Party have not reached the stage—and I do not know whether any other Party has—of coming out with a Party line. Therefore, what I say will not command any greater authority intrinsically than anything that is said by other more attractive speakers later, but I do record the conviction that my general approach will prove to be broadly in line with the thinking of my Party in the most essential respects.
It has been explained by the noble Earl, Lord Feversham—and the noble Earl and others will forgive me if I repeat, rather less gracefully, one or two of the things he has said—that the Report is concerned with the social workers employed by local authorities in their health and their welfare departments under the National Health and National Assistance Acts. As my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger says, it is a limited field. Here, and almost only here, I would disagree with the noble Earl. I am sorry that the terms of reference of the inquiry of the Younghusband Committee were not wider. I believe that, at the end, we are left with a considerable job of co-ordination between the arrangements for these social workers and other social workers, and I cannot help thinking that if those concerned had gone a little farther afield they would have covered a wider area of social work for the purpose of this inquiry. But that is not the fault of the Younghusband Committee. The blame, if any, is to be attached to those who drew up the terms of reference.
There are about 3,300 people concerned in these services, only a small proportion of the total social workers engaged in work for local authorities or voluntary bodies in this country. On the assumptions of the Younghusband Report, there will be about twice that number when their scheme is complete.
84
Like the noble Earl, but without his special authority, I have been very much involved these days in the mental health field and I am thoroughly with him in taking a particular interest in that side of the work. Of the 3,300 covered by the Younghusband inquiry, about 1,100 are workers under the mental health service. Under the Younghusband plan, their number will be rather more than doubled. I feel sure that I am speaking for the Labour Party as a whole when I say that we welcome the general trend of legislation and administration which has called for this great increase in the number of social workers in this field, and in mental health in particular. Indeed, many of the Acts in question were passed by our own Government during the 1945–50 period. Since then, as the noble Earl explained, professional opinion has moved even further in the direction of preferring community care wherever possible to care within institutions. That, of course, is the emphasis of the new Mental Health Act, to which we devoted so much attention last summer.
Since the Younghusband Report was published, the Act itself and the Minister's subsequent circular have greatly extended the local authorities' duties in this field. We in the Labour Party, as your Lordships will recall, have been well to the fore in advocating these developments. Indeed, we divided your Lordships' House on the Mental Health Bill in urging that the duties of community care should be compulsory on local authorities. Although the noble Earl did not go into the Lobby with us, he indicated that he felt a great deal of sympathy with the position we were adopting. Those who welcome the additional functions must welcome and help to provide and encourage the additional supply of social workers. May I quote Professor Titmuss in the Social Service Quarterly for Autumn, 1959? Curiously enough, the first two sentences of this quotation
were used (I am bound to say in a friendly way) by the noble Earl without acknowledgment, but perhaps Professor Titmuss borrowed them from the noble Earl. At any rate, we shall see. What Professor Titmuss said was this:
"Those who have attacked the report with the cry 'We don't want all these social workers snooping into other people's lives' have missed

85
the point. They would not dream of demanding more education and more schools and yet call for fewer teachers."
That is what the noble Earl said. Perhaps Professor Titmuss and he came to say the same thing by a process of telepathy or perhaps the professor borrowed from the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I think it is quite clear to all your Lordships that I borrowed from Professor Titmuss and ought to have given recognition to that fact.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will forgive my point. Professor Titmuss continued:
"To be consistent, therefore, they should oppose all the progressive and preventive aspects of mental health, child care and welfare legislation and call instead for more and bigger institutions, hospitals and Luxborough Lodges."
May I quote further, to give some Party backing to these views, which might otherwise be mistaken for being personal. I quote from the official pamphlet setting out the Labour Party's policy for health and entitled Members One of Another. No doubt it is familiar to your Lordships. I hear it rumoured that my noble friend Lord Taylor had a great hand in that. It is not quite the thing to reveal that, but I should like to think it is true, because it is a memorable document. I quote:
"There must be a substantial expansion of the services provided by the local health authorities."
So there is no doubt at all where the Labour Party stand about the expansion of the services and, in a general way, no doubt where they stand about the number of staff required. We are told, in the same document, that Labour proposes
"… the establishment of a Local Authority Social Worker Service, to work in conjunction with the hospitals to meet the special needs of the old, the chronic sick, and those with mental and nervous illnesses."
The pamphlet goes on to say that
"… new training facilities will be needed."
When my noble friend Lord Taylor winds up, I hope he will feel able to endorse what is said so well in that pamphlet, with which his name has been so widely and honourably associated. He wrote it?—well, I thought so.
Before I come to training, may I point out that it is not only the increase of
86
functions which will increase the need for staff? The Younghusband Report makes it clear that there is a national shortage of such workers at present and that recruitment is considered inadequate even for existing needs. It also makes it clear, as the noble Earl explained, that this shortage even apart from increased functions, will be answered in the next few years by the retirement of staff with Poor Law experience who have held appointments as welfare officers and duly authorised officers since 1948. The most important emphasis of the Report (and here I am sure that 99 out of 100 of my colleagues in the Labour Party would agree; and I should hope that 100 out of 100 might agree) is the overwhelming need for more social workers. I reiterate that point to-day with all the strength at my command, and I beg of the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, who I am pleased to see is to reply to the debate, that urgent attention be given to the recruitment of new entrants to all levels of the service.
Then we come to the question of how this is to be achieved. It is obvious from the Report that our social workers in the categories in question, indeed, in all categories, are seriously underpaid. We are naturally interested in these topics, irrespective of any Party consideration, and I feel that we can all unite in the conviction that nothing much will happen until this mean attitude—for which we must all, I suppose, as a nation take some responsibility—towards our social workers is supplanted by one which is one more generous and more prudent. But from the point of view of the quantity, and still more of quality, of the staff, the present arrangements for training, in so far as they exist, must be transformed out of recognition.
We are told that 89 per cent. of all social workers in the categories we are discussing have no qualifications in social science or professional social work. Duly authorised officers, for example, have no officially recognised qualification or course of training, and when we remind ourselves (the noble Earl, Lord Feversham, gave figures of certain sections) that, taking these categories as a whole, more than 40 per cent. are over 50, the problem of turning this staff into a well-organised profession assumes its true magnitude. Nevertheless, this task must be undertaken if we are to do more than pay lip service

87
to the social ideals which so many of us have so often proclaimed from the housetops. I should hope that all that will be common ground.
When we embark on the question of what form the training should take we are bound to plunge into controversy—I do not see how it could be otherwise—in the sense that one can hardly expect anybody to agree in every detail with any of his friends exactly how these various categories of persons ought to be trained. The ten members of the Younghusband Committee did at least reach a series of unanimous conclusions; and seeing that some plan must ultimately be agreed upon if we are to act at all, their particular proposals have, obviously, very high standing. That does not mean that the members of the Younghusband Committee would wish to claim, or that we should concede to them, a Divine insight. As has already been explained, their blueprint would provide for three types of workers: first of all, there would be social workers, like those already trained in the universities, from whom it would be reasonable to expect much of the leadership and training of the others. Secondly, there would be social workers trained outside the universities in courses organised by colleges of further education leading to a certificate of National Social Work; and then there would be welfare assistants, who might usually be young recruits and would be able to carry out simple functions as a preliminary stage to further training. In the meantime, the Committee recommend that officers over 50 or with fifteen years' experience should be recognised as qualified by experience and should be encouraged to take refresher courses.
Put in this highly generalised way—university trained people; the people with the national certificate and then the assistants, or, if we can so call them, the apprentices, who would not be qualified—the proposals of the Committee seem to be not only unexceptionable but fairly obvious, once we concede the need to turn this haphazard occupation into a co-ordinated profession. There are, however, many points, some small and some not so small, where total agreement is hardly possible.
88
To take one objection of my own—and I will raise only one or two of my own, because I am anxious to place myself behind the Report—I personally am far from agreeing that if an undergraduate wishes to embark on social work—it might be one of our own children, for example—as a career, he should necessarily take a social science course at the university, meaning, I gather, either a degree in social science at the university or, at any rate, a two-year course there. I should think that someone who had done history or the law, to take those examples, should qualify as a social worker so long as he took some kind of social service diploma afterwards. But I do not agree with the idea that the top-level social worker must be someone who has been trained in social science—and I am glad to see the noble Earl, Lord Woolton, who has had as wide an experience as anyone of this, nodding in sympathy with me.
THE EARL OF WOOLTON: I entirely agree.
LORD PAKENHAM: I feel that I am entitled to speak about this matter. I am trained in social science myself, if the real social scientists will allow that title to the modern course at Oxford in the 1920's, and I have taught at social science faculties for a number of years. Therefore I am not at all prejudiced against social science. But I feel that the Committee are wrong on this matter, and I hope that the Government may take the same view. No doubt I could pick on other points of difference, as we all could. More fundamentally, I would sympathise with critics who are unhappy about the dogmatic relationship between the three categories of need and the three different grades of social workers. It may well be that my noble friends Baroness Wootton of Abinger and Lord Taylor, and others, will pursue this point further, and I will certainly join them in denouncing any undue rigidity.
One of the main issues—and here I am in agreement with the Committee—with regard to the proposals on training is the recommendation that the central core of training should be the same for all these "middle grade" workers, who will be the bulk of the service. As the noble Earl, Lord Feversham, explained, they emphasise the importance of teaching on the problems of human behaviour

89
and understanding of family life as an essential preliminary to being able to help with specific handicaps like mental illness, blindness, deafness and so on. I am sure that this effort to treat the individual person who is being looked after as a whole rather than someone possessed of one or more handicaps is entirely progressive and salutary and should be supported. The Report recognises that specialisation will still be necessary, especially in the mental field, but the Committee are particularly concerned that local authorities should establish comprehensive services for both the mentally ill and the mentally defective, and also that there should be close co-operation and planning between the hospitals and local authorities to ensure continuity of care for the patient when he goes into hospital or when he leaves.
All this, in a general way, seems to me very sound and good. But what is it, then, which generates so much heat when this subject comes to be discussed? It is, I think, the issue of whether there is such a person as a professionally qualified social worker, as distinct from someone engaged in social work of good sense and ripe experience. Is the concept of a professionally qualified social worker a real one? That, I should have thought, is an issue about which we certainly ought to hear a good deal this afternoon. My own answer to that question would be "Yes". There is, however, a slightly different question to which I would not give that answer. It may be asked: can a qualification in social work be put on the same footing as a qualification in medicine, law, theology or accountancy, for example? My answer there would be "No". But I would find an analogy (I do not know whether this occurs in the Report I have not been able to find it) between training as a social worker and training as a teacher.
As many of us know, having taught and been taught in the field where there were no qualifications except degrees, but where there was no teaching qualification attached, it is possible to operate both in teaching and in social work without undergoing a course of training. I suppose that many Members of this House have done social work without training, and have taught and been taught without training; and they may have been practised on by social workers
90
who have not been trained. One cannot say that anyone who has not been through a course of social training is incapable of doing any valuable social work at all. I would press the analogy there with teaching. Other things being equal, it seems to me that both in teaching and social work the trained person will be better, and usually a good deal better, than the untrained person. That is as far as I should like to take the matter.
There is yet another issue mixed up with this. To what extent is a study of psychiatry at various levels likely to prove of benefit to social training and social work? I suppose I am as fully conscious as others of the absurdity of some of the claims made for psychiatry by some of its adherents, but if I am forced to take sides, either for or against psychiatrists and psychiatric social workers, I pay a fervent tribute to the work of these ladies and gentlemen in the cause of mercy and healing. If there is any Member of your Lordships' House who is absolutely convinced that in no circumstances would he ever benefit himself from psychiatric help, I would say that he is probably in greater need than any other Member of the House at this moment.
My Lords, I did not rise this afternoon to involve myself in these deep and intricate matters. I did so to urge on the Government, and, I think I can fairly say, to urge on the Government on behalf of the Party to which I belong, the need to make adequate plans in the spirit of the Younghusband Committee for the supply and training of far more social workers in these vital services, and to submit that there should not be a moment's delay in setting up the suggested National Council for Social Work Training. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord St Oswald, will deal with the question of the National Council when he replies. Even if it is set up, it will be some years before we can see the fruits, and that is an extra reason why we should implement this central and generally accepted principle of the Report, not at some distant date but now. Within this proposed Council the best available solutions of any of these problems which we shall be discussing to-day are likely to be discovered, but until the

91
Council is established we shall be failing to perform a duty which we have no excuses any longer for overlooking.
Earlier this afternoon a noble Lord on my own Benches who has great experience of social work said to me that what matters more than the money and training in social work is the spirit of dedication; and that I entirely accept. At the same time, he also, I am sure, would agree with me—and we shall all be in agreement with this—that you can spoil the finest spirit if you try it too high. As has been said, too long a sacrifice can make a stone of the heart. It is up to us, we in public life, to decide whether we are going to encourage or discourage the spirit of dedication in the social services, and I implore the noble Lord on behalf of the Government to give us and the country a positive encouragement this afternoon.

