Sitting of 11 May 1960

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
CITY OF LONDON (GUILD CHURCHES) BILL (By Order)
Adjourned debate on Amendment proposed on consideration, as amended [9th May], further adjourned till Thursday, 19th May.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  BRITISH ARMY

    Signalman W. Mitchell
    Dr. A. Thompsonasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has now reached a decision in the case of Signalman William Mitchell, 52a, Main Street, Kingseat, Dunfermline, Fife.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Christopher Soames): Yes, Sir. As the hon. Member knows, Signalman Mitchell has been discharged from the Army.
    Dr. Thompson: I thank the Minister for his most helpful attitude in this case, but I was a little disturbed by the terms of his letter of 29th April in which he said that Signalman Mitchell is liable to recall. May I have an assurance that his discharge is absolute and that there will be no cat-and-mouse game played with him in this matter?
    Mr. Soames: I should like to write to the hon. Gentleman about that. It would depend on the circumstances. But I note what the hon. Gentleman says and I will write to him.

    Barracks, Lincoln (Land)
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will offer to the Lincoln City Council the lease, at a nominal rent, of the land at the Royal Lincolnshire Regiment's barracks on
    388
    condition that it is used as playing fields and public gardens and named in such a way as to commemorate the long and happy association between the City and the Regiment which is about to be ended.
    Mr. Soames: The baracks will be occupied for about another year, and part may be needed after that for minor units. I sympathise with the hon. Member's suggestion and will bear the interest of the City Council in mind; but if we have land surplus to our needs we are bound to dispose of it by the recognised procedure.
    Mr. de Freitas: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is great apprehension in the city that these playing fields will be sold for use as building land? Will he give an undertaking that that will not be done?
    Mr. Soames: We shall certainly be in touch with the Lincoln City Council about the future of the land.

    Intelligence Corps Depot (Visit by Members)
    Mr. Liptonasked the Secretary of State for War when he proposes to arrange the visit by hon. Members to the depot of the Intelligence Corps.
    Mr. Soames: The arrangements were made known to hon. Members through the usual channels on 12th April.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the Minister aware that while, so far as he is concerned, the arrangements may have been made known through the usual channels, most hon. Members do not know anything at all about them? Will he ask the usual channels to send out another notice?
    Mr. Soames: I am sure that the usual channels will do as they always do—all that is necessary to ensure that hon. Members are made aware of the facts.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    Loud-Speaker Equipment
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Postmaster-General what steps the Post Office has taken to make available to the public a loud-speaker equipment for the telephone to enable several people to carry on a single telephone conversation.
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): I am glad to say that I hope to have loud-speaking telephones on the market later this year. I am not yet in a position to announce all the details, but will do so as soon as possible.
    Mr. Tilney: Many telephone subscribers, who are tired of being little more than telephone rests for about half the conversation, will be delighted to hear what my right hon. Friend says. May I ask whether the equipment will be sold at a reasonably cheap price?
    Mr. Bevins: Yes; there will be three types of equipment, some simple and some rather less simple. My present information is that the rentals will range from about £8 to £20 a year.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: May I ask why it has taken all these years to produce this equipment?
    Mr. Bevins: It has involved a lot of complicated research, but we are now at the end of the road and we shall have them on the market later this year.
    Captain Pilkington: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is an appalling suggestion and that telephone conversations last quite long enough as it is?
    Mr. Bevins: There is no suggestion that telephone conversations should last longer—
    Captain Pilkington: They will.
    Mr. Bevins: —but that people ought to be able to listen to telephone conversations without holding the instrument.

  POST OFFICE

    Registered Parcels
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Postmaster-General the conditions under which his postal regulations allow a recipient of registered mail to identify his name and address on the package before signing for it.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Miss Mervyn Pike): The Post Office does not undertake to deliver a registered packet to the addressee in person and there are, therefore, no regulations allowing the recipient to identify his name and address on the packet before signing for it.
    Mr. Dempsey: Does the Minister mean, therefore, that a person signs for the parcel, whether it is his or not, simply because he has had no opportunity to satisfy himself that the parcel was actually to be delivered at his home? In view of the nature of the reply, may I ask the Minister if this is not a matter that should be reconsidered?
    Miss Pike: This matter has been very carefully gone into. I think that the legal situation is quite clear, and is to the general convenience of most people receiving registered parcels.

    Parcel (Damage)
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Postmaster-General if he will investigate the circumstances under which parcels sent from Cyprus by a serving soldier to his home address in Coatbridge, details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie, have been delivered to this address in an insecure condition and showing evidence of having been tampered with.
    Miss Pike: The hon. Member, I believe, is referring to two greetings cards each enclosed in a box. Detailed inquiry is not possible as neither of the boxes is now available. I can only say that I am very sorry if the cards were damaged in the post, but if they were this must have been purely accidental.
    Mr. Dempsey: Could we have an assurance from the Minister that some action will be taken to avoid a repetition? It seems to me that serving soldiers in Cyprus are entitled to the courtesy of having their mail delivered securely?
    Miss Pike: This has been very carefully investigated. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it will not occur again.

    Crawley
    Mr. Goughasked the Postmaster-General if he will now establish a sub-post office in the southern part of Crawley to meet the growing and urgent needs of the people in the Southgate neighbourhood.
    Miss Pike: There is already a sub-post office in the Southgate neighbourhood of Crawley, and I am sorry that I should not be justified in opening another.
    Mr. Gough: Is my hon. Friend aware that there may be a sub-post office in that neighbourhood, but that there many thousands of people still have to walk a very long way? Will she convey to my right hon. Friend a request that perhaps a small delegation may be allowed to see him to discuss this matter further?
    Miss Pike: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the head post office was moved in 1959 to a new and better site, which is only about 500 yards away, that the office in the old town centre would be very close to the new head office and would draw a certain amount of business away from it, and that it does serve the area of Southgate as well. I assure him that this has been gone into very carefully. We will, of course, receive a delegation, if my hon. Friend thinks that it is necessary, but we believe that the convenience of the population is well served by the present arrangements.
    Mr. Gough: May I ask my hon. Friend, for the purpose of the record, if she does not realise that the new site of the post office is such that old people particularly find it rather difficult to reach it, because they have to cross two very dangerous main thoroughfares, and it is for that reason that I have asked that the matter should be more fully gone into?

    Special Stamps
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Postmaster-General if he will state the names of the British heroes and literati whose centenaries he proposes to celebrate by the issues of special postage stamps, and the principle he will apply to the selection of an appropriate design for each of them.
    Miss Pike: We have no such proposals in mind.
    Mr. Hughes: Does not the Minister realise that in this branch of culture and initiative, Britain is greatly outstripped by countries as various as Russia, Australia and the Republic of Ireland, and will the Minister take steps to put Britain on the philatelic map and reap a valuable income thereby?
    Miss Pike: I think that, as the hon. and learned Member realises, the history of this nation is so rich in heroes and
    392
    out literature is so rich in great men that it would be very difficult and very invidious to try to find which heroes to commemorate. I am sure that the hon. Member's hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) will agree that " Every craw thinks its ain bird the whitest".

    Lochgelly
    Dr. A. Thompsonasked the Postmaster-General whether he has considered the request from the Burgh of Lochgelly for a sub-post office at West End, Lochgelly; and what reply he has sent.
    Miss Pike: Yes, Sir. The town clerk has been told that we are sorry that a sub-post office could not be justified.
    Dr. Thompson: While I will not abuse the patience of the House by repeating at length the reasons why Lochgelly should have a sub-post office, which have been given in innumerable letters to the Minister, in view of the very strong views of local bodies like the town council, the old-age pensioners' association, the shopkeepers and the Co-operative movement, which are better acquainted with the local conditions than the right hon. Gentleman's Department, may I have an assurance that this matter will be reconsidered?
    Miss Pike: This has been very carefully considered. The office is at present in the centre of the town, and in the only shopping centre in the town. It is within half-a-mile of most houses and only three-quarters of a mile from the most distant house, and we do not think that another office is justified.

  WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

    Television Advisory Committee (Report)
    Mr. Ness Edwardsasked the Postmaster-General when he now expects to receive the report of the Television Advisory Committee on lineage, colour, and the future uses of available channels in Bands III, IV, and V.
    Mr. C. Hughesasked the Postmaster-General when he expects to receive the Report of the Television Advisory Council on the technical developments in television which will affect the allocation of the remaining channels in Band III.
    Mr. Bevins: I hope that the Committee will report very soon now.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: We have had this Answer, I think, about every three months over the last five years. Is it not about time that the right hon. Gentleman ended this dilatoriness and got this report produced? After all, a very great deal depends upon it. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us an answer really soon.
    Mr. Bevins: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am not a dilatory customer by nature at all. The Television Advisory Committee met on 27th of last month to consider its final report, and I am quite sure (hat I shall not have to fence much longer.

    Future
    Mr. Ness Edwardsasked the Postmaster-General if he will now state the composition of the commission to examine the future of broadcasting, and its terms of reference.
    Mr. Bevins: No, Sir.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Here again is an example of fencing. When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give us some information? He has been asked about this many times. Is it not about time that he brought it to finality?
    Mr. Bevins: Of course, the future of broadcasting and television is so important to all our people that it is important that we should get the right answer rather than a hasty answer, but I will undertake to take the House into my confidence at the earliest possible date, and I think it will be a very early date.
    Mr. Snow: If by that reply the Postmaster-General is in fact saying that the terms of reference have not yet been decided, may I ask him if he will consider including in any eventual terms of reference the safeguarding of the English language, which at present is being jeopardised by the inculcation of international American?
    Mr. Bevins: This is one of a host of matters which will be examined.
    Sir R. Grimston: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, as he will have available the report of his Technical
    394
    Advisory Committee, in the opinion of many of us there is no need for another commission?
    Mr. Bevins: I am aware of the view of my hon. Friend and many hon. Members of this House, but, of course, my Answer did not say that the commission was being set up.

    Commercial Television (Financial Arrangements)
    Sir R. Grimstonasked the Postmaster-General whether he will direct the British Broadcasting Corporation to refrain from broadcasting programmes referring to the financial arrangements of United Kingdom commercial television organisations.
    Mr. Bevins: No, Sir. I understand from the British Broadcasting Corporation that no such programme is in view.
    Sir R. Grimston: In view of that reply, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend has made any inquiries why the B.B.C. is carrying out an investigation into these matters, as reported, and, if it is not for the production of programmes, is the Corporation in order in spending licence money upon this sort of thing?
    Mr. Bevins: When I saw the Press report on this matter, I naturally made some inquiries. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] The first question to which I addressed my mind was whether this inquiry was within the B.B.C.'s powers. I think it is perfectly clear that the B.B.C. under paragraph (3, x), of its Charter, is entitled—
    "To do all such things as the Corporation may consider incidental or conducive to the attainment of any of the objects "
    in the Charter, and those objects include the provision to other bodies of matter for broadcasting and the production of films for broadcasting. As to the propriety of the B.B.C.'s action, I have discussed that with the B.B.C, and the Corporation tells me that it naturally wishes to be well informed about the position of its competitors, and it considers that it is particularly important to have this information in regard to the selling of films to American exhibitors.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Is not this a case where the right hon. Gentleman's logrolling friends are seeking to protect

    395
    commercial television, and will he do nothing to prevent the B.B.C. from discharging its responsibilities under the Charter, as it has done?
    Mr. Bevins: I think my hon. Friend was disquieted by the report that appeared in one of the national newspapers, which was, I think and as the House will have seen, later amended in a short official statement later put out by the B.B.C.
    Sir R. Grimston: Will my right hon. Friend take note that I object to this accusation of log rolling? If the B.B.C. is doing this simply to build up a case for itself in order to get the available channels, that is not a purpose for which it should be using licence money.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this Question suggests that the companies concerned clearly have something which they think ought to be hidden?
    Mr. Bevins: It is not for me to answer a supplementary question of that sort. That is not a question for the Postmaster-General at all.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Chalgrove Airfield
    Mr. John Hallasked the Secretary of State for Air (1) if the Martin Baker Aircraft Company, Limited, was offered a further lease of Chalgrove Airfield; what was the proposed period of the lease; and what were the reasons given by the company for rejecting a lease;
    (2) if the Martin Baker Aircraft Company, Limited, has agreed the basis of valuation of the land at Chalgrove Airfield which it will offer back to the original owners when the company has no further use for the airfield.
    The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): No formal offer to lease Chalgrove airfield was made to Martin Baker, although in discussions with the company the question of a lease was considered.
    A short lease would not have given the company sufficient security of tenure in relation to its future work, nor have justified the capital and maintenance expenditure it will have to incur.
    396
    On the other hand, a long lease would not have significantly helped the former owners, having regard to the undertaking the company have given, namely to offer the land back to the former owners as agricultural land at the current market price when its work at the airfield comes to an end.
    Mr. Hall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it will give some pleasure to the former owners concerned to learn, I think for the first time, that the company will be prepared to offer the land back at its agricultural value at the date of valuation?
    Mr. K. Robinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his hon. Friend's reply to a recent Adjournment debate was quite unusually unsatisfactory and that there are several disquieting features in this case which only a public inquiry could satisfy?
    Mr. Ward: Much of the trouble about the Adjournment debate was that my hon. Friend was left only a very few minutes in which to reply—I am making no criticism—and did not have a chance to deploy his case fully. On the question of a public inquiry, he and another Minister have already twice visited Chalgrove. This matter has been considered by Ministers at every stage, and we are fully informed about all the details.

    Early Warning Station, Fylingdales
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for Air whether the designs for the various buildings of the Fylingdales early warning station have been or will be submitted for the approval of the Royal Fine Art Commission; and if he will inform the House of the Commission's opinion of them.
    Mr. Ward: The Royal Fine Art Commission was sent an outline of the proposed development including a description of the technical buildings. The Commission's comments did not include any observations on the buildings themselves. It was of course aware that we were discussing details with the Park Planning Committee, which is the local planning authority for the area, and the National Parks Commission. These bodies have already approved in principle our proposals for siting, layout, design and treatment of buildings.
    Mr. Driberg: Is it correct, as stated by one of the right hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friends, that the main structure will consist of three enormous balls? If these balls are as large as they are reported to be going to be, is not any assurance about landscaping and all that rather superfluous and, indeed, hypocritical.
    Mr. Ward: No. These balls, or radomes as they are called, are large, but we have offered to paint them any colour which we are asked to paint them so that they blend in with the landscape, and we are employing a landscape consultant to advise us.
    Mr. Driberg: How large are these balls?
    Mr. Ward: I do not have that figure without notice.
    Mr. de Freitas: Will these balls be painted different colours at different times of the year so that they blend in with the vegetation?
    Mr. Ward: That would no doubt be covered in the discussions which we are having with our professional consultant.

    South Uist (Blue Steel)
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for Air what use has been made of Royal Air Force, South Uist, for training aircrew in the use of Blue Steel.
    Mr. Ward: None, Sir.

    Exercise, North Africa (Prestwick Aircraft)
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Secretary of State for Air how many Prestwick aircraft were used in connection with the exercise Starlight recently held in North Africa; and whether he is satisfied as to their general efficiency.
    Mr. Ward: Six single-engined and two Twin Pioneers took part in Exercise Starlight. They performed the tasks allotted to them very satisfactorily.
    Sir T. Moore: While I am grateful, I am not surprised by that reply. Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have received information from an officer who took part in this exercise saying that these machines gave outstanding service during the course of the operation? That being the case, will not my right hon.
    398
    Friend consider ordering more of these machines for use in the Royal Air Force?
    Mr. Ward: I agree that they have given excellent service, and we have just ordered three more. However, frankly, I do not foresee the need for further Pioneers for the Royal Air Force because, although we are expanding our short-range transport force, we are bringing in rather different types of aircraft, as my hon. Friend knows, such as the Rotodyne and the new helicopters.
    Mr. de Freitas: Is it not a fact that, whereas some of the small conventional aircraft are air-transportable, the Rotodyne is not so transportable? Is not that an important consideration?
    Mr. Ward: The Rotodyne is "ferry-able", if that is a word.
    Mr. Brockway: Will the right hon. Gentleman say over what territories this exercise took place and whether the consent of the Governments of those territories was secured for this purpose?
    Mr. Ward: I do not think that that arises out of this Question.

    Aerial Reconnaissance (Soviet Territory)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Air (1) if he will give instructions to the Royal Air Force that no reconnaissance aircraft shall fly over Russian territory;
    (2) to what extent there is cooperation between the Royal Air Force and the United States Air Force for the purpose of obtaining photographic information about Russian air and military bases.
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for Air what consultations he has had with the United States Strategic Command concerning flights by aeroplanes based in the United Kingdom over Soviet territory for purposes of espionage.
    Mr. Ward: As the House knows, it has never been the practice to disclose either the nature or the scope of Intelligence activities. In my judgment, it would be contrary to the public interest for me to make any exception to this practice.
    Mr. Hughes: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the most important thing today is to relieve world tension? Is he aware of reports that the Governments of Norway, Japan and Pakistan are submitting to the United States Government their view of the importance that these reconnaisance flights should not be carried out from their territories? Does he not think that the public interest would be better served if the public were assured that these matters will not have very grave implications for the safety of the people of this country against attacks by bombers or bombs against which there is no defence?
    Mr. Ward: If the hon. Member thinks that we should discuss matters of military intelligence in the House, I do not agree with him.
    Mr. Swingler: In view of what has been revealed by this incident and the dangers contained therein, are not the people of this country entitled to know about something which might be very much contrary to the public interest, because it might involve the people of this country being blown up? Surely the public is entitled to know, for example, whether the reports in today's Press are accurate, that the R.A.F. was participating in these activities until twelve months ago, when the Prime Minister is said to have countermanded the order and stopped them. Are we not entitled to know what consultations there are about the uses of American bases on British soil, which might involve retaliatory action against those American bases on British soil—activities for which the Americans take responsibility?
    Mr. Ward: It has long been the accepted practice of successive Governments from both sides of the House that matters of this kind are not discussed in public, and I see no reason for departing from that practice.
    Mr. Kershaw: Is my right hon. Friend able to assure the House that, in conjunction with the other Services, the R.A.F. will continue to discharge the responsibilities laid upon it to make sure that this country is not surprised by any untoward attack?
    Mr. Hilton: Will the Minister agree that this is a matter of very grave
    400
    concern, especially to those of us who live in areas near American air bases in view of the report that Mr. Khrushchev has said that Russia may retaliate against the bases from which these planes fly? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that no planes from bases in this country will be used for spying on Russia or any other country?
    Mr. Ward: I am not confirming or denying anything. All I am doing, with great respect, is refusing to answer these questions.
    Mr. Harold Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in reply to a similar Question yesterday, his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that the Government did not think that they would suspend patrol flights, even during the Summit Conference? As a token of Britain's earnest hope for the success of the Summit Conference, could not the Government cease these silly flights now and during the Conference?
    Mr. Ward: I have made my position perfectly clear and I have nothing to add.

  ROADS

    Classified Roads, Shrewsbury (Improvement)
    Mr. Langford-Holtasked the Minister of Transport if he will give an assurance that money will be provided for grants for the improvement of classified roads in the Frankwell district of Shrewsbury, to coincide with the programme of slum clearance and redevelopment which the council is carrying out.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): If we receive an application for grant it will of course be considered, but, without the necessary details, I cannot say if it would find a place in our programme. I regret I am therefore unable to give the assurance for which my hon. Friend asks.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Is my hon. Friend aware that under the present rules which his Ministry applies, whole areas in the part of the town mentioned are neutralised for long periods and that that

    401
    makes the local authority look ridiculous when it is not its fault but the fault of the ridiculous rules in my hon. Friend's Ministry?
    Mr. Hay: The local authority has told us in general terms that it wishes to bring these schemes forward. We have asked it to let us have the fuller details and the financial details. When the local authority does that, we will certainly consider the matter.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Am I to understand from that reply that when the local authority makes specific application there will be nothing in the Ministry which will bar it from receiving this land, either for building or for the purposes of a road?
    Mr. Hay: I think that supplementary question rests on the next Question by hon. Friend has on the Order Paper.

    Road Improvements (Land)
    Mr. Langford-Holtasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that his decision, that his agreement in advance that the cost of acquisition of land or property will rank for grant when such land is incorporated in a highway improvement is conditional upon the land not being included in the highway before he gives his approval for the scheme, has had the effect of neutralising these areas so that they cannot be used for some years pending his approval, the costs of fencing off and loan interests being borne by the local authority; and whether he will ensure that his grant is payable at the time when his agreement to the acquisition is given.
    Mr. Hay: I realise that highway authorities may not in every case be able to find an interim use for land which they acquire for a road improvement scheme in advance of approval of the scheme, though in practice some good short-term use can often be found. As to the second part of the Question, we must continue to devote sums at our disposal for grant purposes to urgent schemes which can be put in hand at once, rather than to the cost of land for schemes which it may not be possible to carry out for some time.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is very seldom an occasion on which a local authority can
    402
    put to good use an area which amounts mostly to flat rubble on the side of a road? Would it not be much more economical in the long run to make sure that the material is incorporated in the highway, which probably would be the cheapest form of dealing with it?
    Mr. Hay: I cannot altogether agree with my hon. Friend. Our experience is that in the great majority of cases land held for future road work is employed for useful purposes. Sometimes it is let on a short lease, sometimes it is used for amenity purposes such as parkland and so on. On the whole, the system works very well.

    Oxford Road, Reading (Member's Letter)
    Mr. Emeryasked the Minister of Transport when he will send an answer to the hon. Member for Reading to a letter dated 24th November, 1959, dealing with the need for push button pedestrian crossing lights to be installed in the Oxford Road, Reading.
    Mr. Hay: I have written to my hon. Friend explaining the difficulties we have met in trying to reach a satisfactory answer to this problem.
    Mr. Emery: While realising that the letter received from my hon. Friend was stimulated by this Question, may I ask if he realises that there have been 196 accidents on this stretch of road in eighteen months and that in the six months since I wrote to him the number of accidents has increased and is increasing? Will he show some greater speed in dealing with this problem than we have seen during the last six months?
    Mr. Hay: We are very well aware of the difficult conditions of this stretch of road. To make the necessary progress in the matter, to which my hon. Friend rightly draws attention, we felt it necessary to obtain some up-to-date figures of the numbers of vehicles and pedestrians. That information has only just been received from the local authority. We are examining it now as a matter of urgency.

    London-Birmingham Motorway
    Mr. Leaveyasked the Minister of Transport the total acreage taken up by the M.1; and what proportion has been laid down to grass or young plantations.
    Mr. Hay: This motorway covers about 2,000 acres of land in all. About 51 per cent. of this area is occupied by features of the motorway which do not require to be paved, such as the cuttings, embankments, and the central reservation. These have been grassed or planted to harmonise with the surrounding countryside. A further 3 per cent. of the total area is being used solely for landscaping purposes, mainly with young plantations.
    Mr. Leavey: In view of the very considerable acreage that is laid down to grass on verges, can my hon. Friend say what general arrangements have been made to keep them tidy, and in particular what arrangements have been made to collect the hay harvest which will he available shortly?
    Mr. Hay: With regard to the second part of the supplementary question, the fact is that the areas put down to grass in this way are of such a character that I do not think we could expect to get much of a crop of hay from them. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down the first part of his supplementary question as a Question on the Order Paper.

    London-Yorkshire Motorway
    Mr. A. Robertsasked the Minister of Transport if a commencement date has now been fixed for the West Riding section of the London-Yorkshire motorway.
    Mr. Hay: No, Sir. We are considering the objections to the draft scheme for the motorway from Crick to the Doncaster By-pass. The proposals by the local authorities for the further extension of the motorway to Sheffield and Leeds are being examined. It will inevitably take some time to complete the statutory processes. It is therefore too early to fix starting dates for either of these schemes.
    Mr. Roberts: Is the Minister aware that there has been far too much procrastination about the construction of the Yorkshire Motorway? Will he bear in mind how important the decision will be, not only to Yorkshire but to the North-West, and that at the moment thousands of pounds' worth of road-making machinery is lying idle?
    Mr. Hay: I think that is a little hard. As I said in the first part of my reply,
    404
    we have to go through the process of considering objections made to the draft scheme. We are pressing on with that as quickly as we can. We have no interest in delaying these schemes.
    Mr. Wade: Can the hon. Gentleman indicate how long the construction of the West Riding section will take from the date on which it is started?
    Mr. Hay: No, I cannot do that without notice.
    Mr. Wainwrightasked the Minister of Transport if he will invite the West Riding County Council to act as agents on behalf of his Department for the building of the West Riding section of the London-Yorkshire motorway.
    Mr. A. Robertsasked the Minister of Transport what decision he has reached concerning the appointing of consultants to be responsible for the construction of the Yorkshire section of the London-Yorkshire motorway.
    Mr. Hay: The West Riding County Council has recently made representations to us that it should become our agent for the detailed preparation and supervision of the construction of the extension of the motorway to Sheffield and Leeds. These representations are still under consideration.
    As regards the motorway from Crick to the Doncaster By-pass, consulting engineers have already prepared a draft scheme. In accordance with our general policy, it is our intention that the further detailed preparation and the subsequent supervision of construction should also be undertaken by consulting engineers.
    Mr. Wainwright: I am shocked to hear that reply. Is not the hon. Member aware that the West Riding County Council has already carried out 51 miles of road building as his agent at a cost of about £17 million and that the work has been done satisfactorily? Will not he therefore take into consideration, or ask his right hon. Friend so to do, the work which has been done by the West Riding County Council to make certain that this authority is not pushed on one side for private enterprise?
    Mr. Hay: There is no question of the West Riding County Council being pushed aside. It already has a heavy programme on its hands. It is now

    405
    supervising its thirteen-mile share of the Doncaster by-pass and some fourteen large A-road schemes. I do not think it can be said that the authority is not being given some work to do. As for the general policy, it is my right hon. Friend's decision that schemes which traverse the area of more than one county council highway authority should in general be carried out by consulting engineers.
    Mr. Roberts: What does the hon. Gentleman hope to gain from such a policy? Will he bear in mind that the West Riding County Council has already carried out a large amount of preliminary work and has all the technical staff to deal with all the aspects of major road construction?
    Mr. Hay: We are well aware of these views held by highway authorities. The great advantage of using a consulting engineer in cases of this kind is unification of control of the whole job. That is an extremely powerful factor for us to have in our support.

    Traffic Congestion
    Mr. Popplewellasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the cost of road congestion amounts to an annual figure of about £500 million, and that it is increasing at the rate of £150 million a year; and if he will state the steps he is taking to reduce this drain on the nation's economy.
    Mr. Hay: The road programme and the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Bill at present before the House are designed to combat congestion the consequences of which in both safety and cost I appreciate. I am bound to say I do not however necessarily accept the figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Popplewell: Is the Minister aware that he is placing more confidence on the Road Traffic and Road Improvement Bill in this matter than is placed by most people concerned? Is he not aware that roads are becoming hopelessly overcrowded, particularly with long distance freightage traffic, while the railways are very well able to cater for that type of traffic? Would it not be in the national interest for more of that traffic to be diverted from road to rail
    406
    in the interests of motorists and everyone concerned? What does he think the picture will be in a few years' time if industry and he do not do something more drastic about the diversion of traffic from road to rail?
    Mr. Hay: I regard that as a counsel of despair. What we have to do is to provide in this country an up-to-date network of road communications. We are doing our utmost to ensure that we press on with the road programme as quickly as possible. The Bill, about which we are far more optimistic than is the hon. Member, will put some valuable additional powers into my right hon. Friend's hands to deal with congestion in the towns. I think that this is far better than trying artificially to divert road traffic from road to rail.
    Mr. Benn: What consultations have the hon. Gentleman and the Minister had with the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders about the number of cars likely to come on to the roads in the next few years? Secondly, may we have a White Paper which sets out the Government's plans more than a few months ahead? At the moment, hon. Members who axe trying to follow this subject have to content themselves with a flood of individual Press releases from the Ministry of Transport.
    Mr. Hay: We are in regular touch with the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, and the society gives us its views as to the future numbers of vehicles coming on to the roads. I will bring to my right hon. Friend's attention the suggestion about a White Paper.

    Park Lane Improvement Scheme
    Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Transport if he will take steps to ensure that the Park Lane improvement scheme will be completed in less than twenty-eight months.
    Mr. Hay: The programme for the scheme has been worked out very carefully by the London County Council, which is responsible for carrying it out. Its plans have been prepared in consultation with my Department, my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Works, the Metropolitan police, the contractor and other bodies concerned.

    407
    Parts of the scheme will be open to traffic as they are finished, but I am satisfied that, if traffic is to be kept moving while work is in progress, twenty-eight months is the best possible time that can be achieved for the completion of the whole scheme.
    Mr. Driberg: Since the hon. Member's Department clearly has some responsibility in this matter, cannot he look at this again? Presumably night working would be very expensive. Is there to be any of it? Will he bear in mind the enormous cost, in time and trade and temper, of this extraordinarily long-drawn-out dislocation?
    Mr. Hay: I fully understand the hon. Member's views. They were the views which I held when I first heard about this. I have personally looked very closely into the plans. The difficulty is that we are dealing here with two of the busiest junctions in the country. Hyde Park Corner carries over 100,000 vehicles a day and Marble Arch is the third busiest junction in the country. We have to keep these traffic lanes open. As for the possibility of night work, we must remember that at Hyde Park Corner there is St. George's Hospital, and for that reason we have been obliged to ban any work between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. in the interests of the patients. I am afraid that there is nothing we can do to speed this scheme, much as we should like to do so.
    Mr. Lindsay: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that a great part of this work is a long way from St. George's Hospital, for example that at the Marble Arch end? Even if there is no work near the St. George's Hospital end after 11 p.m.— which we can understand—will he at least assure us that at any rate work will be carried on during Saturdays and Sundays and at night where it is out of earshot of St. George's Hospital?
    Mr. Hay: The difficulty is that the key to this scheme is the underpass along Piccadilly, and that is very close to St. George's Hospital. I will bring my hon. Friend's suggestion to the attention of the London County Council, which is responsible for this scheme, tout I am not very sure that it will be able to carry it through.
    Mr. Mellish: Is the Minister aware that many people believe that such
    408
    schemes as the Hyde Park Corner scheme are not the right things to do in this day and age? Is he aware that if we are to have road improvements of this character, they ought to be on a much wider and broader plan, not the sort of scheme which, although it might relieve traffic congestion at one point, does not solve the problem in the areas from which traffic comes and into which it goes from that point? Is the Minister aware that in America such schemes in the heart of a city have been abandoned?
    Mr. Hay: There is a strange duality of view in the Labour Party on these matters. If that is the hon. Member's view, I must point out to him that some of his hon. Friends are always pressing us to do more of these road improvement schemes.