BALLISTIC MISSILE EARLY WARNING STATION
3.44 p.m.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to make a statement made by by right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Air on the setting up of a Ballistic Missile Early Warning Station.
Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States of America have reached agreement about setting up and operating a Ballistic Missile Early Warning Station in the United Kingdom. This agreement is in support of the North Atlantic Treaty. The text of the Agreement is available as a White Paper in the Printed Paper Office.
The station will be sited on Government-owned land at Fylingdales Moor in Yorkshire. It will give early warning of ballistic missile attacks on the United Kingdom. The station will also be the third in a chain giving early warning of ballistic missile attacks on the North American Continent. Thus the two countries have a community of interest in its erection and operation. In providing additional protection for Western strategic deterrent forces, the station will contribute substantially to the security of the entire N.A.T.O. area. The station will be commanded and operated by the
92
Royal Air Force. The information it obtains will be available simultaneously to operations centres in the United Kingdom and the United States. The Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, will receive the warning generated by the system; and the United Kingdom will also have access to information provided by the other stations in the chain.
The United States will provide and instal the radars for the station, and pay for the communications required to link the station to the rest of the system. The United Kingdom will provide the land, erect the buildings, and provide communications required to link the station with our own authorities.
For the first five years of operation, the cost of spares for the radars and other technical equipment will be borne by the United States Government, and the cost of the maintenance of this equipment on the site will be borne by the United Kingdom Government. The responsibility for these costs after the end of this period will be a matter for later review. The other running costs of the station will be borne by the United Kingdom Government. The capital cost of the station to this country is expected to be about £8 million. The capital cost to the United States is expected to be about £35 million.
The Government greatly regret that the station has to be in part of a National Park. But the topographical, geographical, and the operational criteria governing the choice of site are extremely stringent, and, after detailed examination, the Government are satisfied that there is no other suitable site in the whole country. The Fylingdales site comprises about four square miles of land, owned mainly by the War Office and partly by the Minister of Agriculture on behalf of the Forestry Commission, and is within a larger area which has been used by the War Office for military training. As the site is in a National Park, the Government undertake to demolish the buildings if at any time in the future the station is no longer required. The Air Ministry will discuss with the local authorities, and with the National Parks Commission and other amenity bodies, the detailed siting arrangements and measures to be taken to minimise the effect on the landscape.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are all obliged to the noble Lord for giving us this statement on what is obviously a very important and necessary development, although it is a warning to us all that the sands of time in the nuclear sphere are running out unless the nations do something urgently about doing away with the present threat.
It occurs to me to ask one or two questions. I hope the noble Lord may be able to answer them to-day, but if he is unable to do so perhaps he will give us the information in 'this House at a later date. First, a question about the actual
intercepting apparatus itself. With all the recent developments with regard to sited or movable bases for the despatch of rockets, will the apparatus set up be able to pick up its own direct information, thus giving a warning from all points of the compass? That is the first question I would ask. Of course, it may already be arranged that it will pick up signals from other stations in the chain coming from different parts. But it is with regard to its own actual contact with the moving object that I wanted to have that information. Of course, we have a good many arrangements for getting warnings. We have the general warning system. Will this new station be of such a character that it will enable us to do without certain of the other warning systems, and thus enable us to save in manpower and cost against the capital and maintenance expenditure we shall have in this respect? Thirdly, I should like to ask whether it is to be highly automatic, or whether it will demand a large number of new and highly technical personnel.
Fourth, there is the point in the statement which endeavours to allay our fears about the use of the National Park. I thought the adjectives used in the section dealing with that were very strong—topo-graphical, geographical, operational criteria. But this is a small area, about two miles by two, and it seems to me rather extraordinary that an area only two miles by two miles could not have been found in some other place than in an area which has definitely been reserved as a national park. It is said that widespread inquiries have been made in other
94
directions, but I do not feel highly convinced in this matter. More important is the question of whether there will be any interference in the long-term investment of public funds in the actual forestry plantations.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Viscount. I hope that I can remember all those questions. As regards the first, this station is part of a chain of three stations which are themselves capable of intercepting any ballistic missile coming from Russia; and we should get the information from the other two stations: so I think I can say that it will cover everything we need. On the second point—can we do without any of the warning systems we have at the present time?—I think it is too early to say. As the noble Viscount appreciates, there is still a threat to this country from manned aircraft, and the early warning system already in existence will continue to be needed.
The noble Viscount also asked whether the station would be highly automatic or whether it would be necessary to have a large number of highly trained people. It is intended that about 500 people will operate the station. They will not all be in uniform; about 50 will be in the Royal Air Force, or the United States Air Force, and the rest will be civilians, quite a few of them from local towns, which will therefore get some employment.
As regards the choice of site, I have every sympathy with what the noble Viscount says. Nobody wants to put these things in the middle of a national park, and one has to weigh such matters very carefully. It has to be put in a very thinly populated area, and there are other criteria which I do not think I ought to mention to the House as they are secret. These factors make it almost impossible to find another place—in fact impossible. In order to try to allay the noble Viscount's fears I should perhaps say that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who have been brought into the matter, are convinced that this is the only possible site to use. Any other site would have even greater objections than this one.

THE YOUNGHUSBAND REPORT ON SOCIAL WORKERS
3.53 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, in thanking the noble Earl for putting down this Motion on the Paper to-day, because I think it is a very important subject indeed, particularly for all of us who are interested in work for the care of people in trouble, difficulty or distress. But I find it an extremely difficult Report on which to make a speech because it is full of a large amount of information and a great many ideas. At the same time it is very long and it is difficult to pick out the few points which one feels one could stress to your Lordships now.
When I read the Report the first time I found it a fascinating document to read and explore, because it gives a very good account of what has been going on in the past in the social services, when they first started, and what is being done at the present time. I wondered too, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, wondered, whether the terms of reference were not a little too limited. I should have liked to see some reference which would have made it possible for the Report to discuss health visitors and their work for the social services, because that seems to me complementary to what is done by people trained in social work, both medical social workers and others. If they are excluded it is bound to lead to a rather one-sided view of the problem; if their work is not to be discussed it could lead to a certain amount of overlapping in conclusions and we might find the health visitor becoming supplementary rather than complementary. That I think we all want to avoid if we possibly can.
One of the things with which I think nobody who has read the Report can fail to agree is that some kind of training for social workers and some kind of qualification is a good and important thing. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, said that a large number of people are not qualified, and I do not want to repeat his words now. I wonder whether it is really necessary to go to the trouble and expense of founding a new staff college for training. After all, quite a number of these people have been trained in various ways, in the universities and in
96
colleges outside the universities, and quite a number get training from the British Red Cross Society, which gives a certain fundamental, basic training for people doing this kind of work on a voluntary basis. I wonder whether something of that sort could be expanded to avoid the need for making a new organisation for training these people.
I think, too, that the type of training put forward in the Report could be criticised as being a trifle on the theoretical side and not dealing enough with the practical side, the field work and the case work that people will have to deal with when they come to tackle these problems. I think that that is a perfectly valid criticism of what is said in the Report. The idea of a National Coordinating Council I think is a good point. It is a good thing if the training can be roughly on the same basis in various parts of the country, and the various people trained should be encouraged not to overlap too much in their training. Certainly the conception is growing up now that we do not want to keep people in hospitals and do not want to keep handicapped people in some kind of communal institution. That is a very good idea, and it will certainly call for more social workers if we are to get the work properly implemented.
But even then I think we have to be careful, when we take figures, not to think that more people want assistance to-day. It is a very remarkable thing. One hears a lot about the troubles and bothers of the elderly at the present time. But an enormous number of elderly people grow old and require no assistance from any outside body whatsoever. Those who do, want a great deal, and their needs become extremely clamant and their plights tragic. They tend to make the problem appear rather bigger than it need be. There, again, one of the things we have to be careful about, if we are to get the service going for the handicapped or the destitute, in whatever way we interpret "destitute", is not to have too many visitors. We do not want a whole procession of people coming and paying calls all day long. We want to cut the number of visitors to the minimum compatible with doing the work correctly. We have to be careful we do not get so many people involved with the work that the people visited get annoyed and irritated and do

97
not wish to receive any more visitors. That is one of the troubles. It is almost impossible to find those who really require visiting until some really serious breakdown occurs. I hope that, with more trust in this service, that problem can be broken down in time.
A point which I think the Report stresses, properly, is the importance of the trained almoner and medical social worker in that field. The Report recommends,
quite properly, that more of these should be employed by local authorities. At present I think that, according to the figures given in the Report, there are only about 70 employed by local authorities, as opposed to 1,039 employed in hospitals. One wonders whether it would be possible to get many more people to enter this profession, for a reason which I will come to in a moment; and one wonders whether one should not look carefully at the whole question. Again, that is why I think it is a pity that the work of the health visitor did not come before the Committee, so that they could see whether some of the almoners' work might not be done by a health visitor and thus allow the almoner, who is a trained and highly-skilled person, to confine herself to the work for which she is really intended.
According to the Report—I have to come back to the question of training again—only about 60 per cent. of the people working at the present time have no training at all, and although, as I say, it is a good thing that they should have some training qualifications, I am not at all sure that someone who is going to be a home help supervisor should need training lasting two years. It may be so, but I am not entirely convinced about that point. I should like to have some greater detail about it than the Report makes available. That they want some training is, I am sure, right; but that they want long training I am not sure is right. The Report says that there will be plenty of room in future for voluntary work closely tied up with what one might call the official, statutory people who are doing the work. For this I am extremely pleased, because although more and more work is becoming so technical and difficult that it has to be done by paid and trained people, there is a large field into which voluntary workers may still come, and
98
I hope that they will be encouraged to do so as much as possible.
The bulk of the increase in social work—in fact more than 50 per cent.—recommended in the Report was for mental health workers. That point we discussed not so long ago when the Mental Health Bill was debated in your Lordships' House, and there can be no surprise that the figure is so large. Again, I think that if we can do anything at all to assist local authorities in keeping these people who need attention under some kind of care in their homes rather than putting them into mental hospitals, no one will regret at all that there is going to be quite a substantial number of new people trained for that kind of work.
I think it is most important—and the Report brings out this point quite well—that the lesser trained or not so well trained workers should, if they want to, be able to discuss matters with a fully trained and senior person. After all, that is what occurs in all professions. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, will support me when I say that it certainly occurs in my own profession. When one is young and quite recently qualified, one is apt to seek out senior people, not in order to put oneself under them but in order to learn from their experience. I trust that it will be made simple for the various tiers of social workers to discuss the various problems together as often as possible.
That is tied up with the question of whether the work should be as decentralised as is humanly possible. There comes a point where decentralisation becomes uneconomic. As an example, in my view it would be impossible for a large body like the London County Council to take on this work itself and to direct it all from County Hall. It must be delegated at the present time to the Metropolitan boroughs. What will happen when the Report regarding local government is published I do not know; but at the present moment the Metropolitan boroughs are doing the work, and I hope that, in large areas particularly, the work will be delegated down to the lowest possible economic factor. After all, one person who was a great success in the old Poor Law days—I am not saying that he should be recalled—was the relieving officer, because he was given a tiny part of the world to

99
look after. He had only a small area, and it was his duty to know with whom he was going to be in touch, and he did know. That was a very good thing and it was a consequence of not centralising the work. Then decentralisation was practised on a large scale, and that is a principle that I should like to see encouraged.
There is another point in the Report with which I do not entirely agree and in regard to which the powers of reference of the Working Party are limited. There is some sort of medical aspect to most welfare and social work—I personally think that that is true of practically all social and welfare work, but I am prepared to compromise and say "most social and welfare work" in order to get more general agreement. Therefore it would be a good thing if the welfare and health departments could, if not be combined together, which would be an ideal thing, work closely together, with the medical officer of health being a member of the two committees or having both committees working under his care. If that could be done and one could get the social workers tied up with the combined committee, then a lot more efficient work would be done, with not so much danger of the work overlapping and probably with not so many staff as at present.
That, again, is tied up with another point which I think reflects a great danger to all social work—the fact that so much local authority work is permissive and not obligatory; they may do this, but they are not compelled to do it. That could lead to an enormous difference in the work done in various areas. Although this may not quite apply to the Motion we are debating to-day, I think it is sufficiently near to make it justifiable to bring in the point, that if we could get more compulsion and less permissiveness we should get a much better standard of social work in the country generally. There remains a great deal about which we know nothing at all. That is why I am so pleased to see that the Report says that there is a great need for research into what is to be done and what are the best ways of carrying it out. I trust that whatever parts of the Report are implemented, that particular side will not be lost sight of.
100
There are two other points that I wish briefly to bring forward. One point concerns the question of what we are going to pay these people. If we require a large increase in the number of social workers we have to make it worth their while to come into the profession. Therefore we shall need to pay them a wage which is comparable to what a well-trained and educated young woman will get in a corresponding job. It is going to become increasingly difficult, because the demand for the well-educated young woman is growing enormously. There are the nurses, working their shift system, taking more and more young women, and if we are to have a large number of social workers, too, it is important that they should be paid a comparable wage to what the same kind of girl can get if she goes to work as a shorthand-typist in a big business firm, or something like that. Broadly speaking, I think one can say that the Report has shed a great deal of light on various dark corners, and there are quite a number of the recommendations with which one can agree entirely. Therefore I hope that the Government will see their way clear to implementing them as soon as they can.
4.9 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I should like to begin by associating myself wholeheartedly with all the observations which the noble Earl who moved this Motion made in praise of the devoted work which is done by a great many social workers, in praise of the values which they set before themselves in their profession, and in praise of the skill with which many of them discharge their exceedingly difficult and responsible duties. I should like also, if I may, to dissociate myself from the observations which have been the subject this afternoon of a good deal of the higher criticism—I refer to the observations which have been variously ascribed, as to their authorship, to the noble Earl himself and to Professor Richard Titmuss. I do not know against whom those remarks are addressed, but I suspect that their still somewhat dubious author must have had at least a sidelong glance at myself. I should like, therefore, to say, quite categorically, that I have never taken the view that our social services should not be staffed with an adequate, and indeed a

101
much greater, body of competent social workers than they are at present. I may have something to say later about "snooping", but I am certainly not prepared to take the view that the social services could possibly be operated without such a body; and I am not open to the charge that by denigrating the work of social workers I am, in effect, pleading for the abolition of our social services.
If the still uncertain author of these observations would be good enough to read the thirty or forty pages I have written on this subject he would find in the latter half—which I fear he cannot have reached—some more positive suggestions, which I hope to repeat to-day, for the development of this profession. Even so, I think it is possible to differ from the particular view of this profession which is presented in some parts of the Younghusband Report, and I think it is also possible to see, perhaps, the shadow of Colonel Parkinson, the notorious author of Parkinson's Law, brooding a little over this document; and even at points to suspect that the pen of the distinguished colonel may have traced the rather numerous words upon some of its passages. I do say that in some of its recommendations this Report is a little pretentious, a little grandiose, and not, I think, entirely realistic.
May I start, since we are to-day clearly in something of a theological mood, by some observations about its trinitarian aspects? Your Lordships have been reminded more than once to-day that this Report proposes that there should be three grades of social worker and that by a similar classification our problems should also fall into three distinct grades. There are the welfare assistant, trained on the job at the bottom of the hierarchy; the two-year non-university-trained social worker, and what I may call the super-social worker who is to be academically trained. And to correspond with this there are those of us who are said to have simple problems, those of us said to have rather more complex problems and those of us who, alas! have problems of special difficulty. This is tidy, beautifully tidy; but is it realistic? The Committee, aware of certain latent dangers, have said that they do not propose, they certainly do not wish, to hand
102
people about like parcels on a conveyor belt—meaning, I take it, that they would not wish that we should be handed about according to the grading of our social problems, first to one social worker and then to another. One is very glad to learn that, but I do not see how within the framework of their scheme it is to be avoided.
May I take one concrete case? The Committee envisage the sad but quite common case of a man who loses his eyesight and becomes blind. At the difficult stage at which he must adjust himself to his blindness the Committee see him as a suitable subject for grade 2, the middle grade of social work, with the two-year non-university trained social worker who may help him adjust himself to his blindness. When the man has made this adjustment he will not perhaps need more than the welfare assistant who will be able to pop in for what the Committee describe as a "routine visit" from time to time, in which, we may be sure, he will take great pleasure. Should it unfortunately happen, however, that after a time the man's family get rather tired of his condition and think he does not help himself as much as he should, and should there thus develop family tensions of an all too familiar kind, we should be hovering on the verge of a problem of special difficulty; and the two social workers who have successively called on this unfortunate man afflicted by blindness will be replaced by a third, the super-trained social worker with the fullest academic qualifications.
It seems to me that this is an entirely imaginary concept of the distribution of different gifts and different skills amongst the community. A certain basic knowledge, an important basic knowledge on which I should like to say something in a moment, will be needed by all these social workers, but it seems to me a great flight of the imagination to suppose that the skills of handling the complicated questions, family questions and others, that may arise are skills in which the more highly trained will necessarily acquit themselves better than those whose training has been less prolonged. It may well be—and in the experience of those of us who have had a great deal to do with social work often is the case—that the

103
humble welfare assistant, with the delightful personality and easy way of getting on with people, will be by far the best person to deal with the problems of special difficulty when marital tensions arise, and that the high-powered semi-psychiatrically trained (and in the presence of the noble Lord on this side, I emphasise psychiatrically trained) social worker will make a thorough mess of it because she does not happen to have exactly the kind of personality which fits this kind of case.
I should have thought that the commonsense way of dealing with different levels of problem would be the way in which the general practitioner in medicine deals with them. When he has a simple problem or pays a routine visit, he stays a short time. When he has a very complicated problem he spends more time. But he calls in a consultant only when some definite technical knowledge of an expert character is required, knowledge that he himself does not possess. I think we are making over-rigid professions for profession's sake, and this is possibly one of the examples of the besetting disease of our community at this time—a delight in professionalism for its own sake.
In this particular instance I believe that the origin is to be found in the very great emphasis which of recent years has been laid upon the psychological or psychiatric aspect of social work. This change, which has been described by Mrs. Audrey Harvey, in her exceedingly important pamphlet on the casualties of the Welfare State, recently published, as "solemn amateur psychiatry", is an American importation, and on the whole, I think, one of the less desirable American importations. But it has been extensively imported, and a great number of our social workers and students to-day are very largely nurtured on American textbooks. I know this because I was for a number of years head of one of the schools for social workers in this country, and this bias towards the psychiatric approach had then already begun to make itself apparent.
I am glad that this particular bias is not very pronounced in the Young-husband Report. That is what I should have expected from its distinguished Chairman, whose distinction is to be seen not only in her academic record, nor in
104
her extensive practical social work but also in her common sense. But there are some signs of this philosophy. For instance, in the Committee's description of the training to be provided the first subject of which the student must acquire "a good understanding" is the study of human needs, motivation and behaviour. Of this subject, my Lords, the student in the two-year course is to get a good understanding. Some of us have spent the whole of our lives in struggling to make head or tail of human needs, motivation and behaviour, and it is a matter of great regret to learn so late, alas! in life, for some of us, that had we but taken a two-year course in social-work training at the age of twenty its mysteries would have been revealed to us. This I quote as an example of what I mean by the undue pretentiousness, largely of American origin, that has crept into our social work conceptions.
Then, again, the Committee refer to the essentials of social work as dealing with a failure of personal or social function. There, my Lords, I think we run into another characteristic danger of our times, and that is the tendency to confuse the economic and psychological. I should be the very last to dispute that, where there is a problem of mental health or mental disorder, psychological training is absolutely essential in a social worker. I should be the last to dispute that it is most deplorable that so small a portion of our mental welfare workers have that kind of training, and I shall be delighted if this Report encourages the much wider development of that training in this particular field. But I think it is unfortunate when interest in what are genuinely psychological problems encourages a tendency to see the psychological in things in which it does not necessarily have any part, and a failure to discriminate between what is sometimes merely a very plain practical need, often of an economic character—lack of money—and a truly difficult mental or psychological problem. I have seen with great distress how many of our social workers, when faced with a simple, as it were, practical economic problem, are being encouraged to search for some more profound disturbance underneath.
Before I leave this aspect of the subject, I should like just to give one word of warning, as to where this may

105
take us. It happened that when I was in the United States just before Christmas the New York Times issued an appeal for what was described as the 100 neediest cases in the City, an appeal of the ordinary charitable kind that we have so often at Christmas. I shall not weary your Lordships by reciting these 100 cases, but I will take one which I think is typical. It is case number 76. In this case, a young man, who is said to have a minimal salary as a clerk, came near to a nervous breakdown. His wife had been seriously ill and had an operation, which had made her almost totally helpless. He got a neighbour to look after his child while he himself, after doing his day's work, attended to his wife's needs. Then the neighbour became ill and could no longer look after the child, and there was no one to help poor Mr. G., with his helpless wife, his young child and his job on a minimal salary. So the charitable public of New York were asked to subscribe to this case. But what for? To meet his financial needs? To get him a better job? Oh, no! To pay for a counsellor to help him with his financial planning. I understand your Lordships' laughter, but I think this is dangerous, not to say in many ways insulting. And may I say that I have gone faithfully through the 100 cases in this appeal, and in over 90 of them the concluding observation is that funds are asked for to provide for a counsellor, when one would suppose that what the poor chap wants is a bit of money to make his way in the world?
A very large part of the problems with which the social worker has to deal is basically economic; and surely we on these Benches, of all places, should refrain from falling into the error of supposing that those whose lot is cast in a hard part of our economic system are therefore to be treated as though they were failures in personal or social functions. Many of your Lordships no doubt employ an expert to advise you how you should not pay more money in taxes than a minimal construction of the law requires, and much social work has an expert economic character somewhat analogous to that. Those of your Lordships who employ experts of that kind—as indeed I do myself, not wishing to contribute more than I need to a Government of which I do not approve—would be astonished if these gentlemen proceeded
106
from a discussion of your intimate private financial affairs to explore your equally, indeed more, intimate private marital affairs, and to suggest that your financial arrangements, which might be perhaps a little chaotic, could be explained only by the fact that there were tensions between yourselves and your wives, or husbands (as we must now say), as the case might be. But that is what this kind of pseudo-psychiatric approach to social work encourages.
My Lords, social work, we all know, began as slumming, and I think that we on this side of the House may take credit, because the work done by many of our colleagues here and in another place has done much to destroy slums; and we are all now ashamed of slums. But there is a possible form of slumming which is psychological slumming. It would indeed be sad if we had abolished slumming of the old-fashioned kind merely to replace it by a new psychological version, and it is that aspect about which I hope the Government will be extremely cautious in the type of training which they provide for the modern social worker. I would hope, rather, that this Report might be made the occasion for fresh thinking, for a new orientation, in regard to the rôle of the social worker in our society.
As our social services become increasingly complex, it becomes clearer and clearer that only the expert can find his (or, more commonly, her) way about them. And it is, indeed, surely the primary function of the social worker to know that work; to know where help can be obtained for all the ordinary recurring emergencies of life, and to mobilise that help quickly and efficiently. That, rather than pseudo-psychoanalysis, is surely the function which the social worker exists to perform; and for that function very great qualities are required: sympathy, imagination, initiative and, above all, an encyclopædic knowledge. I hope that the Government are going to make this Report the occasion for seeing that at least the knowledge will be imparted, even if some of the other qualities are given rather than made.
I think it is significant that it appeared in this Report that over half the time of nearly all social workers has to be spent in discussion with colleagues, in

107
ringing up people in other parts of the social services, in writing letters—in fact, in administration and organising work. This social work is work of the highest importance. It is no exaggeration to say that if it is efficiently performed, and performed with pride, it can make our social services something utterly different from the pitiful picture which they sometimes present to those who have to use them. I would conclude that this is the primary function which the social worker should seek to fulfil.
To that I would add something which is scarcely of less importance—if, indeed, it is secondary—and that is that the social worker should be a source of information about the anomalies and deficiencies which still blemish our social legislation. The pamphlet by Mrs. Harvey, to which I have already referred, is an admirable first sign that perhaps thought is turning in that direction. For the social worker at the circumference can see things of this kind which are hidden from even the most imaginative draftsman at the centre of Her Majesty's Government, and the social worker can bring these shortcomings to the attention both of the public and of the appropriate Government Department. Alas! at present most of our social workers have to work too hard and for too little money to have anything to spare for this important type of social research; and we greatly hope that one of the results of this Report will be to raise their status and increase their leisure to a point at which they might direct their attention to research into the places where amendment, extension or modification of the legislation is necessary as regards our social services—for, my Lords, I think it is social workers who see the potentialities of their profession in such terms as these who hold in their hands, perhaps more than anybody else, the power to make a reality of what is now often optimistically described as a Welfare State.
4.33 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ALBANS: My Lords, I count myself fortunate to have listened to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger. In her description of the social worker's qualities—sympathy, imagination, initiative
108
and encyclopædic knowledge—it seemed to me, if I may say so, that she was describing the virtues which her own speech displayed.
I rise from this Bench to support the reception of this Report and to endorse the welcome that has been given to it by the noble Earl, Lord Feversham, and others. I welcome it for four reasons: its breadth of vision; its concern with the needs of individuals; its emphasis on the importance of training for social work—a point that has been underlined by previous speakers; and the fact that it recognises the important part played by the voluntary organisations. I am glad to notice that the noble Earl, Lord Feversham, the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, and other noble Lords have stressed that point. The Report is still being given the close attention that it deserves; by universities, by institutions, by organisations and by social workers themselves. The Church also is in this debate, and is glad to be in it. The Church has her own responsibilities in the field of social work, and her own agents, and most of these are integrated into the national system. As has been mentioned, the Report is receiving careful study in many directions. In Church House and in the dioceses this study is going steadily forward; and certainly, also, among Christians who take a serious view of their social responsibilities.
By what criterion are we to judge this Report? The Report itself gives the answer: that the criterion is the criterion of need. It is the degree to which its recommendations, if implemented, would equip society, through its social workers, to minister in the fullest possible way to members in need. Hence the timely recommendations (which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, has said, take humanitarian form): that the local authority and welfare service workers should be trained for their work, and that workers with different degrees of skill are required. Need should determine whether voluntary agencies are to work beside, and in partnership with, the statutory agencies. The criterion is, quite simply, need, having in mind the conflicting claims on workers and on money, and the importance of spreading workers and money fairly between this country and the under-developed