    Gower Street-Hampstead Road, London (Traffic Lights)
    Sir L. Plummerasked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made with the provision of traffic lights at the junction of Gower Street and Hampstead Road, London.
    Mr. Hay: The St. Pancras Metropolitan Borough Council, which is the highway authority, is about to invite tenders for the provision of traffic light signals at this junction.
    Sir L. Plummer: Is the Minister aware that I first raised this matter in 1957 and that in February, 1959, his predecessor said that the accident rate at this junction was rising? I was told towards the end of last year that the lights would be installed. Is the Minister seriously suggesting that it takes three years to have traffic lights installed in an important street in London?
    Mr. Hay: In this case, yes. The timing of the project appears to have been influenced largely by considerations of finance. The St. Pancras Borough Council allocated the project to 1960–61 and was not at all responsive to our pleas Chat it should be brought forward. The responsibility, therefore, does not rest with us.

    Abingdon Street, London (Bus Stop)
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Transport whether, for the convenience of persons visiting Parliament and of

    409
    hon. Members, he will request the Bus Stopping Places Advisory Committee to consider the provision of a stopping place outside St. Stephen's Entrance for buses which pass along Abingdon Street.
    Mr. Hay: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Janner: I am very pleased to hear that the Minister is taking note of that point. Would he please expedite the inquiry into it, because it is a very serious nuisance for many people who come in buses to the House when they have to stop either a considerable distance from the House or far away on the other side of the road?
    Mr. Hay: I hoped that my short and hopeful Answer would draw an equally short and hopeful response from the hon. Member.

    Road Safety
    Sir J. Smythasked the Minister of Transport if, in the interests of road safety, he will take steps to remove unsuitable vehicles from roads within his responsibility.
    Mr. Hay: The enforcement of the law is a matter for the police. If my hon. and gallant Friend has any particular type of vehicle in mind, and will let me have details, I will see whether anything can be done.
    Sir J. Smyth: Will my hon. Friend remember that about 11,000 very seriously disabled men and women are at present being forced by Government regulations to travel on our crowded and rather dangerous roads alone in single-seater vehicles? Will he urge his right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health to press on with the scheme for replacing these admittedly very unsuitable vehicles by some form of two-seater vehicles which would enable these very seriously disabled people to take a passenger with them?
    Mr. Hay: That goes a little wide of my right hon. Friend's responsibilities, as I expect that my hon. and gallant Friend realises, but I will certainly see that what my hon. and gallant Friend has said is brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance.

    Accidents (Prosecutions)
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Minister of Transport for how many years he has received police analyses of the motor accidents on which prosecutions have been initiated in the courts of summary jurisdiction.
    Mr. Hay: Particulars of individual road accidents involving personal injury have been reported by the police to my Department since 1949. These reports do not distinguish accidents as a result of which proceedings were taken.
    Dame Irene Ward: Will my hon. Friend have a look at the recent analysis published in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, which gives a very great deal of detail about the accidents on which police prosecutions have been taken? Will he bear in mind that I am rather inclined to think that, in relation to road accidents, all the emphasis on learner drivers and old cars, etc., begs the question and that a very much more detailed examination of the reasons for accidents would serve the purpose of my right hon. Friend much better than the present system?
    Mr. Hay: Yes. I very largely agree with what my hon. Friend said in the second part of her supplementary question. It is for that reason that my right hon. Friend the Minister is seeking to have a detailed investigation made of all the Christmas road accidents so that we can, if possible, learn some useful and constructive lessons from them. That is something about which I hope that we shall be hearing before very long.
    Mr. Benn: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the Road Research Laboratory, which has the greatest experts on the factors leading to road accidents, is brought into the analysis of figures by the police forces so that a really accurate indication of the causes is made available to the Minister of Transport?
    Mr. Hay: No, I do not think that it is, but I will inquire into that and let the hon. Gentleman know.
    Mr. Popplewell: When the Minister completes his research, will he publish the figures and results?
    Mr. Hay: We will give consideration to that.

  RAILWAYS

    Transport Users' Consultative Committees
    Mr. Leaveyasked the Minister of Transport whether he will introduce legislation to enable him to exercise wider powers in relation to area transport users' consultative committees.
    Mr. Hay: No, Sir. We do not for the present propose to introduce legislation to alter the powers of these committees.
    Mr. Leavey: As a number of recommendations are being made for the closure of stations, while the whole question of the railway organisation is now in the melting-pot, would it not be desirable for my right hon. Friend to make a general recommendation that those considerations should be held in abeyance until the over-all policy is made clear? Is it not undesirable that there should be these piecemeal closures when, perhaps at a reasonably short-distant time in the future, those decisions will require to be reversed in keeping with a national decision?
    Mr. Hay: I rather doubt whether the assumption my hon. Friend makes from the review which is being carried out by the planning, or advisory, group is justified. Certainly we must remember that in the current year £90 million is having to be found in direct subsidy for the B.T.C. I do not think we should lose any opportunities for useful economies, provided they can be properly made.
    Mr. Jennings: Is my hon. Friend aware that 93·5 per cent. of the cases brought for consideration before the consultative committees have been found in favour of the British Transport Commission? Is he aware that in at least one case I have given him irrefutable evidence that the decision was forestalled by the British Transport Commission by at least two months? He is now investigating another case—that of the famous "Tutbury Jinnie", which I brought to his notice a few nights ago. Will he agree that now the whole procedure of the transport users' consultative committees is a complete farce so far as consumer protection is concerned?
    Mr. Hay: No, I am afraid that I cannot agree with all those assumptions made by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Popplewell: Would the hon. Gentleman pay tribute to the very useful work which the transport users' consultative committees have been doing and are doing? At the same time, would he have another look at the financial situation? At present the British Transport Commission has to bear the whole of the cost of the work of the committees. Might it not be to advantage and win more confidence among the general public if the cost of staffing and working these committees were borne from other sources than the British Transport Commission?
    Mr. Hay: In reply to the first part of that supplementary question, I have answered a number of Adjournment debates in this House about the working of the committees, and I believe that on every occasion I have paid warm tribute to the work they are doing. I repeat that tribute this afternoon. I shall look into the second part of the supplementary question, about finance, but I am not very hopeful of being able to change the present practice.

  SHIPPING

    Wreck, Brancaster Bay (Danger to Fishermen)
    Mr. Bullardasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the danger to the fishermen of Brancaster from the wreck originally sunk as a target in the channel there; why the marking of the wreck with buoys was discontinued; why he sold the wreck as scrap and subsequently failed to insist on the purchasers fulfilling their obligation to remove it; and whether he will now have the wreck removed.
    Mr. Hay: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the wreck of the "Vina" in Brancaster Bay, about which he has written to my right hon. Friend.
    Its marking was discontinued in April, 1959, when the buoy previously provided by the Air Ministry broke away.
    The wreck was, however, sold by my Department in 1957 and it was resold in May, 1959. I am advised that responsibility for the wreck and for taking reasonable measures to ensure the safety of other vessels lies with its present owner.

    413
    I am aware that there have been complaints that this wreck may be a danger to fishermen and we are in communication with the owner and Trinity House with a view to an early solution of this matter.
    Mr. Bullard: Was it not rather a mistake to sell this wreck to a scrap merchant who had not facilities for marking it or perhaps even for removing it? Will my hon. Friend make amends by having the wreck cleared out of the channel at the earliest possible moment?
    Mr. Hay: Yes, Sir. I am giving personal attention to this matter, about which I have been concerned for some time. I hope that we shall be able to clear it before long.

  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

    Armed Forces (Coal Miners)
    Mr. Pentlandasked the Minister of Defence how many men of 18 to 25 years of age, whose previous occupation was in the coal-mining industry of Great Britain, have joined Her Majesty's Forces during the years 1957,1958, 1959, and to the latest available date in 1960, stating each year and each divisional

    The information required, in so far as it is possible to identify recruits as having been employed in the coal-mining industry and drawn from a particular divisional area, is given below. The figures for 1957 exclude the R.A.F. because the relevant records have been destroyed.

    National Coal Board Division

    1957

    1958

    1959

    1960 (Up to 31st March)

    Northern

    …

    …

    …

    206

    320

    335

    62

    Durham

    …

    …

    …

    222

    535

    498

    88

    North Eastern

    …

    …

    …

    177

    281

    241

    57

    North Western

    …

    …

    …

    228

    315

    243

    37

    East Midlands

    …

    …

    …

    335

    555

    506

    100

    West Midlands

    …

    …

    …

    222

    370

    246

    43

    Southwestern

    …

    …

    …

    252

    512

    506

    51

    South Eastern

    …

    …

    …

    37

    71

    41

    19

    Scotland

    …

    …

    …

    329

    513

    689

    167

    MIDDLE EAST (LIMITATION OF ARMAMENTS)
    Mr. Healeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals he made at the recent meeting of the Council of the Central Treaty Organisation to seek agreement with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and other interested powers, on the limitation of armaments in the Middle East.
    area of the National Coal Board separately.
    The Minister of Defence (Mr. Harold Watkinson): As the Answer consists of a table of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Pentland: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that the figures, when published, will show a very marked increase in the number of young miners who have left the coal fields in these years to join Her Majesty's Forces? While, appreciating that miners make first-class Service men and also that they have left the coal fields because of a profound sense of insecurity in their jobs, may I ask him to consult with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Power to see what can be done to halt this drift away to the Armed Forces, otherwise we will have serious manpower problems in the coal fields in the very near future?
    Mr. Watkinson: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that some of the areas do show a considerable increase. Others do not show so much. I should like to echo his words that these fine men are very welcome indeed in Her Majesty's Services, and I will certainly take note of what he says about the coalmining industry itself.
    Following is the information:
    The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ormsby Gore): None, Sir. The general question of disarmament was, however, discussed and the Council expressed the hope that real progress would be made at the Ten Power Conference.
    Mr. Healey: As Her Majesty's Government are already committed to try to limit armaments in the Middle East

    415
    without Soviet help by the Tripartite Agreement, and as in the Prime Minister's communiqué with Mr. Khrushchev last year he agreed to try to limit armaments in Europe with Soviet agreement, why on earth are the Government so unwilling to try to seek to explore this possibility as regards the Middle East?
    Mr. Ormsby Gore: We think it more important to make progress on general disarmament. I think that the hon. Member asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a rather similar Question the other day, and my right hon. Friend said that he was bearing the hon. Member's suggestions in mind.
    Mr. Healey: In that case, will the Minister of State ask the Prime Minister to raise the question at the Summit Conference?
    Mr. Ormsby Gore: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend said on the previous occasion.

    FRANCE (DEPORTATION OF BRITISH SUBJECTS)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he has made to the French Government about the deportation from France of British citizens who marched from Aldermaston to Calais via London with the intention of proceeding to Paris to represent to the Summit Conference their views on nuclear disarmament.
    Mr. Ormsby Gore: I have nothing to add to the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) on 9th May.
    Mr. Swingler: In that case, will the right hon. Gentleman say why no protest was made in this case? Does not the Foreign Office represent British citizens abroad any more? What was the misdemeanour which these well-intentioned young men and women were supposed to have committed? Why were they not entitled to proceed, or is there no longer any democracy on that side of the Channel?
    Mr. Ormsby Gore: I anticipated that there might be some Questions on this subject, and the British Consul at Lille
    416
    was instructed to ask the authorities for a precise account of what happened. Perhaps I can let the House know what that report is. According to his report, the group held a demonstration with banners on the evening of 30th April. The local Commissaire de Police informed them that demonstrations were not permitted without a licence, requested them to disperse, and took away their banners. He asked them to call on him on the morning of 1st May. In the course of this call, it emerged that the group were in possession of 5,000 leaflets and numerous documents. The police thereupon confiscated the documents and pamphlets and undertook to consult higher authority before giving them further instructions. On the morning of 2nd May, the Commissaire informed the group that they must return to the United Kingdom. This they agreed to do and returned to the boat without any police escort. At no time did they ask for the assistance of Her Majesty's representative.
    Mr. Swingler: I still ask: what was the good democratic reason why these young folks should not make the demonstration they intended to make? Was the literature seditious? What was wrong with it?
    Mr. Ormsby Gore—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is clearly not a matter for which the Minister is responsible.
    Mr. Lipton: Would it not perhaps be fair to add that in this country these young people might have been sent to six months' imprisonment rather than just be asked to go away?
    Mr. Ormsby Gore: That is nothing to do with the Foreign Office.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any inquiries to find out why these people, whose banners had been taken away, whose leaflets and pamphlets had been confiscated, and who thereafter merely desired to walk along the French roads to Paris without their banners, leaflets and propaganda, were requested then to return to this country?
    Mr. Ormsby Gore: As I understand it, the French authorities regard that as a demonstration, and a demonstration without a licence is illegal.

    NUCLEAR TESTS
    Mrs. Castleasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what consultations Her Majesty's Government's representative at the Geneva talks on the testing of nuclear weapons had with the representative of the United States Government before that Government announced their decision to carry out an independent series of underground nuclear tests; and, in view of the damage this decision has inflicted on the prospects of agreement being reached at Geneva, what representations were made by Her Majesty's Government in opposition to the proposed tests.
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government at the Geneva Conference on Nuclear Tests that all tests carried out for the purpose of establishing that small underground tests can be controlled are to be jointly organised and carried out by the three Governments.
    Mr. Ormsby Gore: The declaration issued by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Eisenhower after their meeting at Camp David in March called for an agreed programme of coordinated scientific research to solve the problems of detecting small underground nuclear tests. Scientists from the three countries taking part in the Nuclear Tests Conference are joining the delegations now in Geneva today to assist in working out details of this programme. The Soviet Union have accepted that a limited number of nuclear explosions can form part of this programme, but the procedure for conducting these will have to be agreed when the scientists meet.
    On 7th May the United States made an announcement indicating the scope of their contribution to such a research programme, and I will arrange for the full text to appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    We were already aware of the United States' proposals and their nature has been explained to the Soviet delegation at the Geneva Conference. I do not accept that this decision could cause damage to the prospects of agreement as suggested by the hon. Lady.
    Mrs. Castle: Is it not a fact that what the Soviet Union and the other Powers had agreed to were joint tests for this
    418
    purpose? That being so, is it not to say the least very extraordinary that the United States Government should have made this unilateral announcement before there had been these further consultations among the Powers as to the exact form these joint tests should take? Is not this likely to arouse suspicions and alarm on the Soviet side and damage the prospects of agreed disarmament?
    Mr. Ormsby Gore: No. If one is going to announce what contribution one intends to make to a programme of research of this kind, it is very difficult to do it except unilaterally. This is what the United States contribution is to be, and I have explained that the actual procedure by which the United States carry out these tests has to be agreed with the scientists of the other two countries in Geneva.
    Mr. Healey: Is not the Minister, no doubt unwittingly, misleading the House? Surely, the agreement at Geneva was that any tests carried out in connection with this joint programme of research should be tests carried out in common by the three Governments concerned. Can the Minister assure the House that the American Government do not propose to carry out tests independently, and without the presence and participation of the representatives of the British and Soviet Governments?
    Mr. Ormsby Gore: These are precisely the matters that the scientists are meeting at Geneva to work out. All I can tell the House is that the President of the United States set out the policy of the United States Administration when he said there was to be an agreed programme of co-ordinated scientific research—an agreed programme. That appears in the declaration issued after the Camp David talks, and as far as we know the American Administration will abide by that declaration.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Can the right hon. Gentleman be a little more explicit on what is a vitally important point? Is it Her Majesty's Government's opinion that these tests that were announced, suddenly and surprisingly, by the American Government are tests in which Her Majesty's Government and the Soviet Government will participate? If that is not the case, how are they to be reconciled with the moratorium which, in

    419
    principle, has been agreed by all three Governments?
    Mr. Ormsby Gore: What I would certainly say is that the procedure under which these tests are carried out must be such as to give assurance to the other countries concerned that no military advantage can accrue to the United States Government by the carrying out of the tests.
    Mr. Gaitskell: That is a totally different matter. Is it not the case that under the moratorium proposals the only tests to be carried out would be underground tests for the purpose of discovering better methods of detection, and tests in which all three Governments participated? Would the Minister of State confirm that that is, in effect, the intention of the Camp David announcement? Would he also indicate clearly whether the moratorium applies to all tests, or only to tests carried out for military purposes?
    Mr. Ormsby Gore: Again, the precise details of the moratorium are the subject of the negotiations now going on in Geneva. All the policy that has been laid down is that contained in the announcement made after the Camp David talks. The precise arrangement under which one assures the other countries concerned that in the explosion of an underground nuclear test one is not gaining any military advantage is a subject that really only scientists can settle. It is an extremely complicated problem. That is why the scientists are meeting in Geneva today—to discuss this very procedure.
    Mr. Healey: Is it not appallingly clear that the right hon. Gentleman has not the slightest idea of what the President meant when he made this announcement? Is it not a most unacceptable situation that the United States should unilaterally take a decision that affects a declaration of principle made with Britain and the Soviet Union without previously consulting the British Government and explaining what it means?
    Mr. Ormsby Gore: No, I think that I can understand what the President meant when he made his declaration just as well as can the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey).
    Mrs. Castle: Have not the United States Government anticipated the dis-
    420
    cussions that ought to have settled this matter and, by so anticipating them, have damaged the very hopeful prospects of a nuclear test agreement? In view of that, will not Her Majesty's Government indicate to the United States Government that we totally deplore this kind of unilateral action and do not think it at all furthers the cause of disarmament?
    Mr. Ormsby Gore: No unilateral action has taken place. The United States Government have announced what their contribution to a co-ordinated programme of research would be. That is what they have announced. It has been explained to the Soviet delegation in Geneva, whose members, I am bound to say, did not have the same reaction to it as has the hon. Lady.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate this in Question and Answer.
    Following is the announcement:
    WHITE HOUSE STATEMENT OF MAY 7, 1960
    The President today announced approval of a major expansion of the present research and development directed toward an improved capability to detect and identify underground nuclear explosions. The present United States programme has evolved from the recommendations set forth by the panel of seismic improvement ("Berkner panel"). For fiscal year 60, it has been funded for approximately dollars 10,000,000. During fiscal year 61, it is anticipated that the funds required will be about dollars 66 million for all aspects of the seismic research and development programme.
    Known as project Vela, the programme calls for increased basic research, in seismology, procurement of instruments for a world-wide seismic research programme, development of improved seismic instruments, construction and operation of prototype seismic detection stations, and an experimental programme of underground detonations encompassing both high explosive and where necessary nuclear explosions. The planned programme provides for investigation of all aspects of improvement that are considered to be feasible.
    Such nuclear explosions as are essential to a full understanding of both the capabilities of the presently proposed detection system and the potential for improvements in this system would be carried out under fully contained conditions and would produce no radioactive fall-out. In order to develop sufficient reliable data from the programme, it is anticipated that it will be necessary to conduct a series of explosions of various sizes, in different types of geological formations.
    Recently, the Soviet negotiators at Geneva concurred with the proposal that underground nuclear explosions should be conducted to improve the capability of the proposed control network to detect and identify underground explosions.
    They have also indicated a willingness to discuss research and development in the seismic detection area with the United States and the United Kingdom. Agreement has been reached to convene a group of U.S.S.R., United Kingdom and United States scientists in Geneva on May 11 to exchange information on the seismic research activities of the three nations as a basis for future determination of the areas in which co-ordinated or joint research would be most fruitful.
    Government agencies including the Department of Defence, the Atomic Energy Commission, the Department of Commerce and the Department of Interior, as well as universities and private organisations, will participate in carrying out the United States programme of research and development related to the detection and identification of nuclear detonations.

AERIAL RECONNAISSANCE (SOVIET TERRITORY)
3.34 p.m.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of drawing attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the refusal of Her Majesty's Government, on the eve of the Summit Conference, to give an assurance that the Royal Air Force will not undertake aerial reconnaissance involving the violation of Soviet territory.
I submit that this is an urgent matter, Sir, because we are on the eve of the Summit Conference. It is quite true that tomorrow the House is to debate foreign policy on what I believe are wider issues, but I submit that this present matter is more urgent than the business that is likely to come before the House this afternoon. Although hon. Members on both sides regard the Betting and Gaming Bill as of supreme importance, I believe that this issue is more important than that Bill; and that the right to live is more important than the right to bet.
I submit that this is a matter of definite urgent public importance because the dramatic incident that has been reported has caused various other Governments to take immediate action, and today's Press reports that the Governments of Norway, Japan and Pakistan are urging on the United States the immediate necessity of abandoning these reconnaissance flights which involve so much danger to the world.
In my submission, it is certainly of definite public importance to everyone in this country when, in these days, events move at catastrophic speed, and, as General de Gaulle recently told us in Westminster Hall, we might be faced with instantaneous destruction. For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I submit that I am justified in asking leave to move the Adjournment of the House.
Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to bring his Motion to me?
Copy of Motion handed in.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of drawing attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the refusal of Her Majesty's Government, on the eve of the Summit Conference, to give an assurance that the Royal Air Force will not undertake aerial reconnaissance involving the violation of Soviet territory.
It is not in my power, in accordance with precedent, to accede to the hon. Member's request. I find a parallel instance on 9th May, 1956. The position here is that the Minister refused to answer a Question on the grounds of public interest and, in the circumstances, as I say, I am not in a position to accede to the hon. Gentleman's request.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I respectfully draw your attention to the fact that what my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is alleging— no doubt as a result of what has taken place here—is that the Government are refusing at this time to give an undertaking not to do something which would be a breach of international law, namely, violation of the territory of a friendly Power. The question is not a hypothetical one, because we know that in recent days such an incident has happened on the initiative of a country with which we are in close alliance. Therefore, the matter is not a hypothetical one.
The Summit Conference is about to take place, and the consequences of such a breach of international law might be of the gravest imaginable importance to the people of this country. With great respect, is not the refusal of the Government to undertake not to commit such a breach of international law a matter of the most urgent public importance within the meaning of the Standing Order?
Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. Member wish to address an observation to me?
Mr. Stephen Swingler: I wish to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Secretary of State for Air said that on the ground of
424
security it was contrary to the public interest to discuss in this House this matter of photographic reconnaisance over Soviet territory, but the fact is that it is being discussed now everywhere else. The Press is full of speculation about it, including speculation about the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government for the policy in regard to aerial espionage over Soviet territory. It is being discussed in the Soviet Union and in the United States and it has a considerable bearing upon the relations between Governments. I should like to ask you, therefore, now that we in this House and everybody else are discussing the matter, how we are to compel Her Majesty's Government to make a statement in answer to the questions which are being raised by citizens—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is quite a different point. I thought that the hon. Member wanted to say something about my Ruling.
As to the observations of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), I am obliged to him for making them, but they relate only to matters that I have already thought about. I adhere to my Ruling. I am sorry, but I must ask the House to accept it.
With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler), whether Her Majesty's Government can be compelled to do something, I do not know, but what he can do is to discuss it presumably tomorrow afternoon, should he have the good fortune to catch the eye of the Chair.
Mr. Harold Davies: With all respect to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, there was no Summit Conference in 1956. I should like to know how that Ruling to which you referred squares with the Summit Conference and how your Ruling has been arrived at.
Mr. Speaker: I am not prepared to argue about it. I do not think that it helps. The ground on which I have decided, although in my view sufficient and apt, is by no means the only one. The hon. Gentleman is in the same position with regard to tomorrow as are other hon. Members.

BILLS PRESENTED
MERCHANT SHIPPING (MINICOY LIGHTHOUSE)
Bill to enable the lighthouse on Minicoy Island and sums held in the General Lighthouse Fund in connection therewith to be transferred to the Government of India, and for purposes connected with the matter aforesaid, presented by Mr. Marples; supported by Mr. Alport and Mr. John Hay; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 106.]
COMMONWEALTH TEACHERS
Bill to make further provision for matters arising out of the recommendations of the Commonwealth Education Conference, presented by Mr. Alport; supported by Mr. John Maclay, Mr. Iain Macleod, Sir David Eccles, and Sir Edward Boyle; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 107.]
GHANA (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISION)
Bill to make provision as to the operation of the law in relation to Ghana and persons and things in any way belonging to or connected with Ghana, in view of Ghana's becoming a Republic while remaining a member of the Commonwealth, presented by Mr. Alport; supported by Mr. R. A. Butler, the Attorney-General, and Mr. Anthony Barber; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 108.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  BETTING AND GAMING BILL
  Order for Third Reading read.
  3.42 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dennis Vosper): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  If my calculations are correct, hon. Members have at all stages of this Bill so far spent a total of 88 hours in discussing the Measure. Tempting though it may be, I am sure that you share my hope, Mr. Speaker, that we shall not attempt to set up the century this afternoon. I would be the first to agree that with the possible exception of the first two sittings in Standing Committee those 88 hours have been well spent, and that the deliberations at all stages on this Measure have led to its improvement.
  I should like to pay my tribute to the many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who have contributed to the improvement of the Bill. It would be invidious of me to name them at this stage, but it is a fact that in the Bill as amended contributions have been made directly or indirectly by many of those who sat in the Standing Committee or took part on the Report stage. Therefore, although the Bill was initiated by Her Majesty's Government, it has been improved by the House of Commons as a whole.
  One of the spokesmen for Her Majesty's Opposition yesterday said that the Opposition had had a free vote at all times, and I accept that. But, on the other hand, a study of our deliberations in Committee and of the Division records in Committee will make it clear that, although I had the strength of the Administration behind me, my hon. Friends had discretion at all stages, and on many occasions some of my hon. Friends supported the Opposition line and I benefited on many occasions from support from hon. Members opposite.
  The object of the Bill—this is going back to the Second Reading—is not to encourage an increase in gambling, but is to revise laws which have fallen into disrepute, which are not understood by the public and which consume a great amount of police manpower in attempting

  427
  to enforce them. If I may, I should like to quote again from paragraph 186 of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Betting, Lotteries and Gaming:
  "We therefore consider that the object of gambling legislation should be to interfere as little as possible with individual liberty to take part in the various forms of gambling but to impose such restrictions as are desirable and practicable to discourage or prevent excess."
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill on 16th November, carried that a little further when he said:
  "We hope that the Bill—with the improvements that will be made to it during its passage through Parliament—will provide reasonable freedom for people who wish to bet or to play games for money to do so, while, at the same time, retaining sufficient safeguards to act as deterrents against their being led into excess."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1959; Vol. 613, c. 822]
  I repeat both those statements because my concern and that of my right hon. Friend has at all times been to ensure this balance between freedom and the liberalisation of the law, on the one hand, and the prevention of excess and abuse, on the other. That is a balance which is applicable to all forms of social reform, but particularly so in relation to the Measure which we are discussing today.
  Therefore, in considering the Amendments which have been moved at various stages one has to have regard to the two sides of this balance which were first expressed in the Royal Commission's recommendations. Amendments that have been made have been of both types. Amendments to the Second Schedule are of the liberalising type. The new Clause relating to young people is inserted to prevent excess or abuse.
  As you will have noted, Mr. Speaker, the Bill is unchanged in its general form. It has, however, grown from 23 to 29 Clauses. I believe, and I hope that I shall find an echo of this in the speeches which follow—that the Bill has been improved during our consideration of it. Part I of the Bill, to which most of our attention has been devoted, is concerned with betting. That is founded upon the repeal of the Act of 1853, and the repeal thereby legalises off-course cash betting. That is done in Clause 1. It is this decision to legalise off-course cash betting, to give it parity with credit
  428
  betting, which gives rise to problems which are dealt with in later Clauses in Part I.
  Clause 1, at the same time, maintains the prohibition in the 1853 Act regarding resorting to a place. But there are two exceptions to that. The first one, which was in the Bill when introduced, is the provision for the licensed betting office, to which I will refer in a moment, but there is an additional one which finds expression in the proviso to subsection (2) of Clause 1. This brings us into the field of the factory runner.
  On Second Reading, there was much criticism that the factory runner was in no way covered by the Bill. This proviso now makes some contribution towards remedying what many hon. Members thought was a deficiency. Factory runners, in so far as they are peripatetic and take their bets on the move, were legal under the Bill as introduced. The legalisation of cash betting did that. But, as the Bill originally stood, it was illegal for them to take their bets when stationary. The proviso which was inserted in Committee now makes it legal for a runner, or an agent as he has now become, to take a bet in a factory in any form, on the move or stationary. In fact, it goes further than that, because it enables bets to be taken at any place of work or in any place where people reside together.
  It is possible, under this proviso, for a bet to be taken not only in a place of work, but in a hospital or hotel or, perhaps, in this building, so long as the people concerned reside or work together. Therefore, this provision will give some effect to the desire to accord legality and recognition to the factory runner.
  What is not in the Bill, of course, is any reference to what was often described as the "milkman". Nothing in the Bill or in the Street Betting Act, 1906, prohibits a milkman or other roundsman acting as an agent of a bookmaker and receiving bets from his customers as a sideline to his ordinary business, provided, of course, that he has written authority from his principal under Clause 3.
  The result of Clause 1 as amended is that there are now five channels available for a person who wishes to make