109
`countries in the Commonwealth. I hope that in our debate this afternoon we shall continually have in our minds, if not precisely in our speaking, the underdeveloped countries and their needs. Certainly the duplication of services and allowing a client to choose between a voluntary and a statutory service is a luxury which we cannot now afford.
As has been said, the Report pays a welcome tribute to the voluntary work of the past, and sees it still as an essential complement to the local authorities' own social work. It recognises that the voluntary agency unlocks resources of local goodwill which may be closed to a statutory authority. This master key should be as useful in the future as it has been powerful in the past; and the Report provides serious food for thought about what should be the work of voluntary organisations. They have freedom to pioneer new work and to venture on work which may be peculiar, unpopular, untried and despised, as some of the work of the Church has been in the past. I believe that some welfare organisations must now be more ready to pass on established work, and so keep a certain energy for new developments. We think that much work, and probably much pioneering work, remains to be done by voluntary organisations, including some of those for which the Church is still responsible. Of course, my Lords, local authorities have a statutory obligation to care for unmarried mothers and their children, and 70 per cent. of them do so through agreements with voluntary organisations. If the Report as a whole is implemented, a new form of partnership between voluntary
organisations and local authorities should be created. The form of such a partnership must be shaped so that it provides the best service for those who need it; and therefore—and I emphasise this point—the social workers employed by the voluntary organisations must be equipped as competently as those who work in the statutory services.
Before leaving the work of voluntary societies, I would refer to criticism of the Report made by certain organisations who have the special responsibility of caring for the deaf. The critics here are fearful lest the recommendations in the Report, if carried out, will lead to a less adequate service for these handicapped
110
people. Perhaps workers among the deaf are too isolated in their service at present. That is the implication of the Report, and certainly here is a risk. But, my Lords, a danger is more apparent—namely, that a worker who has received only a general social training and who lacks the specialised training for deaf work would be unable to communicate adequately with the deaf, and would neither understand the limited vocabulary of those born deaf nor the psychological problems that result from deafness. Communication with the deaf really means learning a new language. The Church is greatly concerned about this work, and it is being debated in the Church Assembly this afternoon.
Then there is the further matter of the spiritual care of the deaf. The Report says:
"We do not suggest local authorities should at any time take over responsibility for spiritual ministration, though they should see that it is available."
If adequate grants are not continued, so that some, or most, of the voluntary societies are forced out of existence in this field, who is to bear the responsibility for spiritual work? Can the hospitals provide us with something of a precedent and the Government make grants to local authorities to pay part-time chaplains? I was interested in the regret expressed by one member of the Younghusband Working Party that time and certain other factors made it impossible to undertake a systematic study of the consumer. I realise that the terms of reference might well have led the Working Party to decide to explore no further afield. Nevertheless, I hope that there may soon be an inquiry into the experience, wishes and feelings of those for whom the services are designed. I should expect this inquiry to support the view that we are still in danger of over-specialisation. Here I echo something that the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, has already said.
Admirable proposals for training under a National Council are given in this Report. Assuming that they are put into practice, certain questions are raised. I limit myself to one of them. What will happen during the first few years when officers are withdrawn from health and welfare services for training? What will happen when supervisors will be required in increasing numbers to

111
carry out training, as well as to supervise workers in the field? What will happen when part-time training and refresher courses absorb the time of those remaining in the service? Will there be sufficient social workers left to deal with the urgent needs of clients? My contribution to this debate is brief, and I conclude by adding my tribute to the bold plan set out in the Report to improve the standards and methods of social work throughout the country.
4.43 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I rise with great pleasure to take part in this debate, and I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Feversham, for having put his Motion on the Order Paper. I should like to say how much I have enjoyed the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger. I find myself in agreement with many of the things she said, but if, in the course of my speech, I express some disagreement, I hope that she will appreciate that it is only a personal view, though one which comes from some experience of social work.
This Report is a painstaking and careful document, which has brought to light many things of great importance. It has been studied up and down the country by social workers in many different professional groups, and on the whole I think that it has had a great deal of support. Such criticism as there has been has been that the terms of reference were limited, and again because it was thought that it might interfere with the training of another category of social workers who have already had a report about their work—namely, the health visitors. However, I think it is clear that the Younghusband Working Party confined themselves to their terms of reference and were not trying to make any suggestions about any other type of training, so that the anxieties of some of our social workers can now be allayed.
I feel that there is room for a great deal of co-operation in the local authority services in the social welfare field. The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and other noble Lords have referred to this matter. I have had some experience in this field. For ten years I have been chairman of the children's committee of my county council. I have served on the joint pro-
112
bation committee for three counties, and for fifteen years I have been a member of the health and welfare committee of my county council. I think that we could get greater co-operation between the various branches of local authority services, which would be an economy in some ways, but it should not lead to what is called in another field "take-over bids" between one group of people and another. A noble Lord raised the question of whether there is such a character as a trained social worker. I think that there is. I have done a great deal of social work but I was not trained, and it was hard work learning on the job, perhaps not so hard for me as it was for the people I was trying to help—those "at the receiving end", as a noble Lord has put it—who might have suffered because of my inexperience. I think that the people we wish to help should be spared that amount of difficulty.
The Report does not deal with other services, such as child care or probation, because they did not come within the Working Party's terms of reference. But I think that in the Report there are matters which are germane to the training of those other social workers. I should like to stress, what has already been pointed out, that the Report does not suggest an army of new social workers. They are already in the field, but their numbers are going to be increased, and one would like to see the new intake given every opportunity of equipping themselves for their new jobs. There are over 3,000 workers in these services. The Report mentions 1,619 welfare officers and mental welfare officers employed in the local authority services.
I should not like anyone to think that we, particularly those of us in local government service, do not admire enormously the very efficient and successful work which they do, in spite of the fact that 60 per cent. have had no training at all. The remaining 40 per cent. were largely trained under the old Poor Law authorities. Many hold certificates as relieving officers, while some have diplomas in public administration, and some have passed local authority clerical and administrative examinations. According to the Report, only 8 per cent. hold a social service qualification. In addition, the people who have the experience in the welfare service and

113
are carrying the heat and burden of the day, are getting on in years and in ten years' time a great many of them will have to retire. So they are the first who will be anxious for a recognised training for their profession. That is why I think it extremely important to take cognisance of the Report at the present moment, while many of our social service workers are still within some years of retirement.
Your Lordships may remember, as I do, that in another sphere, in the training of youth leaders, we have had two reports—the Fleming and the McNair Reports—and successive Governments have failed to do anything about this subject. It is only now, thanks to Lady Albemarle's Report and the enthusiasm of the present Minister of Education, that youth leaders are really going to have some training and that their case is now being put before the public. One does not want the same fate to hang over the Younghusband Report.
I think it has been said—and I should like to repeat it, because I think a strong case can be made—that those of us who found ourselves in hospital would not like to be in a hospital where the nurses were not properly trained, and we should not want our children to go to a school where the teachers were not properly trained. So that we are now laying out, as it were, a blueprint for the experiences of the welfare services which will require many more people, and there is now a body of knowledge and teaching which I think can be given to these people which will help them in their profession. They are (and the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, said this clearly) dealing with serious problems which it would be difficult for any of us to try to solve. Not only are there problems of handicapped people, mental health and so on, but there are problems arising out of broken family life, which are possibly the most difficult of all. So I feel that in this difficult field of experience we should try to get the best possible people.
I have also read with great interest the pamphlet to which the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, alluded, which has just been published, about the problems of the welfare services and where they do not seem to fulfil the needs. The question of the economic problems of families is extremely important, and I know that many cases do arise through
114
that cause. We have gone a long way to do away with real poverty in the present age, but, as we all know, it has not been completely abolished, and there are still problems arising out of economic conditions. I would say, however, from my experience, that just as difficult problems can arise with no poverty or economic background difficulty. It is not only economic troubles that are at the bottom of a great deal of the breakdown of family life: it is also the general picture and difficulties, about which we read in the Press and we know of in our own surroundings, which have nothing to do with poverty at all. I have found in the child care service, in dealing with problem families, that often there is no question of there not being enough money in the family. It is just that circumstances are such that family relations break down. I do not think one can put the need for care and social work down to poverty only, because it occurs in all walks of life and in all types of families.
The need for the social worker is not, I think, the result of a sort of gloomy prognostication of what is going to happen, but simply that the amount of work that is being put on to the local authority staffs in the Welfare State is growing. The responsibility under the new Mental Health Act, for instance, and the fact, as many people have said, that we all want people to be treated at home, if possible, mean that more trained people are needed. So it is not, in my view, a depressing picture but an encouraging one, that we shall be able to deal far more with people outside their homes. But, as has been said, we shall need the staff to do it. I feel also that one could do a certain amount of preventive work by having skilled and good people who are working outside institutions or in the local authority services preventing the breakdown of family life. Certainly it can be done in the child care services. Technically speaking, it is not supposed to be done; but it is done, and most successfully. I think we could find in the new set-up for our local authority services a certain amount of preventive work that could be done by social workers. That is why I feel we should take urgent action at this time.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, made some amusing comments about the three-tier type of training. In

115
the first place, I should like to say that anything which can be described as "pseudo" would, I think, be quite wrong from the point of training. The pseudo type of training, whether psychological, psychiatric or anything else, must be wrong; if there is to be training, it must be real, genuine training. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that the "pseudo" business is all wrong. But I do feel that it will not be possible to have everybody with the same degree of training, or with the same skill, simply because of the numbers involved. The idea of people having, as it were, two-year courses—which in many ways would be equivalent in the teaching profession to the teacher-training colleges as against the university-trained teacher—will be useful and will help in the whole service. For you must have a teacher. You cannot have everybody at the same level, unless you are in an ideal State. But it would be possible to have types of training, and the welfare assistant that has been described will give opportunities to people who will not want to have a professional training of the category of the university, or the teachers' training college.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, that it would be a great mistake to say that every case must be dealt with by a particular grade of welfare worker, but I cannot envisage anyone being foolish enough to attempt to make such a tidy pattern for any particular or difficult case. We all know that one person gets on better than another with one family, another one with another family and so on; and the question of whether they are in tier one, two or three does not, I think, arise. I cannot believe, certainly in the local authority I know best, that such a thing would happen. Furthermore, this idea of having three tiers of social workers will operate only in an area containing a great many people. In fact, in many of the smaller counties it could not happen, because there will not be the number of social workers or the number of people, and it will be a case of one or two dealing with all the necessary people. I do not think we need worry too much about the tiers, because I think that matter will sort itself out, and that any sensible people will work together and deal with the people where they can give the best help.
116
I should like to support the idea of a National Council of Social Work Training. I think that would be valuable and would solve many of the problems in training of which we are thinking, because there you would have the advice and help of a whole variety of people in different training centres—the universities, professional bodies, local authorities and so on. I think they would all combine together and you would then work out—and I suggest we have not yet properly considered the working out of—a national certificate in social work which might be the basis for many other workers in the social work field, and would be simpler and, possibly, more applicable than a more complicated type of course. The idea of national social training, of which I think the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, and the noble Earl, Lord Feversham, were in favour I should like to support very strongly indeed. I think it would also speed up the plans for training and would establish better co-operation with the many professional bodies.
May I give my own experience of trying to get a social work training course for child care officers in Scotland, where we have the co-operation of Edinburgh University and, in fact, of all the people involved—the children's officers, the local authorities, the university, and so on? It has taken three years to get such a course going and it is only beginning in October of this year. That is not because of any opposition, but simply because to get all the interests consulted to make the necessary inquiries is a very lengthy business; and there is also the difficulty of getting the personnel. I believe that could be speeded up if there could be a National Council for Social Work.
I should like to support, too, those who have spoken of the importance of the voluntary organisations, as well as of the statutory authorities, in this work. There is a whole chapter in the Young-husband Report about the work of the great voluntary societies. These are, I think, of enormous importance. The professional societies and the voluntary societies, the National Associations for Mental Health, the National Old People's Welfare Councils, the Family Service Units, the National Institute for the Blind, the Central Council for the Care of Cripples, the British Red Cross

117
and the W.V.S. are some of those mentioned in the Report. They are all of enormous importance in making up this real welfare service, and making it effective and applicable throughout the country. I think that those people who give and have given throughout all these years their services voluntarily, are people whom we would lose at our peril, and it would be a sad day if they were to go out of this type of work.
In the Younghusband Report it is made clear that the continuance of this pattern of co-operation between the statutory authorities and the voluntary organisations is invaluable. They want it to continue, so I do not think we need worry about that at all. I know, too, that quite a number of the voluntary organisations and also the national and professional bodies are extremely anxious that there should be a National Council for Social Work. They are willing and anxious to take part in this, and to help with the training of personnel throughout the country. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, mentioned a reference to this in the Labour Party manifesto. If I remember rightly—I cannot quote it—there was a reference to this in the Conservative Party manifesto, also. I hope the noble Lord when he replies will be able to give us some assurance that the Government's views now are the same as they were when we fought the Election, and that they are anxious to see that the opportunity for setting up a National Council for Social Work should be taken now.
I believe that this is an all-important moment for this work. We have in this Report a charter for the training of a band of exceedingly important people in the Welfare State. That it is not conclusive, or that there are things in it which will not appear in the final training schemes, is obvious. I do not suppose for one moment that the Working Party thought that every single thing they were writing down was likely to happen. But I am quite sure that they are on the right lines, and that the local authorities will appreciate this and will be anxious to help. I beg the Government to take this opportunity to adopt this bold plan, because I am sure that at this moment it will meet with great response from the local authorities and also from the social workers.
5.5 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for more than a few minutes on this subject, but there are one or two general points I should like to make. There have been references to the Labour and Conservative Party manifestos on this subject before the Election. As would appear from the speeches already made from these Benches, this is by no means a Panty subject. I say that because I want to make it quite clear that I speak only for myself and not for my Party on this occasion. My first point is a general one, not relevant only to this debate, but to many debates of this
nature which we have in your Lordships' House. I think it would be most helpful to the House if, after the mover of the Motion has spoken, we could have an indication from the Government of what their attitude is on the Motion which is before the House. Unless we have that, subsequent speakers in the discussion really do not know whether they are knocking at an open door or are hitting heavily on a heavily barred door. I suggest that it might be brought to the attention of the noble Earl the Leader of the House that, when we have occasions of this nature, it would be helpful to the whole of the House if we could have a Government statement immediately following the speech of the mover of the Motion.
To come to the immediate matter under consideration, may I say that my own limited knowledge of it began before the war when I was associated with the work of child guidance clinics, which is now one of our welfare services but which before the war was one of the voluntary services. It is one of our prides, if I may put it this way, that so many services have been pioneered by voluntary effort and have later been integrated into our welfare organisation. At that time, I was particularly struck by the magnificent work which was done by the psychiatric social workers. Since the war, I have been rather more remotely, through the experience of my wife, kept in touch with the work of our mental hospitals, and I have been struck by the need for psychiatric social workers in that particular field. I am concerned with the fact that so many of our mental hospitals find it impossible to recruit the number of psychiatric social workers which their establishment