  429
  a bet. He can, as he always could, make his bet by telephone. Under the Bill, he can, if he wishes, make his bet by post. He can make his bet via the roundsman, the person who comes to his own doorstep. He can make his bet via the runner in his place of work or the place where he resides. Lastly, of course, he can resort to the betting office. I reiterate now what my right hon. Friend and I have said previously. There will be very few people who wish to bet who will need to resort to a betting office if they do not wish to do so. The other channels are available to them. It is not true, therefore, to suggest that the Government are driving all potential punters to the betting office.
  To those five channels some right hon. and hon. Members wished to add a sixth channel, street betting. On Report, my right hon. Friend dealt, I thought, very convincingly with this issue and I do not propose to add anything at this stage, except to say that I believe that the channels which are available are adequate to meet the needs of punters in this country.
  Clause 2 is largely unchanged. It deals with permits for bookmakers acting on their own account. Coupled with Clause 2 goes the First Schedule which sets up the licensing procedure. There has been no change made in Clause 2, but there have been some changes in the machinery for the licensing procedure under the First Schedule, for many of which we must be grateful to the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) for the many constructive contributions that he made as a result of his experience in this particular matter.
  Clause 3 is entirely new. It deals with the registration of agents, formerly known as runners. It is a logical extension of the control through the principal bookmaker to the runner or agent he employs and was discussed at great length in Committee. This provision of the Bill as it now stands requires any agent employed by way of business by a principal bookmaker to have a permit authorised in writing. The bookmaker himself will be required to keep a register of authorised agents.
  There was a suggestion that we should go even further and extend the licensing system not only to bookmakers, but to the
  430
  agents. The Government have rejected that suggestion on the ground of impracticability, that to impose and operate a licensing system for all the thousands of agents throughout the country would be an impossible burden for the licensing justices and a very difficult requirement to enforce.
  The provision in the Clause as it stands is, in some places, regarded as unenforceable. The Times, in a recent leader, made this point, which was made also in Committee. The Government accepted and themselves made the point that there is a limit to the enforceability of the Clause in the sense that an agent who operates illegally in a place of work is unlikely to be found out. But the Committee believed, and I believe, that the Clause will, in course of time, become self-enforcing in the sense that the punter will become accustomed to frequent the registered or accredited agent rather than go to the freelance agent. I believe, therefore, that, although there may be weaknesses in the Clause, it will serve a useful purpose in the extension of control here.
  I should make plain that this Clause applies only to the agent employed by the bookmaker, full-time or part-time, by way of business. It does not apply to the agent who operates as a friendly gesture for a friend or to the agent who operates as the punter's agent and who may receive a commission from the punter as opposed to the bookmaker.
  Clause 4 sets up licensed offices. There is little change here. Having legalised cash betting under Clause 1, we have then to provide a place for cash betting to take place. The division between the two sides in Committee was on whether that place should be in the street or in an office. In more recent days, I think, the division has been not about one or the other but about whether both should be available. The House rejected the alternative of the street. Therefore, the place for cash betting transactions is the office.
  There are still those in the House and outside who doubt very much whether these betting offices will really work. I have little doubt about it, although I know that the right hon. Member for South Shields has criticised me for trying to justify betting offices on the ground that I think they will work. They work in the Republic of Ireland. They have been working for a little more

  431
  than two years perfectly satisfactorily in Northern Ireland. They have been working, albeit illegally, in Scotland and in many places in the North of England. Although I know that this is a matter of doubt, I have no reason to believe that they will not work in the rest of England, particularly when they become legal under the Bill.
  There is one important change made in the Second Schedule, in respect of offices, namely, in the provisions relating to access. It is a small change but, again, as The Times pointed out, a very significant one. No longer will the access to the betting office have to be direct from the street; it can be via a passage, corridor or some other place, provided that the access is not through another place of business. This is an important change designed principally to help rural areas, but I think it will be of use also in places where principal bookmakers will find it difficult, in view of competition, to find betting offices.
  Moreover, I think that it may meet the anxieties of those like my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) who fear that the betting office might become too obtrusive if it always fronted on the street. This is a considerable change, although I appreciate that it is somewhat resented by those who feel that it means a loosening of control.
  The Second Schedule dealing with the conduct of offices, coupled with Clause 5, has been very much shortened. In general, the Second Schedule was criticised initially for being unenforceable in some respects, and the conditions were thought to be too austere in other respects. The attitude we have tried to adopt towards these provisions is that the betting office should be a place of business. It should, therefore, have adequate facilities for the conduct of the business. We should not, on the other hand, go to the other extreme advocated by one or two of my hon. Friends, to the extent that people would be attracted to the place who would not otherwise go there for the purpose of betting. For that reason, we have consistently opposed the introduction of radio and television.
  Equally, of course, it was important to make the Schedule enforceable. Such things as the prohibition on the paying
  432
  out of winnings and on loitering, desirable though they might be, have been dropped on that account. I should make it quite clear that my right hon. Friend retains ultimate control by virtue of the hours of opening. If continuous betting of an excessive nature takes place in betting offices, it will be perfectly possible, under the Bill as it stands, for my right hon. Friend to introduce a closed period at any time during the day. Thus, control is retained despite the generally welcomed shortening and simplification of the Second Schedule.
  Clause 7 deals with young persons. That is an entirely new Clause, due initially to my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple), who first produced an Amendment to this effect. It makes it an offence to have a betting transaction with a young person, an offence to employ a young person in a betting transaction or in a licensed betting office, and it also makes it an offence to employ a young person—all under the age of 18—as an agent. The offence carries with it the ultimate sanction of Clause 8, which enables a court to order the forfeiture of a bookmaker's permit for the more serious offences of which this now becomes one.
  Clause 10 is also a new Clause, albeit a simple one, following a recommendation of the Royal Commission that an annual return of the number of bookmakers' permits issued or renewed, and the number of licences issued in respect of offices in any one year, shall be laid before Parliament. It does not go as far as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) would have wished, to give statistics regarding bookmakers' profits and accounts, because the Government took the view that it should not require bookmakers alone among the professions to publish accounts which would be necessary if that provision were put in the Bill.
  The only other changes in Part I are minor ones. Clause 12 is entirely new. It puts the off-course greyhound totalisators in the same position as those employed by the Racecourse Betting Control Board. Clauses 13 and 14 are due to the initiative of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) as a slight addition to his Pool Betting Act regarding football pools.

  433
  Part II of the Bill is very little changed. It is still based on the objective of the Royal Commission that we should prevent persons from being induced to play for high stakes for the profit motive. It is based on the three principles recommended by the Royal Commission—it is perhaps appropriate today that I should pay tribute to Mr. Gilbert Beyfus, who himself put this particular proposal to the Royal Commission—that the chances of all the players in the games should be equal, the promoters should take no cuts in the stakes and that no charge for admission should be made except in the case of clubs. This financial approach to gaming is, of course, entirely new. No change has been made in it during the various stages of the Bill. The only changes which have been made in the very substantial and important Clause 16 are in regard to young persons, clubs and casinos.
  The Committee and the House felt that it was unduly prohibitive to prevent all young persons taking part in gaming and, therefore, yesterday the House accepted some modifications in that respect. As regards clubs and casinos, the Committee and the House generally felt that there might have been a weakness in subsection (7) of the Clause and that the promoter or operator of the bogus club might find a loophole. I think that the Government felt that the profits available to such a promoter would be very little and that there would not be sufficient incentive for him to take advantage of this subsection. Nevertheless, Amendments have been incorporated in the Clause to try to prevent any loophole that might otherwise have existed.
  On the point of casinos, although I have stated quite categorically that the Government were opposed to the establishment of casinos, that no private promoter would find it worth while to establish a casino under the Bill and that it would be unlikely that local authorities would do so, we accepted an Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington, East to make quite certain that local authorities should not take advantage of the Local Government Act to subsidise casinos to attract people to their localities. There are no significant changes with regard to the Clause dealing with gaming
  434
  machines except a small Amendment applying restrictions to young people.
  In Part III, regarding amusements with prizes, the conditions remain the same and responsibility rests on the local authorities, but we have given the promoters of these amusement arcades some additional safeguards which, I think, are justified. The only other point which I think I need specifically to refer to is Clause 24, in connection with gaming in public houses. This is a matter which was fairly fully discussed on Report yesterday. I would add little to it. We have departed very considerably from the Royal Commission's recommendation and from the Bill as introduced. This departure was made in Committee and now enables many of the practices which are normally carried on illegally in public houses to be continued legally. The exception, of course, which was the subject of our debate yesterday, is one or more games of skill and chance.
  My right hon. Friend and I have been challenged in various public houses in England to prove whether dominoes is a game of skill or of skill and chance. There is no doubt that dominoes is a game of skill and chance, the chance, of course, coming in the draw. Obviously, it is a game, which, if it could be conducted in a modest form, should be allowed in public houses and for that reason my right hon. Friend told the House yesterday that he would give further consideration to what is a very difficult problem if we are not to have a very grave and further departure from the Bill. I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields was not with us during that discussion and that on a later Amendment he said that he hoped there would be no further concessions to the publicans. Of course, any further departure from the Bill in this respect would be a further concession. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend has said that he would bear in mind what was said yesterday.
  Mr. Ede: I was on public business elsewhere yesterday, but I arrived here when the Secretary of State was making his pronouncement on this matter. My subsequent remark was made in the light of what the right hon. Gentleman had already conceded. I greatly enjoy dominoes, but I regret to

  435
  have to confess that my failure at it indicates that it is a game of skill.
  Mr. Vosper: That is why I am a little reluctant to take part in this challenge, because I do not think that it would prove anything so far as my skill is concerned.
  My right hon. Friend has said that he will consider this matter further. Two other matters to which he said he would give further consideration in another place concern the question of advertising, which was discussed in Committee and on Report, and the increased penalties for street betting under Clause 6. These are the only three specific items which, at this moment, remain outstanding for further consideraton.
  The Bill now goes to another place, and, as I said yesterday on an Amendment moved by an hon. Member opposite, it is subject to approval there and to discussion with the interested parties. We had in mind a provisional timetable which, as I explained on that Amendment, would have the effect of bringing Parts II and III into operation this autumn and will bring into effect the vital Clauses 2 and 4 on 1st May. I think that, on the whole, that is a reasonable timetable, but it is subject to negotiation with those people who have to operate these provisions of the Bill.
  I have no doubt that there will be teething troubles and that various members of the public will say, "I told you so. This will not work". I believe— and I hope that I carry the House with me—that this is a workable Measure, the merits of which will become increasingly apparent with the passage of time. It will need time to establish the betting office system. We cannot expect it to work perfectly in the first year. There may be some hon. Members who still feel, as they did on Second Reading, that the Bill is too much of a concession to those interested in gambling and that it provides too generous facilities. To this, I would say that I think that the very important control which my right hon. Friend will retain over the hours of opening of betting offices will be a useful safeguard.
  I would also point out that under paragraph 20 (1, b) of the First Schedule the licensing justices have considerable
  436
  discretion about the licensing offices in regard to the needs and demands of a locality. I therefore do not regard this Measure as a free-for-all for the gambler. I regard it as a reasonable Measure to provide facilities.
  I do not know whether any hon. Member proposes to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill. One or two hon. Members said that they would do so in their speeches at an earlier stage. I find that a little illogical at this stage. There can be only two reasons for their wishing to vote against the Third Reading. The first is that they are against gambling, but a Bill which tries to bring the law up to date is a Measure of social reform which, after all, will enable the police to do something to enforce the law and should commend itself to them. The other reason for voting against it, presumably, is a fondness for street betting. We have argued that at great length. The battle was well and truly fought, but it was lost.
  I hope that the House will accept the Bill as amended in Committee and on Report, and I commend it to the House
  4.10 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher): The right hon. Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State has said that the Bill has had a lengthy progress, and perhaps I may add the adjective, tortuous progress, through the Committee stage, and I am sure that a great many hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House will give a sigh of relief that we are now approaching the final stage of our consideration of the Bill in this House.
  Members on both sides will be aware that the Opposition have consistently declined to regard the Bill as a party Measure in any sense. The Opposition Whips have not been on at any stage. All Members on this side have had complete freedom to express their own individual views, both in their speeches and in their votes. Most of my hon. Friends have taken full advantage of that freedom. The greatest diversity of opinion has been expressed. I only say that to emphasise that, in giving my own personal views, I am speaking for myself alone. There are, nevertheless, one or two observations I should like to make which, I feel convinced, will secure general support on both sides.

  437
  First, I should like to pay my tribute to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the skill and studious industry with which he piloted the Bill through the Committee stage. He has treated us with unfailing courtesy, patience and consideration.
  Mr. Ede: He is a gentleman.
  Mr. Fletcher: At the outset, some of us were inclined to cavil at the absence of the Home Secretary from our proceedings in Committee, but I can assure him that he could not have had a better or more efficient deputy.
  Secondly, those of us who served on the Committee who had no great expertise in this subject recognised how greatly indebted we were to the contributions made by Members on both sides with profound knowledge and long experience of betting or gaming, or both, notably the hon. Members for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), Southend, East, (Mr. McAdden) and Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson), and, from these benches, my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and, last but not least, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede).
  Having said that, I ought to add that, as the Bill proceeded through Committee, I was rather conscious that it was being considered by experts and that there were times when we were, perhaps, inclined to overlook the fact that the Bill, because it is a Measure of social reform, is of interest and importance not only to those professionally concerned and interested in betting and gaming, but also to the very large number of citizens who take no great interest in betting and gaming but are concerned with the general social, ethical and educational standards of our country. They are equally concerned to have their views heard; for example, as to whether it is a good or bad thing that thousands of betting shops should be opened in England.
  As the right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to deal with the various provisions of the Bill as it has emerged from the Report stage, I think that it is unnecessary for me to do more than comment on one or two of its major aspects. First. I should like to say a
  438
  word about Part II, which deals with gaming. When the Bill was introduced on Second Reading, some of my right hon. and hon. Friends were inclined to think that the provisions dealing with gaming were, perhaps, more objectionable than those dealing with betting. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the Bill has been amended in substantial detail in Parts I, II, and III.
  At the outset, I had considerable hesitations and reservations about Part II. I shared the view expressed so forcibly on Second Reading by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) that the provisions concerning gaming were likely to lead to the wholesale introduction of gaming clubs and casinos on a continental scale which, while they may be appropriate on the Continent, would I think he quite inappropriate and objectionable in this country. Having listened to our debates throughout, I think that we would all wish to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary on his courage in having tackled the problem of our gaming laws and in having decided to clear away the whole of the archaic and outdated laws on this subject, laws which were unrealistic, anomalous and unenforceable and consequently led to a great deal of inconvenience and were largely disregarded. I pay my tribute to the reform of the gaming laws.
  Speaking for myself, I am satisfied, which I was not originally, that the Bill goes as far as it possibly can to remove the risk that gaming clubs or casinos will be opened in this country for commercial exploitation. The Bill legalises the playing of games of cards and other games for money in which millions of people indulge and from which they take pleasure, and which, broadly speaking, within their limitations, have no harmful results. It would be unfortunate if these revisions of the law were to lead to the commercial exploitation of gaming. As a result of the Amendments which the right hon. Gentleman has accepted, I share his hope that the Bill is now sufficiently strong to prevent the commercial exploitation of gaming while, at the same time, legalising the playing of games of cards for money in private houses, hotels and genuine clubs, to which no sensible objection could be taken.

  439
  I cannot, however, share the enthusiasm of the right hon. Gentleman for the provisions of Part I dealing with betting. I mast draw the attention of the House to the fact that very considerable departures have been made from the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and many of the things that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary stressed in recommending the Bill for acceptance on Second Reading have been very radically changed.
  Looking back to the Second Reading debate, the House will recall that the Home Secretary was at pains to recommend the provisions in the Bill, notably for the introduction and legalising of betting shops, on the ground that the recommendations of the Royal Commission in paragraph 263, dealing with safeguards and protection, would be observed. If we look at the Bill in its present form, we find that most of those safeguards have now been jettisoned. In its present form, the original Second Schedule is almost unrecognisable as the Schedule recommended on Second Reading. If the House is to give the Bill a Third Reading, it should be aware that it is doing so to a Bill which has been drastically altered from the Bill which was approved on Second Reading.
  The Joint Under-Secretary was ingenious when he said that all the Amendments took one of two forms, that some of them were of a liberalising nature and others were of a restricting character. It is difficult to see that they could have been anything but one or the other. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be trying to get the best of both worlds by claiming credit for every Amendment, either on the ground that it made the Bill a more liberal Measure or, on the contrary, because it made it more restrictionist. The truth is that the safeguards which the Home Secretary stressed so strongly no longer exist.
  On 16th November, 1959, the Home Secretary said that
  "The main object is to prevent overcrowding and continuous betting."
  I observe that there are no longer any provisions in the Bill to prevent overcrowding or continuous betting. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
  "The offices may not be used for any other purpose than betting … ".—{OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November. 1959; Vol. 613. c. 812.]
  440
  It has now been conceded, largely because of the conditions that exist in the rural areas, that betting offices may be in ordinary shops. It is true that they will be in a different room, but the same building will be used both for the purpose of the village stores and as a betting office. The village housewife will be able to buy her groceries and place her bet at one and the same time. That safeguard, therefore, no longer exists.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler)The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler) indicated dissent.
  Mr. Fletcher: The Home Secretary indicates that that is not correct. If, however, he has studied the discussions in Committee, and if he listened to what his right hon. Friend the Joint Undersecretary said about separate access, it will be clear to him that the same building can be used both as a general stores and as a betting office. There will be one entrance to one part and another entrance to another part.
  On Second Reading, the Home Secretary also said that people under the age of 18 would not be admitted to betting shops. There has been a welcome improvement in the general position under the Bill concerning young children, but people under the age of 18 may now be engaged not in the front of the betting shop, but behind it, where the clerical work is done. Then, the Home Secretary said that loitering would be forbidden. That safeguard has gone. There is to be no prohibition against loitering either inside or outside a betting shop.
  Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: If I recollect rightly, the hon. Member himself, together with his hon. Friends, agreed that that was a quite unnecessary and unworkable provision and the Committee as a whole invited the Government to drop it. The Government accepted that invitation and dropped it. Surely that is a matter for congratulation and not criticism.
  Mr. Fletcher: I am simply explaining that the Bill to which a Third Reading is being invited is substantially different from that to which a Second Reading was given. The hon. Member had the benefit of being present in Committee, but there are many Members of the House who did not attend the Committee. I am drawing these matters to the

  441
  attention of the House because it is for the House to decide whether to regard these matters as improvements. Obviously, on Second Reading, the Home Secretary thought that all those safeguards were desirable.
  Then, the Home Secretary said that radio and television in betting shops may not be provided. As I understand the Second Schedule, that provision still exists, but there is grave doubt whether it is enforceable. In reply to the interjection by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet, I remind him of the argument used in Committee, that a great many of these provisions were unenforceable. A great many of us took that view. The Home Secretary cannot claim credit both for introducing the Bill on the basis that it contained a large number of essential safeguards and, at the same time, claim credit for jettisoning all those safeguards on the ground that they are unenforceable. He cannot have it both ways.
  There are still, unfortunately, a great many matters concerning the conduct of betting offices that remain obscure, and the Joint Under-Secretary appeared to recognise this during his observations. The chief objection which a number of my hon. Friends feel about betting offices generally is that, although they may serve a purpose in Scotland and the north of England, where they have been in existence, albeit illegally, there has never been any demand for them in London or the south of England. There is no reason to suppose that the betting habits of the people in the South will accommodate themselves to the legalising of betting shops.
  Street betting in various forms, whether in the suburbs or at the docks, as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), has always been the pattern of cash betting which the people of London and other parts of the south of England have preferred and enjoyed. The right hon. Gentleman is unduly optimistic in thinking that by legalising betting shops in the south of England, and by increasing the penalties for street betting, he will thereby eradicate street betting. It will create a social revolution to divert the habits of those who participate in cash betting by driving them from the streets into the betting shops.
  442
  Over and above that, while, if the Bill is passed, we all hope that it will work, the right hon. Gentleman must realise that in the minds of a great many people there is something unedifying and reprehensible in the fact that a tremendous amount of capital will be sunk in opening thousands and thousands of betting shops in England in circumstances in which there is no evidence that they are required or desired, or that they will cure the social evil which the Home Secretary has in mind. It must inevitably lead to an increase in the volume of betting.
  I have the greatest regard for the Home Secretary. In the course of a long Parliamentary career he has been the author of many important legislative reforms. I can hardly think that he will be proud if he goes down in history as the creator of thousands of "Butler's Betting Shops", either with or without advertisements—"Bet while you wait", "No waiting allowed", or perhaps, now, " Waiting allowed. Every possible discomfort guaranteed."
  Even now, the Home Secretary has not made up his mind whether he wants these betting shops to be drab, dreary places, or whether he will follow what a number of people think will be the logic of the Bill and succumb to the temptation to fit them up with attractions, inducements and amenities which will make still further inroads in the safeguards which the Royal Commission regarded as indispensable.
  I have merely indicated my own views. I know that many of my hon. and right hon. Friends think differently and no doubt they will express their views in the debate. I do not know whether any of my hon. and right hon. Friends will challenge a Division. If they do, for the reasons I have indicated, with regard to Part I and not to Part II, I shall feel obliged to vote against the Bill.
  4.31 p.m.
  Mr. Ray Mawby: I should like to join with the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State on the Home Department on the skill with which he has stewarded the Bill throughout all its stages. I was unfortunate or fortunate—whichever the view might be —not to be a member of the Standing

  443
  Committee, but from reading the reports and listening to my right hon. Friend replying to the different points made on Report, I think it can be said that he has been courteous and helpful in trying to make certain that the views of the House were properly known and that at all times he was trying to see that the Bill was improved as a result of the views expressed at the different stages of the debates upon it. The fact that the hon. Member for Islington, East accused my right hon. Friend of bringing to Third Reading a Bill which had been considerably altered since Second Reading showed how great had been my right hon. Friend's readiness to alter it when he felt on consideration that alteration was really needed.
  I have always felt that the basic point of the Bill, and particularly of Part I, was that it would bring about more equality between the man who had a credit account and could put his bet on by telephone and the man who had no credit account and wished to put his odd shilling on a horse in cash. There was a great deal of inequality between those two types of persons. I believe that the Bill at least creates more equality between them. We should accept the fact that both types of people are betting at present, but the man who lifts his telephone, makes a call and puts on a bet is not breaking the law in any way, whereas the other man in carrying out his negotiations with his bookmaker in whatever form, if he does not have a credit account, is breaking the law. I therefore welcome particularly Part I of the Bill.
  All sorts of views have been put forward about the betting office. The hon. Member for Islington, East made the point that as the Bill stands it is possible for a betting office to form part of some building, for example, a grocer's shop. In these days that is one of those things that will inevitably happen. The only buildings which still appear in their own regal splendour are the public conveniences in our towns and cities. I cannot think of any other building that carries on just one item of business and does not form part of premises where other forms of business are carried out. To think that we can lay down that the street bookmaker must erect a building
  444
  which would be completely on its own and separate from any other form of business is to hope for too much.
  In many cases no new buildings will be taken up to form a betting office. The office at present run by the bookmaker unlawfully will be ideal premises for the new betting office. I hope that I am not telling any tales out of school, but I have been in a number of these betting offices. They were certainly not in the North but further south, and the business carried on there was the sort of business now envisaged in the Bill. My right hon. Friend or his advisers must have had the opportunity of visiting similar premises.
  I believe, therefore, that in many cases the present premises operated by the bookmaker only as a sort of centre to which his runners bring bets and from which they take away the winnings will be used as betting offices. In future, when the premises become a betting office in the true sense of the word, very much the same procedure will be carried out. I do not think there will be a great rush of people who up to now have put their bet on with the factory runner or with the milkman who will say, "Where is the nearest betting office, Charlie? I shall not be putting the bet on with you. I shall be going to the office myself." As many of my trade union colleagues already do, they will continue to give their contribution to the runner and the office will still continue to be a communication centre to which these runners will go.
  I was interested in the point which my right hon. Friend made about the position of the runner. He said that the runner was O.K. under the present law until he became stationary. I am pleased that the matter is now clear and that he will be in a legal position whether he is stationary or mobile. I have met a large number of runners in factories. In many cases I would have said that "runner" was the wrong word to use to describe their normal activities. I am glad, therefore, that in future it will not be illegal for them to remain stationary.
  The point which my right hon. Friend made to the effect that there are now five channels through which people can put their bets if they so desire should surely be sufficient answer to those who still believe that all that was necessary

  445
  to do was to license the bookmaker. It is right and proper that regard should be paid to the views of those people who take offence at seeing things in the street to which they object very strongly. We should make certain, therefore, that if betting is to continue the last place in which it should take place is in the street, and that those to whom it gives great offence should at least be protected from that. I hope, therefore, that when the Bill becomes an Act we shall be able to rely on the fact that street betting as such will be at an end. The fact that alternative methods will be available will give the police far more incentive to try to make certain that this particular nuisance —and nuisance it can be—is taken off the streets.
  I spoke about the gaming aspects on Report stage, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has agreed to look again at games such as dominoes. It is extremely important that we should at least have the law in a position in which every one understands it, and not have to have this considerable argument as to whether, legally, games such as dominoes or cribbage are games of skill or chance. I am glad my right hon. Friend has made it clear that in his view they include a combination of the two. Chance comes first in drawing the cards or dominoes, but from then on a great deal of skill is needed.
  I also made a reference on Report to young people. We have brought about a compromise. We have tended to moderate the Bill in the same way as we hope that people generally will moderate their activities in betting or gaming, and have made certain that the last word will still be with the parent or guardian and that the law will be there to back up his right to exercise the control he thinks necessary over young people until they reach the age of discretion.
  It will now be possible for a family, if it wants to play a game with a few pennies as side stakes, to do so not only in a dwelling house but also in certain other circumstances, provided that the parent or guardian is willing and also that he is present while the game is in progress.
  In general, I believe that while the Bill is not perfect—I cannot recall a Bill that was—it is, as a result of the
  446
  very long discussions, particularly with the understanding and courtesy shown by my right hon. Friend the Joint Undersecretary of State, better than it was when it came to us on Second Reading. It will at least more clearly state the law and bring into greater equality the different sections of the community who want to have their bets in their own fashion.
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. A. V. Hilton: In opening this debate, the Under-Secretary of State reminded the House that already 88 hours have been spent on the Bill. This House ought to be ashamed to have it on record that such a colossal amount of time has been wasted on a Bill of this nature. It is frequently said that we have our priorities wrong. In 1960, on the eve of a Summit Conference, the time of this House and of its Members could have been spent in so many better ways to help to improve the lot of the people. This Bill will have just the adverse effect.
  The right hon. Gentleman also said that it is not the intention of the Bill to encourage an increase in gambling. That may not be the intention, but it is precisely what the Bill will do. It will encourage an increase in gambling because it will make it easier for all sections of the community, including young folk, to indulge in it. There will be legal ways by which anybody will be able to place a bet. This can only encourage more gambling.
  It is not my intention to make a long speech of protest. Far too much time has already been spent on the Bill. I have already protested twice against the Bill and, as a Nonconformist and member of the Methodist Church, I can do no less than register a third protest. This time I intend to do more, because I hope that we shall have a division, when I shall vote against the Bill.
  Mr. Denys Bullard: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to interrupt, as I represented his constituency for several years. Is it not a fact that the Labour Party in his division finances itself very largely by a football pool? If that is the case, should he not begin by declaring himself against that measure at home?
  Mr. Hilton: I am the Member for Norfolk, South-West. I represent the Labour Party, but I am not the Labour Party, and I should hate to be. I am speaking against this Bill. Had the hon. Member not interjected, I would by now have finished.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: The hon. Member would not be here at all if it were not for the support which his party gave him and for the financial support of his worthy supporters, all of whom want to indulge in a little betting.
  Mr. Hilton: That may be the hon. Member's opinion, but it is not mine. I am not the Labour Party; I am the representative of it. We start our proceedings at 2.30 p.m. each day with Prayers, and I should like more Members to familiarise themselves with the prayer with which we open. From time to time I also read another book, a copy of which I see sometimes on the Speaker's Table. I have read, and on occasion have spoken from, in other places, a quotation which says that we should not do
  "… any thing whereby thy brother stumbleith …"
  This Bill will help many weaker brethren and sisters to stumble. For that reason, I once again register my protest against it, and I shall vote against it.
  4.50 p.m.
  Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) complained about the changes that have been made in the Bill. I stand astonished at our moderation in Committee. Never did a Minister more invite criticism than my right hon. Friend—and never have I known a Minister to give such sincere and anxious consideration to the criticisms made. No point has been raised which he has not honestly considered, and if he has rejected it he has done so because he is satisfied that it is wrong in principle or, more probably that it will not work.
  The main lines of the Bill remain unaltered. There has never been any question about the gaming part of it. It never received much attention during the Second Reading debate, and no large issue was raised on it in Committee. This is because people nowadays take a more liberal view of these matters. I do not
  448
  mean to imply that more gambling is indulged in now, or that there is a greater desire to gamble; in fact, I would say that less gambling takes place now than formerly. Other recreations compete with gambling and, on the whole, people are less anxious to pass their time and to raise their pulse rates by this form of indulgence.
  The public now takes the view that if people wish to gamble for money, by playing cards, or what you will, it is reasonable that they should do so, and that it would be wrong to interfere with their liberty to do so. For that reason, in spite of what the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton) has said, even that section of the public which does not wish to gamble feels that the kind of provisions contained in this Measure are about right, in that they allow people to do what they wish to do without interfering with other interests. Many of the greatest minds have found their best relaxation in a simple game of cards, and it would be quite wrong for us to stop people from relaxing in that way or in similar ways. I am glad that the Bill provides additional facilities of this kind, because I am certain that they will not be abused.
  So much for Part II. The position is quite different in regard to Part I, which deals with betting. Here large issues are raised. They are not issues of principle or conscience; they are simply practical issues. If we are to deal with the question of illegal betting we have to decide whether to do so by allowing facilities to be provided in the streets or by way of specified betting offices, as they are called. That has been the issue upon which we have spent most of our time.
  I dislike betting offices. I always have, and I think that I always shall. I dislike them for various reasons. The principal one is probably based on aesthetics, as my right hon. Friend was kind enough to suggest. Secondly, I believe that street betting will be very difficult to eradicate. It may not be difficult in some parts of the country, but in those parts where it is still the main form of off-the-course cash betting it will be very difficult to bring about a change in people's habits. Holding those views, I said during the Second Reading debate that I thought that the Bill was wrong in principle in this respect.