119
would entitle them to have. This House recently spent a great deal of time on a detailed and thorough examination of the new Mental Health Act. It will not be possible for that Act to be effective in its operation unless we have a great extension of the recruitment and training of psychiatric social workers. Without that, the preventive work and the after-discharge work, which are both essential features of the Act, will be quite incapable of fulfilment.
The noble Earl who proposed the Motion, and to whom we are all indebted, said towards the end of his speech, "How long do we have to wait?" I think I have quoted him correctly. Might I put that in a different way: How much money are the Government prepared to put up for the work envisaged in this Report? It is money which is required, and in particular in two directions: money through the University Grants Committee, to provide for the training of those who in turn will become partly operatives in the field and partly the teachers of a still more extended army operating in the field; and in the second place money to raise the completely inadequate salaries which are paid to all our social service workers, in whichever category they come, not merely that they may be better rewarded but partly that their status may be raised and that their recruitment may be improved. So I hope that the noble Lord who is going to answer for the Government will reply to the noble Earl's question on "How long do we have to wait?" by indicating to what extent the Government are prepared to provide the finance which is essential to the implementation of even the most minimal recommendations of the Younghusband Report.
5.11 p.m.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, I could not be here for the early part of the debate because I have been literally wallowing in water boards upstairs, but I think from what I have heard that the great sense of this House is that not only is training essential but a national council of guidance for training must be set up so that the training can be channelled into the different priorities and arrangements made for that training to take place. If we ask ourselves why this training is so vitally necessary, I
120
would say first of all from my experience—and I have had about thirty-five years with the Handicapped Children's Aid Society and a year or so with mentally handicapped children—that the social workers themselves need to be trained. The noble Lord, Lord Archibald, spoke about money. I believe that the training would be tremendously appreciated, and then you could increase the salaries of those who had passed some form of diploma or, shall we say, some categories of diploma.
What the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, said is tremendously true; it is not always a question of money in the homes. In some cases we find that where children are maltreated the mother or father may have the money but they have not the power or the understanding to cope with the household. They do not mean it; they just have not gat the understanding. My point here is that the social worker who is trained picks up what one might call the tricks of the trade. It is not always easy to get into these houses because so many people still think of it all as a kind of charity.
The first part of the training would be in general social work. Those people who wish Ito hive themselves off into such things as mental health or other categories of social work might have their special courses. They need not be very long. I would not know enough about the two-year course to speak about it. But the money must be there to start this National Council. Let us also remember that the National Council must be representative of all the social services; not just a lot of civil servants at the top. We must bring in people who have an understanding and a knowledge and are willing to give the time to work out the future training. I think this Report has brought to the notice of everybody what has to be done, and I can only hope that Her Majesty's Government will see that the first turn of the wheel is not too long delayed and will set up this National Council. Then they can decide how the wheel is going to continue to roll and the training take place.
5.16 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I propose to detain you for only a few moments this afternoon, but I should like to say a word or two respecting the

121
position of mental hospitals so far as psychiatric social workers are concerned. The Younghusband Report rightly emphasises the need for skilled work among the mentally sick. The establishment of one mental hospital of which I have some knowledge provides for the appointment of three psychiatric social workers. For years these posts have been advertised, but without result, until the Committee realised that the position was hopeless and these three posts have remained unfilled. I have reason to believe that this experience is not unique but that other mental hospitals are in the same position; and that has been amply confirmed by what my noble friend Lord Archibald said a moment or two ago.
It seems to me, with respect, that there are simple reasons for this state of affairs, and in my submission the first is that the number of trained psychiatric social workers from the London School of Economics and other schools is hopelessly inadequate to meet the demand. That is the first point. The second paint is that after a long period of training, four years, it is not surprising that the qualified people take up more highly paid positions, and, perhaps I might add, more glamorous posts, than work in mental hospitals. I would therefore, with respect, make two suggestions: first, that there should be a larger intake for training; secondly, that the posts in mental hospitals should be made more attractive than they are at present. The need for improvement in that direction will, I think, be obvious to your Lordships when I mention that the salaries at present paid in the National Health Service for trained psychiatric social workers are less than those paid at present to teachers in primary schools. These are simple suggestions; they are capable of fairly immediate action on the part of the Government. But, speaking from my experience, and I am sure from the experience of my noble friend, Lord Archibald, more trained psychiatric social workers in our mental hospitals will, in the long run, save money and bring happiness to many families at present denied that happiness.
5.20 p.m.
BARONESS SWANBOROUGH: My Lords, we have heard a great deal this afternoon in support of the Motion put
122
down by the noble Earl, Lord Fever-sham, and I will not reiterate those things that have already been said. But I should like to take a different line from that which other speakers have taken, and look towards the future we all hope to achieve—that of domiciliary as against institutional care for the patient. I should like to look forward towards the co-ordination of all the social services which are the responsibility of the local authority. I cannot see that any system of training, whatever it may be, could overlook this necessity in the long run, and I feel that unless we examine it we are perhaps making a mistake on a long-term view.
Like all Members of the House I have been tremendously impressed not only by the work given to, but by the meticulous care that has been taken by, the Younghusband Committee. It is fantastically interesting to read the Report, and I am quite sure that all of us who work in the social services will count this as one of those books that has to be kept in our libraries and ought to be bound; otherwise it will be dealt with so often that it will get dog-eared. I accept with great joy the fact that there will be training possible for the future, but I must admit that I am very worried about the suggestion that the people who are at present doing a magnificent piece of work need to submit themselves to further training to qualify for the days ahead. I speak not as a Member of the House, but as a woman who for 21 years has worked for and with local authorities in their various social services. As such, I cannot pay a high enough tribute to the men and women who are to-day carrying the statutory responsibility at local level for the different sides of social service as we have been discussing them this afternoon.
It is wrong, I think, to say that these people are acting without having had any training. They have had training, but it is not the training that has been tabulated, formulated or devised by either school or university. When dealing with human beings, character, personality, dedication and experience outweigh theoretical training. But when these qualities are present as well as the professional proficiency, the fusion of the two leads to what I think every one of us would like to see for the future. I should like to pay a very sincere and deep tribute to the men

123
and women who have instituted the Welfare State in the way it has been done, and to say that if it had not been for their integrity of purpose, their steadfastness of outlook, the achievements of to-day would not have been possible.
I welcome very much the idea of a form of training, but I am worried as to whether we might mistake one thing for another and think that training would be more worth while than personality or character. The thing we ask these men and women to do is a thing which is not to be bought for money, although I submit very sincerely that the pay of to-day must be examined and put on a better footing. Training as such is an excellent thing, but the over-elaboration which comes with an obsession of professionalism is a hazard which all of us who have worked in other countries than this have seen harm not only the people who have been touched by it, but the enterprises that have been engulfed by it. The finest training of all is obviously in the school of life, but because of the difficulties of graduating in that particular school a stereotyped form must be accepted. I do hope that Her Majesty's Government, in accepting a form of training, will consult not only the theoreticians but the people we serve and the people who, up to date, have made the pattern we know. A successful social worker or a good social worker is, in the minds of those whom they serve, not a professional adviser at all but a real friend. If we allow ourselves to be deflected into thinking that a piece of pasteboard enables a person to do this or that, because of that diploma, I think it would be very sad.
It seems to me that our ultimate aim must be to keep well in our minds the means of progress in our national life which will lead to a higher proportion of the population being able to maintain their own independence and sanity, so that in the long run fewer social workers will be required; and it should be the responsibility of the different sections of the community, in which I dare say each one of us has a responsibility, to bring this about. If such an aim is to be attained it must mean real co-operation between different responsible departments, and the achievement must be actual and not just a pious
124
statement of hope we have so often heard both among ourselves and among our colleagues. That is why I regret that the terms of the consideration of the Report were not on a broader basis.
I also believe that social workers should not be debarred by educational hurdles
from undertaking responsibility. None of us who have spent years on this work—and I have actually worked for and with local authorities for 21 years—would deny that there are many people who are superb in this field who have never had the opportunity of an education such as many of us have neglected to take advantage of. I should be very sad to see such people debarred in the future from being used because of new regulations. Yesterday morning and this morning I was working at local-authority level with people who are responsible for their own particular side of disabled work. I do not believe that I have ever met men and women of a higher standard of outlook, but their educational background is perhaps not of the qualification that we are envisaging this afternoon. To my mind—and I am a worker, not a desk worker—it is unrealistic to say that a foster-home cannot be registered except by an experienced person who has taken a four-year or a two-year training course. Just because a woman who has had the experience of life has not this qualification, she is to-day, in certain counties, debarred from visiting and accepting a foster-home as one to be put on a list. It is for this reason that I am fearful of our being overcome by the love of pasteboard which is so prevalent in North America, and losing the valuable possession we have for a thing that we perhaps do not want to have.
I believe that people throughout this country and the world do not want to be treated as cases. There is an infinite danger in assuming that, because people are in financial need, they must be handled by trained social workers. The National Assistance Board (and anybody who has worked with them must pay them the highest tribute) have pointed out that the vast majority of their applicants are perfectly capable of managing their own affairs and should be treated accordingly, and I believe that social workers, instead of being looked upon

125
as people of an unrecognised career, as was quoted in the Report, should recognised as in a sphere far beyond the trammels of that definition and people who, because of their special reason for doing their job, do carry a special place within the community.
Social welfare in its operating is a continuing process. It is not a staccato movement, and trained persons should have at their disposal, I think, volunteers who can continue to carry out the work at the local level. I do not plead for voluntary service. I believe that voluntary service is part of the life of our nation, and I cannot think that any intelligent or thoughtful community would ever do away with well-run and well-working volunteers. I believe that in a community where work is well carried out, voluntary service is the mortar between the bricks of officialdom; and if that is so the proper integration of voluntary organisations and volunteers into statutory aid is a mighty asset to a nation—and I do not make this assertion lightly.
If volunteers are real people and worthy of the name, if their contribution is in the shape which is right and suited in every way to the person they aim to serve, then not only their output but their example is valuable within the community; and if we multiply that by the numbers of areas and communities throughout the country, the benefit to the country is in the character of the nation itself, which surely is the object of every one of us. Voluntary service to-day is being given by many more people than ever before, and if it were weighable I believe that it would be found to be in greater volume. Many more people are participating, and perhaps the greatest strength of volunteers is the patience with which they undertake small, apparently negligible things, but nevertheless the things that a mother does in her home, which entirely contribute to the happiness of that home. Volunteers have shown not only that they can undertake and carry through a tremendous job, but that they are ready to take training for their skills and to use their training in the sphere in which it is demanded. The organisation responsible for such volunteers must take responsibility not only for the training but for the shape of its leadership.
126
I believe (and I have some experience in this field) that more volunteers are available to-day than ever before, and that as many volunteers can be had to do as much work as is needed, so long as they are handled as they should be and are given work of sufficient interest. Too many people think of volunteers as a means to an end, as cheap labour. True voluntary service is nothing of the kind. It is, in fact, the gift by thoughtful persons of their skill, their energy and their time. Such volunteers have thought seriously and decided to devote those things to the cause in which they believe. For them it is a practical way of giving expression to the view they hold, and in doing that the volunteer gets a clearer understanding and often a deeper dedication to the thing in which he believes.
Voluntary service, to my mind, is the proud expression of responsibility undertaken by an individual as an accepted duty, and I feel that if the social services of this country are to benefit to the extent which we all want them to do we should, each one of us, in our sphere, work towards a united whole. I feel that perhaps the most difficult and most important point that has been touched on in the Report is the co-ordination of all social services; and the way in which that co-ordination can advance towards its goal is one which all of us who are interested trust will be the start of an era in which the client will be served in a way which will help him and solve not only his difficulties but much beyond that.
5.35 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, we have listened with the greatest interest to the extremely interesting and thought-provoking speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough. I believe she has raised more vital and fundamental issues than any other speaker in this debate. She raised the question of whether it is possible to assess capacity for social work by means of an examination—a very difficult thing to decide. We are, as the noble Baroness says and as we all know, living in a world of increasing professionalism, but professionalism means that there is a body of detailed knowledge which the professional has to have; and in some parts of social work that detailed body of knowledge does not exist. It is an empirical skill.