  449
  To some extent, I have changed my opinion. First, during the course of our discussions in Committee a great deal of evidence was brought to bear by hon. Members from various parts of the country showing how widely betting offices or betting shops were already established. I then came to the conclusion, as many other hon. Members must have done, that what we felt about the difficulty of eradicating street betting was equally applicable to the eradication of betting shops in areas where they had become established. We therefore had to agree that betting shops would have to be legalised if we were to tackle the problem at all.
  Secondly, certain modifications have been made in the Bill. Its fundamental lines have not been altered, but substantial alterations have been made, wholly to the good. The two main points which have moved me are: first, the clarification of the position of the factory runner; and, secondly, the modification of the rules for licensed betting offices. Those changes have been for the good, and they will make the Bill more workable.
  Mr. J. T. Price: The hon. Member says that these changes have been generally to the good. Does he suggest that the changes made in Committee, against the advice of the Royal Commission and against the first inclinations of the Minister—to make continuous betting possible—are to the good? During the Second Reading debate it was impossible to envisage betting shops being opened indefinitely so that people could lounge about and bet, but it is now possible for them to do so. I would say that the Bill has been much weakened in Committee.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I do not think that the hon. Member could have followed the earlier part of my speech. I believe that the Royal Commission was wrong. It is because I take that view that the idea of betting offices was at first objectionable to me. Therefore, I am not very impressed by having the Royal Commission quoted to me. To the extent that the Government have moved away from the views of the Royal Commission I think that they have been wise, and that these changes are improvements.
  450
  If we are to have betting offices, the first essential is that they should work. If we object to betting offices simply on grounds of conscience, and do not want them to work, that is another matter. I doubt whether betting offices are the best way of doing the job we want to do, but if we are to have betting offices let us make them as efficient as possible.
  I still have doubts about the balance of Part I of the Bill. I am still not certain that the Bill will necessarily work out as well as we hope. I think that the legalisation of all betting shops and the encouragement to establish them—indeed, the necessity to establish them—in those places where they do not already exist will create a large vested interest, and if we find that the Bill is not working out as easily or as smoothly as we would wish, that vested interest will be exceedingly difficult to deal with. It will make future amendment of the law much more difficult.
  I view the position with some apprehension because I am not satisfied that the establishment of betting shops will bring to an end illegal betting. As I have said, I hope that it will. We have put our money on legal betting shops. We hope that they will win, and we will do all we can to make them do so.
  The aspect of the Bill about which I am doubtful is not so much whether it will not be possible to drive street betting off the pavements—I think it may be with the increased penalties and the provision of shops—but that there will be a great deal of betting in public houses. I think that it will be much more difficult to drive illegal betting out of public houses and places of that kind which are not catered for in the Bill. However, we have to hope for the best.
  The Committee upstairs and the House here have made up their minds that they are against any form of legalised street betting, and are in favour or the betting shop. I am certain that if there had been no Whips on at any stage of the discussions the same position would have been reached both in Committee and in the House. From what I have heard on the Floor of the House, and from discussions with my hon. Friends, I am sure that opinion is overwhelmingly in favour of the line which the Government have taken. I said on Second

  451
  Reading that I thought that the Government must take responsibility for a Measure such as this and that they were right to put on the Whips. Feeling that, and having said that, I thought that it was my duty to support the Government even on those occasions when, to the best of my ability, I argued against some of the things that the Government were doing. Apart from their power to put on the Whips, I am sure that the Government have the support of an overwhelming number of hon. Members and of the country.
  If the Government can maintain that support they will go a long way towards making the Bill a success, because it will succeed only if it has public opinion behind it. For that reason I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will do their best to give it that support, and that it will get an unopposed Third Reading this afternoon.
  5.4 p.m.
  Mr. James McInnes: I definitely and honestly hold the view that no Government can suppress betting and gaming. Therefore, one is confronted with the question, what is the alternative? I have come to the conclusion that if one cannot suppress the evils of gambling the only alternative is to try to control it. To that extent I have, with one or two exceptions, supported the Government during the progress of the Bill, because I believe that this is a serious attempt to control and to eliminate the evils, the anomalies and the archaic laws that exist at present in relation to this great social problem. I therefore find myself on the side of the Government.
  I may have been influenced in that support by the fact that the Bill seeks to legalise in England what is the existing pattern of betting in Scotland. Indeed, during the Committee stage of the Bill it appeared that that pattern existed not only in Scotland but in most of the North of England, and, if I understood the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) correctly, he seemed to imply that betting offices existed further south. I was therefore content and happy to find that the Government were legalising the betting shop system which we had for at least ten years.
  I appreciate that the Bill will alter the pattern of betting in England. Street
  452
  betting will no longer be legal, and England will have to adopt the system of betting shops that we have in Scotland. I do not bet or gamble, but my experience during thirty years in public life in the City of Glasgow leads me to believe that over the last ten years the betting shop has been a vast improvement on the system of street book-making. As I explained in Committee, there may be peculiar reasons for that in Scotland, for instance, by virtue of the type of residential properties that we have. The betting shop is tidier. It is more easily controlled, and it is a more enlightened way of betting.
  Unfortunately I was on the Continent when the question of runners was discussed in Committee. I was assured by the Scottish Starting Price Bookmakers Association in Scotland that bookmakers who occupy shop premises do not find it necessary to employ runners. I wrote to the association for confirmation, and I was categorically assured that there was no necessity for runners when one was operating the betting system from shop premises as distinct from being a street bookmaker. I do not know how the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will view this problem— whether he will confirm or try to deny the statement made to me that there is no need for runners.
  There is one aspect of the Bill on which I found myself in violent conflict with the Government, and that is regarding the placing on the local licensing authority of the responsibility for the issuing of bookmakers' and agency permits, betting shop licences and things of that kind. As the Joint Under-Secretary well realises, I have appealed to him to reconsider that matter and to take it entirely out of hands of the local licensing authorities.
  As far as Part II of the Bill is concerned, which deals with the question of gaming, I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), think that what we have accomplished there is exceedingly good, inasmuch as we have swept away the archaic laws which have existed hitherto.
  Finally, I wish to pay a tribute to the Joint Under-Secretary of State not only for the very efficient manner in which he dealt with the Scottish aspects of the

  453
  Bill, but also for the co-operation which he displayed towards Scottish Members during the Committee stage and for his very helpful manner generally. To that extent, I should like to place on record my appreciation of his work in connection with the Bill.
  5.12 p.m.
  Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I wish to express the same sentiments to the Government, and, indeed, to all the Ministers who at different times have intervened in our discussions to deal with different parts of this complex Measure, as those expressed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes). I thank them for the very liberal-minded attitude which they have shown and for the trouble they have taken to get a grasp of a very difficult subject. Particularly do I wish to thank my right hon. Friend who, because he had no particular knowledge of this subject at the outset, had really to make very detailed excursions up and down the country in order to obtain the knowledge which he has since shown.
  I suppose that no one could be more diametrically opposed than I to the views expressed by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton). He said today that we ought to be discussing the Summit and that the House ought not to devote its time to such matters as gaming and betting. He really got my hackles up. I believe that it is the duty of Parliament, and one of the greatest duties and privileges of Parliament, to try to look after the ordinary interests of the ordinary people of the country in their day-to-day activities.
  I have been associated, and intend to remain associated over the next few years at least of my Parliamentary life, in doing precisely this sort of task.
  Mr. Hilton Mr. Hilton rose—
  Mr. Rees-Davies: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, of course.
  Therefore, I believe that one of the greatest matters to be dealt with is what is known as the rule of law. We have the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, and I was proud to be closely associated with the Street Offences Act and with the Measure relating to murder.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I would remind the hon. Gentleman that we are on the Third Reading of the Bill.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The point which I am making is that the pattern of this Bill is directly in line with those Measures. What I am saying is that in dealing with this matter today and in getting rid of Victoriana, the House is showing a truly democratic approach, a progressive approach, to legislation.
  The Sixth Schedule, at which we have not looked, deals with the repeal of the whole of the Unlawful Games Act, 1541. My answer to the criticisms levelled by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West is that in my opinion we are spending our time in the best possible way by dealing with what affects the daily lives of the people. Betting and gaming are undoubtedly two of their principal if unlawful occupations.
  Mr. Hilton: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. I am sorry if I got his hackles up, but may I repeat what I said? I said that I consider that this House should be ashamed to spend some 88 hours, plus today, on a Bill such as this, a Bill which in my opinion is going to bring misery to still more people and to push still more people downhill, when there are so many decent things which we could do to help people on the eve of the Summit Conference.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: I agree that that is what the hon. Gentleman said before. Alice in Wonderland said that what one says three times is true, but I am not sure that it is true of the hon. Gentleman.
  Curiously enough, the one part of the Bill which we have not discussed, although it is one of great importance, is the Sixth Schedule. One matter to which I wish to draw my right hon. Friend's attention is that I am not at all sure that before the Bill goes through another place he may not have carefully to reconsider it in order to see that he has not left some outmoded legislation on the stocks by mistake.
  I observe that although we have spent some 88 hours on the Bill, Section 1 of the Gaming Act, 1710, is still standing

  455
  although the rest of that Act is repealed. I am glad to see that Henry VIII has gone out of the window, or will do so when this Bill becomes law. No Government in the history of this country has ever had the guts—that is really the word to use—to attempt to deal with the gaming laws of the country. There are two reasons for this. One is that Governments were always terrified of the Baptists. They always felt that the Church's view would be against it. I take the view that today a very large number of God-fearing and church-going people do not take the view which was taken in the Victorian age and earlier, namely, that we ought to keep thoroughly bad and incomprehensible legislation and unenforceable laws in being because to alter them would be to make things worse.
  The Bill does five things. It does them in accordance with a pattern of legislation which has emerged from this Government, and which will emerge in the future, in connection with the licensing laws, the shop laws and the Sunday observance laws. It is only when the whole of this legislation is seen in one system that one will see what it is that this Conservative Government are aiming to do. They are aiming to deal gradually year by year with the reform of the whole of what I call the Victorian social legislation.
  The first of the five things which the Bill will do will, I am sure, commend itself to hon. Member opposite as it does to hon. Members on this side of the House. It will end the class distinction in regard to betting and gaming. There is a very great deal of class distinction in betting and gaming. It is a well-known fact—I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is not in his usual place—that many people who bet normally do so over the telephone. The working-class man does not. He does his betting either in the street or in the betting office. Therefore, one way or another, the Bill will provide him with facilities to bet on equality with others.
  We find that many of the people raided were small clubs, taxi drivers and people of that kind who very often pleaded guilty because they did not know the law, whereas those who had money were able to brief counsel and solicitor to
  456
  appear for them in cases where they could cite the archaic, stupid laws in order to secure their acquittal.
  The second thing which the Bill will do, and this is perhaps the most important of all, is to provide us with a law which is enforceable, on which there will be clarity and for which there will also be respect. The Bill will make it possible for the police to enforce the law without fear or favour instead of, as at the moment, chief constables and their officers having to decide in their own discretion whether to enforce the law or not.
  The third is with regard to a system. I think it essential, if one is to be able to do anything for the benefit of horse racing and betting generally, that we should get some levy and a reasonable system of betting in this country. One of the reasons—although the other two which I have already adumbrated are also reasons—why I believe we should have betting offices is that once the system becomes part of the tradition of betting in this country the bookmaker will become a respected citizen. To my mind, that is fundamental in this Bill and is what I have fought for.
  Bookmakers will become good trade unionists, which is something that hop. Gentlemen opposite cannot complain about. The Bookmakers' Protection Association, not a very important body at the moment, will become very important. When a bookmaker becomes licensed he will have something of value like the publican. When he obtains a licence and knows that he has a good and a sound business, he will make sure that there is no disorderly behaviour on the betting office premises and that people do not sit around or loiter in the offices. If he does not, my right hon. Friend, by virtue of retaining the regulations in the Second Schedule, has given himself a get-out. That was a very astute move. I am not sure that it was foreseen by the House. I did not realise it myself. We are to have a method by which my right hon. Friend can operate and a method by which my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Stanley) and others who are interested in the Peppiatt Committee's Report will be able to secure a levy for the benefit of racing. If hon. Members believe, as I do, that it is for the benefit of horse racing