127
The noble Lady has spoken of the great work done by the old statutory welfare officers who have worked their way up in local authority service. The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, spoke of those—the old relieving officers who, while they had in the old days rather an evil connotation, by the time we reached the prewar years were doing very useful social work. Now, in their new guise, they are doing other valuable social work. The same thing has happened with all kinds of officers in local authority service. Are these people to take an examination, or can they become social workers by experience? As I understand it, the Working Party recommend that officers over 50 years of age or with fifteen years' experience should be recognised as qualified by experience. That is roughly what happened when dentistry first became a profession. There were the old surgeon dentists who had trained as apprentices. They had never taken any university course in dentistry but were very efficient dentists. For all I know, some may still exist, although they must be getting very ancient. At a certain point dentistry was turned into a profession, and from then on everybody in it had to undergo an examination to obtain qualifications, although everybody who was practising up to that time was regarded as qualified. Here we say that those in social work shall be regarded as qualified only if they are over the age of 50 or have had fifteen years' experience. I should not like to express a final opinion as to whether that is right or wrong, but it is a point of very great difficulty.
The second point raised by the noble Lady is the welding together of voluntary and statutory social services. She has had more experience of this than anybody else in the country. In the Hospital Service we have a good example of the welding together of voluntary and statutory service. The hospitals are run by voluntary committees and have voluntary friends of hospitals. They have the British Red Cross and others running the library services, but there is not a great deal of voluntary social work. I have been immensely struck by the work of the noble Baroness's organisation in association with the prison which my wife used to govern. The W.V.S. ladies interviewed every prisoner admitted into Holloway and took a kind of brief social history
128
to ascertain what troubles were brewing at home—whether the rent had been paid, whether the kettle had been left on, whether the gas was turned off and all those problems, sometimes small, sometimes very big, which were worrying people who suddenly found themselves in prison. That service has been going on for a good many years now and is a wonderful example of this welding together of voluntary and statutory work. I am sure that that can be done, but it rather depends on two things. First is the careful selection of the voluntary workers. I am sure that the noble Baroness, in doing so, goes for quality, and it is essential to have very high quality if good voluntary work is to be done. Secondly, they should keep on keeping on; they should persevere and not get tired after they have been doing it for six months or so, because that is no good.
This has been a most interesting debate. We have had a lovely spectrum of opinion, and yet the spectrum has focused into a beam of light thrown on the Government, demanding action. When the noble Earl, Lord Feversham, was speaking, he said almost at the outset that the social worker suffers from three disabilities: poor salary, poor prospects and a sense of inferiority. I do not think the social worker ought to have a sense of inferiority; I think that makes for excessive professionalism and bad professionalism. I think that social workers ought to feel proud of the work they are doing, because it is a real job, or at least there is a real job to do.
My noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger has raised a second vital issue: how far there is a real need for social case work, as opposed to economic relief. What she says—and she was supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood—is that there are economic problems in social case work. But there is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, reminded us, a great deal more than that. I remember one day when I was going round in general practice with a doctor in a town just north of the Tyne we saw what is described as follows:
"The house was Georgian; at one time it had been a fine house. Now a panel was missing from the front door and no effort had been made to replace it. The door of the ground-floor-hack was opened, after three

129
minutes' hammering, by an indescribably filthy woman who had obviously just got out of bed and slipped on a frock. Although the doctor had not been sent for, she expressed no surprise at seeing us. I'm glad you've called, doctor; she needs another bottle' … pointing at one of two poor dirty little children.
"The roam was of fine proportions. Traces of elegant plastering remained. Elsewhere the plaster was off down to the bricks. There was a fitted kitchen sink with draining-board, but it looked as though it was never used. Everywhere there was the usual collection of filthy domestic litter, unwashed cups, a drying loaf, margarine still on its paper, unemptied chamber pots, a broken chair or so, and the usual pile of rags. The biggest pile was on the bed, covered with a patchwork quilt. Suddenly the pile moved, there was a groan, and a baleful eye looked out from the top, and disappeared again. It was the woman's husband. The time was nearly 11 a.m. Such sights are familiar to every general practitioner … to the police, and to many social workers. The picture they present is remarkably constant".
But I do not think that the prime cause is poverty. It may be, and indeed it is, one of the factors in the maintenance of the situation that poverty is produced by bad management.
Professor Stevenson, who wrote a very good book called Recent Advances in Social Medicine, states this:
"Poverty is by no means the main problem. Both parents may be of average intelligence, though as a rule the mother is below average. Problem families may be found in good housing, though they tend 10 gravitate towards the worst slums. Any landlord naturally trys to get rid of them, both because of their habits and because they are bad rentpayers.
"The family size is double that of the average; one-third of the mothers are married between 15 and 19, as against one-sixth in the rest of the population. A high proportion of the mothers themselves come from really bad homes, and have never known anything better."
They may first come to the notice of the authorities because of a mental defect. They may be first seen because of a mentally defective child detected at school or at an infant welfare clinic, or because of illegitimacy, or because of child neglect; and they may come up before the court. But the picture is always broadly the same, and it is not just a simple economic problem. It is a social failure to which contribute the physical conditions of the home, very often the behaviour of the husband, the incapacity of the woman as a financial manager, an excessive number of children, and very often the attitude of neighbours. That list of causes I am summarising from the Prison Commissioners' Report, from
130
something my wife wrote about neglectful mothers when they are sentenced to Holloway prison.
On the other side, there is a hopeful note. Your Lordships will be aware that in Birmingham prison there was set up by the Prison Commissioners a Neglectful Mothers' Training Centre which has done very good work in training these neglectful mothers. But the situation has improved, and the supply of neglectful mothers from the courts is running out. So the title has been changed to a Domestic Training Centre, so that other women, in addition to neglectful mothers, who still need some training can get it. So it is not an insoluble problem.
One of the weaknesses, if I may say so, of this very voluminous Report is that the Committee did not make a serious attempt—and they admit this—to estimate the size of the problem and the nature of the work that faces the social worker. I think they should have done this. I think that had they turned to the Government Social Survey and invited them to make a survey of the incidence of the kind of problem which could call for social work, the Government Social Survey would have given them a very good answer in about three to six months. While one is speaking about this Report, I must say that I agree with my noble friends in saying that it is far too long. It is one of the most difficult things I have ever tried to read—I do not know whether that is due to me or to the Report; but I think that the people who wrote this Report ought to read Quiller-Couch's little book On The Art of Writing, which is infinitely better than Sir Ernest Gowers's Plain Words, which is sometimes pretty obscure. But this is not the way to write Reports on great social problems. If it were short, it would be so much more likely to be read. There are lots of gems, plums in the pudding, really good pieces of descriptive writing in the Report, but there is too much duff around the plums. That is a shame, because much of the material it contains is sound and good.
What is the size of the problem? I can tell you straight away, my Lords, that so far as problem families are concerned, one can make an estimate, although it is a bit of a "guesstimate". In North Shields, a town which I know

131
a little about, in the very worst slum areas, in the 1920's and 1930's, the incidence of problem families was pretty nearly 50 per cent. Many of the people there were re-housed when the council built a new housing estate about 25 or 30 years ago. When they were re-housed, the incidence of problem families went down to something between 8 per cent. and 10 per cent. In other words, 40 per cent.
were cured by the act of re-housing. Then the next generation were re-housed after the war on another housing estate in North Shields, and the incidence went
down again, so it now became 1 per cent. And so far as I am able to assess, 1
per cent. is a sort of irreducible minimum of social problem families that can be obtained if one really tackles environment and produces a good home and good conditions and there is plenty of work.
One is left, then, with a residual 1 per cent. of social problem families, and this occurs even in the best-regulated areas—one thinks of Barnet and elsewhere. There are something like 15 million families in these islands, so there are at least something like 150,000 problem families, a concentrate of the social problems with which the social workers of the local authority services will be called upon to deal. They are the mental defectives, the criminal types, the unmarried mothers and all the rest of them; and this same distillate will be cropping up through each of the different channels time and again. But, of course, there will be many exceptions to this rule. There will be the individual problems occurring in very different types of family, but they will constitute a small part of the work. These problem families need constant support. They need constant propping up; and it is not enough to go and give them only one treatment, as it were, however pyschiatric it be. They need constant moral support and advice, and much patience spent on them, and it is the most exhausting and tiring type of job I know.
As to the other types of essential work that the local authority social workers have to do, there is first of all the psychiatric work of which we have heard a good deal this afternoon. My noble friends Lord Archibald and Lord Burden referred to the terrible situation in regard to psychiatric social workers. People say that local authorities are in
132
competition with the hospitals for psychiatric social workers. Well, the hospitals have nothing like enough to do their job, and it is a question of how we should spread what we have until more are trained—and more will not be trained until the job is a better job. There are other jobs just as attractive, just as interesting, and needing not so long a training, which are far better paid. After all, many of these girls are pretty well up to medical qualification standards, and some of them, if they were prepared to spend six instead of three years training, could be earning £2,000 or £3,000 a year as psychiatrists in mental hospitals instead of getting £500 or £600 a year as social workers—less than a primary school teacher, as my noble friend pointed out. The fundamental problem there is just plain cash.
Then there is the mental defective work. There are the psychopaths, and the care of the psychopath in the community, though goodness knows how one does that. It is about as difficult a problem as there is. Then there is the care of the senile people and the pre-senile people. This merges with social work for old people. It also merges with social work for the chronic and the severely sick. One heard yesterday of the case of a caretaker living at the top of a block of flats. His job was caretaker of those flats. He had a coronary thrombosis. He was confined to his bed, and there was this social problem: that he might well be able to work again but there was no lift in this block of flats and he clearly could not go on living on the eighth floor. That is typical of the social problems which would confront a social worker, and it requires great perseverance and great energy, though perhaps rather less in the way of professional skill, to sort out and to find a ground floor flat for somebody who cannot move himself.
There are the problems of the permanently handicapped, the blind, the partially sighted and the deaf. The right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of St. Albans was quite right, I think, to stress the situation of the deaf worker, of the expert who trains the deaf, who has in fact learnt another language. I think it would be an insult to such a person to be graded as a social assistant. It would be quite wrong. Indeed, that person has a very special skill and a

133
very valuable skill; and we should make sure that there is no down-grading of those who have special skills in order to fit them into a pattern of local authority social work.
Now there has been mentioned—my noble friend Lord Amulree mentioned it—the overlap between the work of the health department and the welfare department when it comes to doing social work. Under Section 28 of the National Health Service Act the care and after-care, first of the tuberculous patient and now, by extension, of all other sick, is entrusted to the medical officer of health. That is the care and after-care of those who have been sick and have come back into the community. In so far as they need social help, they look to the medical officer of health. But Section 29 of the National Assistance Act says that the care and the social welfare of the permanently and substantially
disabled shall be looked after by the welfare department of the local health authority. These are exactly the same people, and owing to this there has been a lot of friction. There is this awful word "client". I wish I could think of an alternative. It is a horrible word: but the social workers are seeking to avoid the word "patient", because they say that these people have ceased to be patients, because they have got better. Although they have only one leg or one eye, or whatever it may be, they are better, and now they must be called something else. Perhaps some philologist could produce a better word than "client" to describe the person whom the social worker seeks to help.
LORD AMWELL: Not "case".
LORD TAYLOR: I think the answer to the double responsibility is a very simple one; I believe it has been found by the Buckinghamshire County Council. It is to have joint appointments—that is, that a social worker should be appointed jointly by the health and the welfare departments; that she should be responsible to them jointly; and, when she is looking after people who are sick, or who have been sick, that she should be working for and with the medical officer of health. Strangely enough, this dichotomy of control leads to some other complications. For example, many of these permanently disabled people need the service of an occupational therapist.
134
You are stuck in bed and need something to do, and here is somebody who is trained to give you things to do. I must say that I myself have benefited from the services of an occupational therapist. Now if they are looking after people at home they have to be working under a doctor, because officially they are medical auxiliaries. We shall be discussing a Bill dealing with medical auxiliaries very shortly. These occupational therapists will work only under a
doctor, even though they are employed by the welfare department of a local
authority. That can be easily overcome if we can link the medical officer of health with the welfare department—at least as regards the disabled, though not for all the other activities of the welfare department which are clearly welfare matters and which should not be taken over by the medical officer of health.
Then, my Lords, there is the nature of social work—and this, I think, was the burden of the attack by my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger. That was a much less vigorous attack than I thought it was going to be, and I found myself agreeing with at least 90 per cent. of what she said. But this is one point where she had a very powerful criticism to make. When we look at the work that the social worker does we do not find it very clearly described in this Report. There are. I think, three bits to it, and possibly a fourth which the noble Baroness raised. First, there was social history-taking. Now the actual taking of the social history of a family or of a patient needs a real skill. It is something that can be taught just as much as medical history taking can be taught. It is something that can be learnt, and I do not think that any voluntary social worker should be ashamed to learn it. I hope my noble friend will agree that it is a genuine skill, and that it is something real. Secondly, I agree with her 100 per cent. about the need to be a sort of social service directory: a Solomon of the social services and of the social facilities available, both voluntary and statutory. These workers must have an encyclopædic knowledge; and that, also, can be taught, though it is probably largely learnt by experience.
The third thing which the noble Baroness mentioned, which I had not thought of but which is a real function, was a social intelligence service: to tell

135
the places where the shoe is pinching. That, again, is a real function, but it is a much more difficult one because it involves reporting back, and this art of reporting back is quite difficult to acquire. The fourth one, and this is where the controversy really arises, is what might be called supportive therapy. This is an awful term. All it means is helping a family or individual to make the best of a situation, whatever it be. As my noble friend says, it has become bedevilled by pseudo-Freudian jargon and not very helpful partial psychiatry.
Some medical officers running mental hospitals have found that they get the greatest help from employing trained social workers rather than psychiatric social workers, because ordinary social workers do not know any psychiatry. The real thing is that the social worker should know about social work and social problems, and not worry too much about these difficult personal relations—which, of course, are now called interpersonal relations; this is a favourite American term. What is needed is a great deal of patience, willingness to listen to people, and a great deal of common sense of the kind that the ladies of the noble Baroness, Lady Swan-borough, seem to possess in abundance, and a great deal of sympathy. It also needs one technical requirement—that is, experience, which social workers get over the years, because these are recurring situations. You see the same situations over and over again, as noble Lords who have served on magistrates' courts or children's care committees know. It is by having seen it before and getting the answer, and not from some great corpus of knowledge contained in learned books, that one gains the necessary experience.
Above all, success in this kind of work depends on the calibre of the people doing it. I think that, generally speaking, this will be related to intelligence. The more intelligent the person is, the better social worker he will be, although there are many character factors to be considered as well. The dangers of it are too much talk, too much paper work, though we cannot dodge paper work, because there are so many letters to be written and so many facilities and people to be contacted, and too many case conferences. Among all the time-
136
wasting rubbish, case conferences take a very high place. All sorts of people get together and discuss something which two of them could solve in five minutes, and they go on doing this for years and years. I think that case conferences are a good thing when learning, but later on, when doing a real job, there is not time for them.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but I remember that in the debates on the Mental Health Bill the noble Lord quoted the instance of the City of York, where there was close coordination and co-operation, which had as one of its main facets case conferences between representatives of the health and welfare departments of the Regional Hospital Board and the local authorities. Am I now to understand from the noble Lord that he no longer agrees with case conferences?
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, we can have too much of a good thing. That is the short and simple answer. These case conferences are necessitated by a bad situation, which is, that there are two lots of social workers who have to be knitted together. In ordinary life, the job is done by popping into the other person's office and saying that you have a problem over so-and-so, or the other person comes in and asks you to have a look at Mr. or Mrs. So-and-so, and in three or five minutes the matter is settled. But this sitting round for an hour or so discussing cases two or three times a week can easily be overdone. I have overstated it and I think the noble Earl was right to pull me up. But it is a danger.
Overlapping with health visitors is a very important point. There has been a Working Party on Health Visitors and I think it would have been wrong, and indeed disastrous to the volume of this Report, had it included health visitors, and my noble friend Lord St. Oswald and I would never have got through it. I have had a great deal of experience now of working with health visitors, whom I used to dislike but now like very much. Many doctors dislike health visitors, until they get working with them. There used to be a great deal of antagonism between general practitioners and health visitors, but it is dying down. In our new town of Harlow, we

137
have five group practice centres where the local authorities have lent health visitors to general practitioners to act as social health visitors. These health visitors have been taken off routine visiting of well families, who do not need visiting, and concentrate their efforts on places of greatest social need. But they have their limitations. They are primarily nurses and I think that if there were trained social workers available, cases would often be referred to them; but there is not.
At the Darbishire House general practioner health centre, run by Manchester University, the general practitioners have been provided with a social worker, and I believe that that has been most successful. In other words, there are two ways of tackling this. Either health visitors link in with general practitioners, or social workers link in with general practitioners. But fewer than a dozen general practitioners have any social workers to help them. On the other hand, there are 3,000 to 4,000 health visitors available and capable of doing some of this sort of work. Certainly they are a very good point of ascertainment. They are excellent at picking up social problems in the first instance, because they have to visit so many homes and pick them up with the general practioner. One would hope that they and the social workers would work together and feel that each has his proper sphere and proper limitation. Another thing to remember is that health visitor training is a longer affair than the training of social workers, though the standard of qualification, I should think, is rather less high.
We have heard a good deal about the categories of social workers proposed in the Younghusband Report. The noble Earl, Lord Feversham, referred to the welfare assistant, who is to be trained in service, as the first level, then to the middle general purpose and to the top degree level. I think that perhaps this is either making too much of the thing, or else making vacancies for the very people of whom the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, was speaking, these excellent local authority self-trained social workers, who would now find themselves welfare assistants. I hope not, but that was the impression I gained. I think it would be as well if the idea of welfare assistant went. I have no
138
inherent opposition to trinitarianism, unlike my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger. But on this occasion I think that my noble friend is right when she says that it would be much better not to categorise too much, though we are bound to have at least a long course and a short course. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Pakenham is right when he says that the social service and the social worker will be no loser if there are graduates in other spheres of activity than in sociology, and that it will be a great gain to have some people with good English degrees and good history degrees, who may often be very good people and, therefore, excellent raw material.
One thing upon which I think we have all agreed is the need for many more social workers; I do not think there has been a dissident voice on this. I am sure that we all owe a great debt to the noble Earl, Lord Feversham, and to the authors of this most important Report for driving home this point. But again I return to what my noble friend Lord Archibald said: that it depends not on pious words, but on money. That is really what we are wondering: where the whole nub will lie. Will the Government pay the extra salaries which these people have got to have?—and that will mean ugrading social workers in the hospital services, where most of them are, and the local authorities will have to follow suit. Until the profession is itself worth while, it just will not get the people. It is being argued that this is the alternative to an expensive institutional service. The alternative is to have many more beds in all sorts of institutions, or to have more care at home. So I think the case is agreed. It is now up to the Government to act.
I should like to pay a small tribute to those who made social work. I was
trained by the late Doctor Fairbairn of St. Thomas's, who was a great obstetrician. He really started the hospital lady almoner, as she was known at St. Thomas's—and she was so known because the hospital chaplain was called the almoner and she had to be called the lady almoner in order to distinguish between them. Miss Morris, head of the social workers at St. Thomas's was a wonderful lady and she built up there a first-class training school. Social workers

139
do a very tough job. Whether they are in the probation service, whether they are psychiatric social workers or on whatever aspect they are engaged, they are dealing with people who are in the greatest need, and often those who are the most difficult to help and the most needing help. I was glad that one of your Lordships mentioned the Family Service Units. They do a tremendous job looking after problem families. But there is a danger all the time—and I think it is right that this should have been emphasised—of an over build-up, of over-professionalisation, in what is a real, a good and a new profession.
There is a need for humility in social work, and the social worker must never be ashamed of doing the dirty job. In medicine we often have to do dirty jobs. The district nurse often does dirty jobs. And just sometimes I hope that social workers, when they are faced with dirt and squalor, will not mind taking off their coats and doing a bit of scrubbing to get it clean. I am always reminded that we have a great precedent for that, in that Out Lord was willing to wash the feet of his disciples when the need arose.
6.15 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, this is a daunting task, but rendered perhaps a little less so by noble Lords who, possessing so much greater familiarity with the subject than myself, have also pronounced themselves daunted by the detail and comprehensiveness of this Report. My heart went out to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, not for the first time, and I am sure not for the last, when he described his own reactions when it first came into his hands.
The Government, and I am sure the whole House, are grateful to my noble friend Lord Feversham for initiating this debate: it is exactly what is required at this stage. And although a great deal of thinking and sorting-out of ideas remains to be done, partly as a result of this debate, perhaps I can comfort my noble friend by saying that it is bound to assist, and even accelerate, the action of the Government upon these complex and far-reaching proposals. The main message of this Report, as it seems to me, is that social work services need more training and more manpower; and in a very clear sense these two are
140
seen to go hand in hand. The recommendations call for recruitment on a grand scale, and one of the incentives to recruitment will be training. It is plain that welfare officers in general, while proud of their service, feel that they could be doing an even better job; and an increase in training would enable them to do that job so much the better. To this end the Younghusband Report makes purposeful and detailed proposals, most of which have been described and discussed by your Lordships this afternoon.
It can hardly be said that the discussion has provided unanimity of opinion. When my noble friend calls upon the Government for speed in implementing these proposals I am not conscious of any real guilt of procrastination when I point out that to adopt them wholesale—or for me this evening even to announce wholesale approval of them—without prior consultation, would be to offend a good many thoughtful people and bodies, by sweeping aside their arguments, expressed inside and outside of this House. They include bodies whose co-operation and goodwill would be essential to the implementing of these proposals. Equally, to reject any of the proposals—such as those to which the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, feels it will be almost impossible to obtain full agreement—would be wrong, except, as I say, after prior and careful consultation. I am myself temperamentally better fitted for stepping on the accelerator than for standing on the brake, but in regard to this particular road the surface is uncertain, the crossroads are somewhat confusing and signposts sometimes contradictory. I am sure that I shall have all noble Lords with me in saying that, once we decide upon the course, it must be the right one; and it would be lamentable to have at some later stage to retrace our route.
Before attempting to answer some of the points raised by noble Lords, I am setting myself to describe, briefly, my impressions of the three requirements of the Welfare Service, as it stands, and as they are seen in the pages of this Report. The function is well described at the beginning of the Report as being to trace and identify the home problem; to give help and offer a supporting relationship when required; and to give

141
people confidence in meeting their own adversity. The noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, has the impression that welfare workers give themselves airs in this task. She must know such examples, but I feel that they cannot be general. It has been impressed upon me in the last few days that the aim of the social worker is to enable the sufferers, in this sense, to win their own victory over their own particular adversity and certainly not to regard themselves as typed for ever as "unfortunate people." This work requires human qualities beyond the strictly normal: it also requires skill—the skill that comes with training and experience.
Time after time in the last few days I have heard, in so many words, the dictum that training plus experience, experience plus training, are the keys to effective social work. It is not enough for a social worker to have good relations with, and the confidence of, those he is trying to help: he must also know precisely where to go for statutory help—the National Assistance Board; many departments of the local authority; the voluntary services. He must be on excellent terms with all of them. He must also be knowledgeable, and even ingenious, in various practical aspects of home help, in gadgets, in adaptations to the home, and in his judgment on the question of rehabilitation, when and if required. His assessment must be full and sound. He must know whether a person can best be helped in his own home, whether he should be provided with other accommodation by the housing department, or whether he is a case for care and attention in a home provided by the local authority under Part III of the National Assistance Act. A misjudgment formed with the best will in the world may do positive harm.
This is not, and must never be, a service of amiable "do-gooders" and nothing more. The existing welfare officers are the most vehement in stating this. For such demanding work, training and a qualified status are required. At present, almost the only form of training available to social workers is at a university. It was felt by the Working Party that such a restriction was entirely wrong and against the interest of the officers and of those whom they serve. It is urged that training should be thrown open to those who, for one reason or
142
another, are not able to go to a university. The suggested form that this
training should take has been described by other noble Lords. The present four-year course at a university, including a degree, would remain available, as would the shorter two-year course leading to a certificate and diploma followed by one year's professional casework based on the university and with considerable work in the field. It is now proposed that there should be, in addition, a different two-year course run by the local education authorities, not directly connected with a university and leading to an award to be known as the National Certificate in Social Work.
What is hoped for the future is that some of these workers, after their two-year course, would be accepted for the one-year university course that I have mentioned. Until now this has only been open to those who have taken a two-year university course and possess a certificate or diploma. Unless this is made possible, these "generally trained" workers, holding the National Certificate in Social Work, would not be able to take the one-year professional course without starting again at the beginning at a university. The top posts might well be open to these two-year trained workers who have proved particular aptitude and understanding. They may reach what the noble Lord, Lord Burden, has called the "glamorous" posts. I think paragraphs 752 and 871 of the Report give the Working Party's view of the importance of seeing that the ladder of promotion is a real thing, and that promotion, as well as training, is what will lead to the necessary recruiting. This new category of social worker would fit into the proposed three-tier plan which has also been described. I should like to describe it once more as briefly as possible.
One characteristic of this plan has to be emphasised in the light of what has been said already, and unless it is, the whole plan is open to the criticism of departmentalism, which the Report seeks precisely to cure. The recommendations are for three categories of worker to cope with the gradations of needs, and the emphasis is on gradations, as opposed to grades. The proposed system would be wide open to attack if, in fact, it envisaged watertight departments of cases and rigid ranks for those who deal with

143
them. If noble Lords will bear with me, I will run over the three types of gradation between which it is recognised there may be no definite frontier and certainly no permanent frontier. I will describe them in the ascending order of gravity.
The first is the straightforward and obvious need, requiring material help, some
small unspecialised service and periodic visits. The next is the more complicated problem requiring, it seems to me, help from trained personnel. Thirdly, will come problems of special difficulty, needing skilled help of highly trained and experienced workers.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I still do not understand the difference between his categories one and two. It seems to me that there is a remarkable similarity between the work required of these two people.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I shall try to illustrate what I think is meant by the difference between categories one and two. It is fairly natural to think of these categories in terms of rigid demarcation, but in practice these last highly trained workers would only in rare cases deal with, or make themselves directly responsible for, an individual case. I think that has not been brought out so far in the course of debate. Their part would be largely consultative and supervisory. They would limit themselves to giving special advice when asked for, and only in the minority of cases would they actually take over. The main range of work would then be done by the two-year generally-trained workers. But where the need of the client is straightforward and recurring, without complications, a simple type of visit can be done by the welfare assistant.
I do not know whether I have clarified the matter so far. In this way, the three gradations of need are only very loosely matched by the three grades of worker. The officer in the middle—that is, the generally trained man—might well be the first to take charge of a case. He might then have to remain with it indefinitely, or hopefully pass it on for simple visiting to the welfare assistant. On the other hand, if the case showed special problems with which he felt unable to cope, the advice and supervision of a university-trained officer of
144
a first grade would be called upon. Let me give your Lordships an example of such a possible case. The middle-range worker has helped a family with a handicapped child and has discussed getting it to a training centre, explaining to the parents the purpose of that course. He runs into trouble when the father says he cannot stand the situation any more and is leaving home. In such a desperate case the generally-trained worker might feel that he could not cope, and would urgently consult the top-grade worker. These social workers with the highest qualifications will be equipped with both training and experience; those who have studied the causes in tension in family life and the pressures of looking after a defective child in a family. They will have certain leads, and can therefore give more practical and specific advice, possibly in a more convincing way. A good analogy might be that of a family doctor calling in a consultant specialist.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, my noble friends and I are not quite sure whether the noble Lord is giving an account of what is in the Report or of Government policy.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, I wonder whether at the same time he could deal with one other point. I am quite at a loss to know what kind of training will be given to these highly trained workers that will enable them to stop fathers from leaving home. Would he particularise a little?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I cannot particularise more than to say that they would be more experienced in similar cases. They would have advice open to them and they would have leads, as I said before; which means that they would have more knowledge of whom to call upon in cases of this kind. I am perfectly certain that I should never qualify for such a post myself, and I am therefore unable to describe to the noble Lady how they would work.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell us whether he has had a personal example of this? Is he talking about what might happen, or what did happen? He gave the example of a defective child. Is that an actual case?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I should imagine it was a typical case of a certain kind. I am not speaking of a precise case with names available, but I have been studying this question with people who have dealt closely with these problems during the past few days, and that was given to me as a case which might come into this category. That is all I was attempting to do.
As to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, I am giving no more than my interpretation, with the help of advisers, of what I think the Report is saying and aiming at. Certainly my interpretation is of no more value and, indeed, considerably less, than that of the noble Lord, but perhaps he would be good enough simply to take it into account.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I do not want to press this point on the noble Lord too hard, but I see what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is directing his question to: that is, is the noble Lord speaking with a view to the advice of his right honourable friend the Minister of Health in saying that the service obviously would be similar to that service adopted by the Home Office in relation to probation officers, or is he expressing a personal view as to the likelihood of the contents of the Younghusband Report being implemented?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I am speaking with the assistance of some of my right honourable friend's advisers. As I shall explain a little later, he has to consult a great many more before final decisions are taken. I should like to say, in passing, that I was very distressed to hear the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, suppose that welfare assistants would consider themselves degraded by bearing such a title. I am wondering with some anxiety how degrading he must think it is to be a Junior Minister.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, the point is that a Junior Minister can become a Minister without having to pass a further examination.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, the noble Lord takes a very useful point there.
I should perhaps point out that up to now I have been referring to welfare officers as if they were men, as most are
146
to-day, but the new recruitment scheme is addressed equally to women.
Searching criticisms of the Report have been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger. The noble Lady is bound to have some idea—perhaps not adequate—of my regard for her views and my admiration of her powers of expressing them, but on this occasion I am going to disagree with some of the former and pit myself against the latter—a hazardous undertaking. Before the attempt I should like to make one observation. The noble Lady is suspicious of psychiatry and punitive towards pomposity.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: I was very careful to say "pseudo psychiatry."
LORD ST. OSWALD: Then what I have to say goes even more firmly. I should like to say, on both those scores, that I will enrol myself under her banner as soon as she will have me. I can only hope that by the end of what I have to say she will not consider I have deserted before signing-on. She complains in the first instance that the Report takes a too exalted view of social workers and their abilities or supposed abilities, and unduly stresses the value of their psychological influence. I hope I am not misquoting her. This was not an entirely new argument as, while taking on daunting tasks, I have already in my hands a giant volume created by the noble Lady. I cannot claim to have got as far as the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, and be prepared to demand an extra hundred pages; there are still a few pages in hand before I reach that point. Her complaint, as I infer, is that social workers are mistaken in thinking themselves a profession in the same way as other professions, which provide services at the request of their clients. I do not know if she would pass the same stricture on politicians.
She also implies that they pry needlessly into personal problems instead of confining their tasks to the immediate services the client needs. In this I sincerely think she is being less than fair to those concerned. My own experience—minute compared to that of the noble Lady—is that these officers are marked rather by the humility they bring to their task, and the conviction that the most they can do is to help and encourage unfortunate people to help themselves,

147
and instil in them a restored self-reliance. Equally, it seems to me that in her dismissal of them as not professional she overlooked the fact that any professionalism they may lack has been due up to now to the unavailability of training. That fact will not have escaped her, but I do not think she took account of it in her speech. Another of her criticisms of social workers is that they are not sufficiently concerned with putting material conditions right, and that the proper function of those engaged in social work is to get rid of social problems and distressing conditions. To an extent that is true, and this is accepted as a major part of the social worker's task. But there are cases, such as those concerned with mental disorder, which cannot be answered by improved conditions, and in these cases there is a distinct place for the social worker.
The noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, was disturbed as to the rôle of voluntary organisations in a welfare service growing increasingly and by intention more professional. I should have thought her mind would be set at rest by paragraph 1060 of the Report, the first sentence of which says:
"We are in no doubt that the continuing vitality and the creativeness of voluntary organisations and voluntary workers are of the utmost importance for the future of the social services, not least for those within our terms of reference."
BARONESS SWANBOROUGH: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but I was not in the least worried about the voluntary services: I stated that specifically. They have a place of their own which is irrefutable.
LORD ST. OSWALD: In that case I misunderstood the noble Lady, and I apologise for wasting her time and the time of the House. I had understood the implication that she was worried, not that they were not needed, but that they might receive less regard in a more professionalised service.
BARONESS SWANBOROUGH: The people I was worried about were not the voluntary services but the local authority officials; the people who had not had the training and who would have to submit to training having had what I call the experience of life.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I have completely mistaken the noble Lady's meaning. It was in the early part of the speech that I understood her to say that. Not that it is now necessary to say so, but I should myself have thought it quite impossible to ignore the particular and irreplaceable value of the voluntary workers. One important advantage is that they can give their time when and how it appears to be needed.
There is one important quality of welfare work which was pointed out to me, the ability to let other people talk. I should have thought the voluntary worker had a special opportunity and responsibility in this direction. There is, in addition, an entirely new body and activity proposed for them by this Report. That is the National Staff College to provide courses, especially pioneer courses, and to serve as a forum for discussions of social workers' problems. This is foreseen by the Report as a field for the voluntary trusts, and if any of them are already thinking of approaching my right honourable friend I can promise them a very friendly reception. No doubt the forecast of the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, will give anticipatory pleasure.
There have been recommendations and differences of opinion in the matter of the proposed Training Council. The Association of Municipal Corporations has said
that this work could be done by the Local Government Examinations Board,
suitably modified, and so avoid the creation of a new body concerned with the training of local authority employees. On the other hand, it may be argued that the Examinations Board which deals with general grades of local authority service should not concern itself with this sort of professional training and that a primarily professional body would command more confidence. This is an argument which has not been put this afternoon, but it does exist, and I have merely put counter-arguments for consideration.
I suppose that I stand now, personally, in this beam described by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, in being asked to name the Government's intentions and by the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, in being asked what money the Government are going to provide, and also to answer the question on salaries. That question is a little difficult to answer because

149
salaries are a matter for local government. The provision of money to meet the requirements of these extended services will come from the block grant to local government and presumably, should this scheme gain Government approval, allowance will be made for that. But I do not think that here to-night, at this Despatch Box, I can be expected to say more. As regards the direct finance by the Government for the National Council, I should have thought it was clear—I hope I am not being unduly evasive now—that if the Government approve these plans then, quite clearly, money would have to be found for them. The Government are not going to approve and establish an institution and then say, "We are sorry; we have not got any money for it." So I should have thought the answer was bound up in the general attitude of the Government to these plans, and I have tried to explain why there cannot be any immediate answer, at any rate this evening.
My Lords, in the course of my studies for this debate I have heard the argument that society may one day outlive or outgrow the need for such a wholesale service; that as the blessings of education enable people to occupy their own time more fully and intelligently the social worker may find less and less work to do. We may well hope, and even pray, for that state of affairs to come about. But scarcely anyone will believe that it will happen in the next few years, which are now our responsibility. I have heard the charge that the Report contains no suggestion that the service should liquidate itself. On this point I should like to say that the work can fairly be called self-liquidating, in so far as each worker tries to get each particular family off his list. The aim, case by case, is to help people to find their own solution, and, where this is impossible, to contain the problem—to prevent the situation from graver deterioration at further cost to the community and further suffering to the individual. Whatever course we take arising from this Report, our hope is that the Welfare Service will adjust itself over the years to changing needs. But to hope that all human need may disappear, this side of Heaven, seems to be reaching into the more rarefied heights of optimism.
150
My Lords, apart from anything else, this seems to me to be a great and absorbing
human document. To read it is to come out with a clearer understanding of one's fellow countrymen, not only of those in need, but of those who are capable of giving, and are willing to cultivate, the moral sustenance which is the fruit of all the welfare services. Small and cautious though my contribution to this debate has been, I am the better for having read this Report and for having listened to those noble Lords and Ladies who have taken part in the debate. Clearly, noble Lords did not set out to benefit me, but to benefit the welfare services. I hope that in what I have said I have made it clear that the Government warmly welcome the Younghusband Report and are immensely grateful to those who gave their time and talents to its composition.
The Government are now weighing, not only the advice of the authors but the advice they have drawn and perhaps will continue to draw from other quarters. Its recommendations affect, and therefore must be considered in the light of, local authority views. Equally, several Departments, including the Ministry of Health, that of the Secretary of State for Scotland, tile Home Office, the Ministry of Education and, last but not least, the Treasury are very closely concerned. The local authority associations and the main voluntary bodies have been asked to express their general views on the Report. This they have done. It may be necessary now to obtain their views on specific details. Time is not being wasted, and will not be wasted. The Minutes, memoranda and other
correspondence which this Report has excited are even now spread over many ministerial and departmental desks. To-day's Hansard has still to be added, and when this great flood of paper is finally and effectively channelled I hope that the result will give satisfaction to as many of your Lordships as possible.
6.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I feel at this stage that your Lordships have spoken nearly as many words as were written in the Report that has been under discussion, and I do not wish to add to them at any length. I feel confident that your Lordships will agree with the purpose which the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, and

151
I had in mind in putting down this Motion to-day and having the debate in your Lordships' House—namely, to give us an opportunity of discussing the merits and the demerits of the Young-husband Report. That has been fully fulfilled—in fact more than fulfilled—by the most valuable contributions that we have had from your Lordships. I want to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, for the courteous and conscientious reply that he has given. Quite clearly, he has given great thought and much interest to ascertaining facts about this exhaustive Report, and I know that he has done so at short notice, because I was given to understand that until only a short time ago the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal was to answer on behalf of the Government.
The area of disagreement which has shown itself in the course of the debate is not on fundamentals, as wide as many people believed it to be. I have been greatly impressed with the arguments put forward by the noble Baronesses, Lady Wootton of Abinger and Lady Swanborough, on two points. The first is the importance, not only now but in the future of this country, of maintaining the voluntary spirit in all work that comes under the general entitlement of social service. It is quite clear that at no time during the course of this present century can we anticipate any such perfect statutory service that voluntary organisation would be absolved from the recruitment of volunteers to assist in the way that has traditionally been done in this country. I share their view, too, that it would be disastrous if, in any discussion and consideration about new training methods in the twentieth century, we were to create such a condition that professionalism would arise which would fulfil many of the fears of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger.
I myself, many years ago, when I was a probation officer and working closely with the men and women who belonged to the Church of England Missionary Society, and many other voluntary bodies working within the petty sessional courts areas, shared the fears that she has expressed in this House and in other places. I, with many
152
others, sat on the Committee which finally recommended a training scheme for that service. I felt that there might have been a danger that the high standard and integrity of that personnel would suffer professionalism which might react unfavourably on the recipients in that field. I have not heard, out of the many thousands of justices of the peace throughout the country, a criticism of the professional probation officer, man or woman, who for a number of years has had the benefit of a highly organised training scheme. Therefore, I do not share to the same degree of apprehension the views that have been expressed in that direction this afternoon.
I should like to say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood, the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of St. Albans, and others, who have united in the view that the first stage of the implementation of this Report is the introduction of legislation giving the Minister of Health similar powers to those of the Home Secretary to spend money on training and to set up a National Council with sufficient staff to guide the training bodies. I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, has said when he tells me, and the House, that time is not being wasted and will not be wasted. This is a matter of degree. The Report has been published for nearly a year. We know that the Association of Municipal Corporations, the Association of County Councils and many of the main public bodies have already submitted their views in evidence to the appropriate Ministry. How long does a matter of this kind require? I quite agree that it would be a mistake if we were to institute new provisions, either in staffing or in training, which had to be finally done away with, and that therefore time is needed; but I hope that this plea for time will not run out so long that many become restive as to the date of declaration by Her Majesty's Government.
Secondly (this is my main plea, and I am very glad to see that all who have spoken have in general agreed to it), I hope that training, especially for mental welfare officers, will not be delayed. I believe that all who have been good enough to take part in this debate will

153
have shown that, owing to the recent statutory provision made in respect of the mentally ill, there is an urgent necessity to get training for that category of social worker.
May I conclude by making a personal explanation and apology? I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, for having, very properly, pointed out to me that I made reference to a statement of Professor Titmuss without attributing that statement to him. I had those words in my notes in italics, but unfortunately refrained from giving the reference. I apologise to Professor Titmuss and to the House for that omission. If I may assume, for a moment, the rôle of speaking on behalf of all social workers in statutory and voluntary services I should like to say, on behalf of them individually and of their organisations, how much they will appreciate the opportunity to read the full Report of the debate in your Lordships' House to-day which quite clearly has gone far to establish the interests of those engaged in such vital and important work on behalf of the country. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
  TRADE WITH CHINA
  TRADE WITH CHINA