  457
  that there should be some levy from the bookmaker as well as from the totalisator, we have to find a system with which to achieve that. We could not do it if we had street bookmakers. It may be done only through a system of licences and betting offices, and the method to be adopted will provide that.
  We have had an undertaking from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that there will be a closing hour at 6.30 p.m., and I think there ought to be. Opening hours do not seem to be necessary. What is open to the Government is the important question which was raised by Mr. Curling in a letter he wrote in the Daily Telegraph, that in the racing world there are two views. One is that betting offices should close during racing hours and that people should put on their bets previously. The other view is that betting offices should be open throughout the hours of racing. At the outset of the Committee stage proceedings I said to my right hon. Friend, both during the debates and otherwise—one had many opportunities for discussing this matter—that it seemed to me the fundamental issue was whether we were to have the betting offices closed during the hours of racing or open. After anxious thought I came to the conclusion that it would be better if the betting offices were open.
  If it turns out that this is unsatisfactory, there exists power under the Second Schedule, by regulations which may be made, to reverse that policy without having to come back to this House for new legislation. For that reason I supported the proposal yesterday that it should be done in this way although we shall start with the premises being open in the afternoon.
  The whole question of gaming under Part II of the Bill is a very difficult and complex matter to think out and put down in writing, as those of us who have tried to do so have found out. It is essential to achieve two objectives. The first is to prevent people from promoting gaming for their own profit, and that objective has been achieved by the provisions contained in this Bill. The second is to enable people to play games of chance, or chance and skill combined, in their own homes or in clubs or elsewhere provided they do not occasion harm to others or that their activities do not lead to an unduly excessive amount
  458
  of gambling. This second objective has been substantially achieved, but there are one or two matters about which I am still not altogether happy.
  I expressed strong views regarding gaming and youth and about the position of a parent or guardian. But the Government are against me on this and have reached a compromise. I hope that they will see, with those people who are representative of the camps to be found up and down the country—Warner's, Butlin's and so on—that the general pleasures of today can, in one way or another, be provided within the provisions of this Bill; or by securing an Amendment to the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act, 1956, which might be another way to enable normal camp activities to be carried on such as we find at the seaside. I do not believe there would be any insuperable obstacle to that. It would enable a family to play a game of housey-housey without having to send those under 18 out of the room. That is one criticism which I think can still be made, if we are trying to have gaming available to all who wish to game, provided that the gaming is not being conducted for profit.
  The final matter with which I wish to deal is the question of amusements and fun fairs. A great many hon. Members are not concerned with this, but in the Isle of Thanet I am deeply concerned with the position of amusement and fun fairs. The tourist resorts all-party Committee in this House has had to give this matter careful consideration. These facilities are used by thousands of tourists, including those from overseas, and represent a gigantic industry. It is not only an industry which provides profits for those who happen to run the amusements. Machines have to be made, and up to now we have had to buy machines from America, because the whole business has been held in such contempt and because its legality depended on the decision of chief constables in different areas and whether or not they decided to prosecute. In Margate and Ramsgate there were no prosecutions, but in Scarborough and Blackpool there were. The various associations and those concerned with this industry were in the gravest difficulty. They could not invent new machines or have them made in this country to be exported to other countries because they

  459
  did not know whether police permission would be given. Consequently, we have had to buy machines from America.
  Now it will be possible for machines to be made and invented in this country and exported to other countries. Many such machines are purely for amusement; there is hardly any gaming element attached to a great many of them. This will enable the people concerned to "become respectable", to work within the terms of the law and to receive advice if they need it. It will enable them to operate without having to look over their shoulders all the time to see whether the police are there, although, of course, they have always been on good terms with the police—they have to be, otherwise they could not have operated at all.
  My right hon. Friend has made a number of changes in Part III of the Bill in order to meet the views which were expressed during the Committee stage proceedings. He has done his best to try to see that reasonable machines may be used in a reasonable way. I think that yesterday he may well have been right to say that these machines ought to be confined to "pubs" or halls and not for there to be such a very wide general user throughout the country as might be occasioned if we encouraged the use of small gaming machines elsewhere. I should like my right hon. Friend to consider to what extent he might widen this provision and the type of machine which could be used, particularly where it is a machine requiring skill to operate.
  By and large, the many hours which we have spent together on this Bill have not only provided a remarkable education for all of us during that period, but have done a great deal towards educating a great part of the country, and many of the Churches and other people with no appreciation of what goes on in betting offices, in the street betting world, and things of that kind, to realise, as we are bound to do, although people may not talk about it, that two-thirds of the people of the entire country have a bet one way or another most days of their lives, and that it is about time that Parliament tried to put this gigantic business, with all its complexities, in order.
  While we may not have achieved perfection, we have gone a long way towards improving the Bill, and this is largely
  460
  due to the tolerant, kindly, lucid and able way in which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and also my right hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary, and the other Joint Under-Secretaries for that matter, have worked together on this Bill as a team to try to make it the best possible Bill.
  5.31 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: I voted against this Bill on Second Reading because I believed it was a bad Bill. It is now a worse Bill. Therefore, if there is a Division on Third Reading, I shall vote against it again.
  I join in the tributes that have been paid to the Minister; but, after all, they only mean that he is a gentleman, even when he is discharging the duties of his office. I have never dissented from that view, but I do not share in the eulogies that have been paid by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), because I do not think that the way in which the right hon. Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary allowed certain hon. Members on the other side of the Committee to wreck the Second Schedule of the Bill was anything that a responsible Minister should have allowed. In my view, the right hon. Gentleman there allowed himself to yield to pressure that should have been resisted, and, after what the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) has told us about his own views on the Bill and the way in which he consistently conformed with the views of the right hon. Gentleman, when expressed in the various stages of the Bill, it is quite clear that he would have been in no danger at all had he insisted on the Second Schedule going through in the light of the arguments used in its favour by the Home Secretary on Second Reading.
  Mr. Vosper: I formed my opinion that the Second Schedule should be amended very early on; in fact, before my hon. Friends put down any Amendments.
  Mr. Ede: I am not at all sure that that is not worse. I hope that those hon. Gentleman will realise that all the tributes which he paid to their method of dealing with the Bill were really quite unmeaning, because whether they had spoken or not, if they had not done it, he would have put down the Amendments. I wonder what he would have

  461
  done if they had not pressed him, in spite of his own view.
  I want to thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about me and the reform of the First Schedule, because the First Schedule as drafted showed no conception of the way in which the provisions would have to be administered. I regret that the administration of the Bill will be in the hands of the Home Office, because, when I was there, my wife said to me, after she had had a conversation with the Permanent Undersecretary, "Do you know that the Permanent Under-Secretary has never been to the Derby? You ought to invite him." I did, and I saw that he obtained some knowledge of the way in which ordinary people approach this subject. I regret that the notes which he must have made after that experience appear to have been lost and were therefore not available to the right hon. Gentleman when he drafted the First Schedule. I hope that the First Schedule will now provide a workable means of getting the betting shops into operation. I think the right hon. Gentleman is far too optimistic about the length of time the process will take, but I sincerely wish success to those who have to undertake it.
  I gather that the right hon. Gentleman said towards the close of his speech this afternoon that there were now only two outstanding matters which remain for consideration. Is that a warning to a certain bench in the Upper House that they are not to express their views about some of the proposals in this Bill?
  Mr. Vosper: I said that there were three specific outstanding matters to which we are giving consideration-advertising, dominoes and associated games and the increased penalties for street betting—but that does not deter our noble Friends from adding their further considerations.
  Mr. Ede: I am sure that the Bench of Bishops will be relieved to hear that.
  I want to deal now with something which I regard very seriously, and that is the way in which the Amendments made in regard to factory runners have wrecked the Home Secretary's views with regard to keeping youth away from actual betting operations. I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for
  462
  Northampton (Mr. Paget) disagrees both with the Home Secretary and myself on this matter, but as he usually disagrees with most of us on nearly everything, that is not surprising. Whereas legalised street bookmaking would have been under observation, legalised betting with and by the factory runner in the factory will not be under observation. When the Small Lotteries and Gaming Bill was going through the House and there was some question about the age that should be mentioned, I suggested the age of 16 in the belief that before very long 16 will be the school-leaving age. When a young person gets away from school and into a factory, office, or other place where he has to mix with other people, he desires, at first particularly, to assume all the rights, as he regards them, of the workers with whom he is associating.
  On that Bill, I suggested, and the suggestion was finally incorporated in the Act, that the age of 16 was fixed because that would mean that the young person going out into the world would not have, as almost his first experience, the discovery that there were ways of dodging the law by acting in association with other people. If the right hon. Gentleman is to try to enforce the age of 18 elsewhere, he will find it very difficult to enforce it when betting takes place legally within the factory. I know that the right hon. Gentleman himself confessed, at the time that he accepted the factory runner, that that would be one of the difficulties.
  I do not want to see the common informer among adults in a factory, holding strong views against gambling and informing the police that illegalities are being committed, some scheme then being arranged between the informer and the police whereby such a breach can be detected and followed by a prosecution. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would agree that that would be a very undesirable effect of the Amendment which he has made. I hope that some way will be found to deal with it other than what now appear to be the only obvious ways of handling it.
  Now we come to the milkman who has suddenly been provided with a new source of income. The manager of a large depot of United Dairies has said that after considering the Bill he thinks that it might be possible in future to

  463
  get an applicant for employment as a milk roundsman to be willing to pay a fee for the privilege in view of the opportunities which are to be afforded to followers of that useful and essential occupation by these provisions.
  Mr. Simon Wingfleld Digby: Surely that is a good thing. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that in rural areas deliveries of milk and other things are becoming increasingly difficult.
  Mr. Ede: I do not think that it is a good thing. These ways of trying to evade what the right hon. Gentleman has done are not good things. As the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet has said, we want a Bill which is enforceable, and I do not regard these ways of dodging the real purpose of the Bill as suitable for legislation when we are trying to make the law absolutely enforceable.
  The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet gave us what he regarded as the five great benefits of the Bill. I am not greatly concerned with the gaming laws. My experience of them is not very large and has been mainly confined to dealing with the gentlemen who have gone to Epsom Downs trying to make a living and who have invited their fellow-citizens to "spot the lady", "prick the garter", or deal with the "spinning jenny".
  I understand that while on Epsom Downs one will still be able to bet and to make a book on the horse races, but it will still be illegal to invite one's fellow-citizens to "spot the lady"—a game of skill if ever there was one. I have been assured by high-ranking police officers that there is always a "lady" being shuffled, but that one can be quite sure that if anyone spots her he is a confederate. The first two or three occasions on which she turns up so obviously in the right place are merely devices to lead other people to think that, not being confederates, they also will have equally good luck.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: As a game of pure skill, would not the lady be made respectable and legalised?
  Mr. Ede: I am still open to conviction on that point. I have not heard, in all his claims to fame, that the right hon. Gentleman has legalised that game.
  464
  I shall confine myself to the first three point made by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet. We are told that there will now be five legal ways of betting. There are some people who have liked to bet in a sixth way. Those people mostly belong to a particular section of the community. How can the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet claim that we have got rid of class legislation in this matter all the time that that sixth form is to be illegal and the 'penalties attached to it are to be much higher?
  I have always lived in Epsom, but I have never seen a street bookmaker, except in the dock. When I am told that the street bookmaker is a nuisance and that the sight of him offends certain people, I wonder how many of them have ever seen a street bookmaker, particularly when he is operating. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman wanted to see them and that the police officers of London arranged for him to see them operating. Had he gone, without police guidance, into the same streets into which he was taken, I wonder whether he would have seen one of them. Looking as respectable as he does, I wonder whether, if they had seen him, they would have allowed him to see them operating. This is class legislation whether the hon. Member for the Me of Thanet likes it or not.
  I am now in the position where I can if I want use all the five methods which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. Why should I be able to operate in one of those five ways while the person who wants to operate the sixth is denied the right to exercise his legitimate preference as an English citizen? I do not think that the hon. Member can win on his first point.
  Now we have the statement by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet that we have a law of which we can get enforcement. We have laws now of which we could get enforcement if the police wished to operate them. If there is still a strong public feeling in certain places for street bookmaking to operate, can the hon. Member guarantee that the police, who do not now enforce it, will then enforce the law? Was not evidence brought before the Royal Commission to the effect that this was the one thing which got the police "in wrong" with the general public?
  Mr. Rees-Davies: There is a direct analogy between the right hon. Gentleman's argument and the argument which he and the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) made when they said the same thing about prostitutes in the streets. We said that we could get them off the streets and that they would not be seen, and we have succeeded in doing that. We have exactly the same situation in this case. We want to get bookmakers off the streets and there will be abundant opportunity elsewhere, and we will not have any trouble.
  Mr. Ede: I know what my hon. and learned Friend said about that legislation, but I was very careful not to say anything of the kind. However, I share the views of my hon. and learned Friend in saying that we have not got rid of that evil.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: We got them off the streets.
  Mr. Ede: If the evil continues elsewhere, I do not think that that is a very great legislative achievement. We might have got them off the streets, but these were people easily visible in the street to ordinary citizens and were to that extent frequently the cause of great annoyance to people of both sexes. I repeat the challenge: who has seen a street bookmaker and who has seen him operating? If we had legalised the street bookmaker, had imposed on him the duty of registration and assigned to him a place where, within a reasonable limit, he could operate, he would have been under observation by the police. People could have seen whether in fact he took bets from young people. I do not want to go further with this because it is not in the Bill. That is one of the reasons why I shall vote against the Bill.
  For the third point, the hon. Member said that we can have a uniform system of betting. As a consistent Nonconformist, I object to all uniform ways of doing anything. I always bet on the Tote, but if a friend of mine wishes to bet in a betting shop, let him do it. If he wishes to bet in the street, let him do that and so arrange the matter that you can observe what he is doing and know what kind of business the street bookmaker is carrying on. It is claimed that we are going to make the bookmaker a respectable person. I know the
  466
  street bookmaker is respected by his clientele, for the reasons I gave in Committee and on Report. If he is not respected by them, his business just vanishes.
  The hon. Member said he would be in the same position as the publican. That is what some of us always feared, that we would create a new great vested interest capable of bringing most tremendous pressure to bear on all forms of public authorities and public persons. The House is going to cause the investment, I believe, of large sums of money in a new form of carrying on a business, which in the long run will be able to exert pressures that will not be for the benefit of the community. I accept everything said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton in Committee when he moved an Amendment dealing with that matter.
  The Home Secretary said the other evening on the Report stage that the street was not the place in which to bet. That is a dogmatic statement. No evidence has ever been produced to support that view, nor instances quoted to make me believe that it is a doctrine that ought to be held. If a person wishes to do this and can do it under proper control—enforceable and more likely to be enforced if the thing is done openly than if it is done in the furtive and secretive way it is done at the moment—I believe he should have the opportunity to do it. I deplore the increase in penalties found in the Bill I deplore also the way in which the Jockey Club, of all people, have been led up the garden on this matter, as the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Stanley) explained to us in Committee.
  I asked on Second Reading that some provision should be made in regard to the contribution of the trade to the support of horse racing. The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet says that that will be easier, and I am inclined to agree with him, but I regret that the decision to inquire into it was taken so late that it cannot be included in this Bill. Next Session we shall have to return to this subject and deal with the matter, if the Government are able between now and then to devise a feasible scheme to put before us.
  I like seeing horses race. I do not regard it as a profitable spectacle, I never have, but I like to see it. With a

  467
  large number of my fellow citizens, I like to have my choice and make a declaration, the wisdom of foolishness of which is speedily brought home to me. In a world in which the opportunity of making choices and exercising initiative is becoming more and more difficult for hundreds of thousands of people in this country, that part of this pastime is not to be despised.
  During the great depression, when hundreds of thousands of people were unemployed with no chance of exercising any real sense of responsibility, they found in pools an opportunity to assert their individuality and the power of making a choice. The old argument about racing horses being useful for improving the breed of horses has gone. Officers in the Army no longer require chargers and the Artillery does not want horses. It is very difficult in these days to justify the upkeep of large numbers of expensive animals which very soon will be only active counters in a gambling game.
  It may very well be that in some time of difficult economic circumstances for this country people may wonder whether the employment of so much labour and so much produce on these animals is really worth while. Those of us who soldiered in the First World War know that it takes far more "bulk" to provide food for horses than for a considerable number of men.
  Anything that tends to accentuate class feeling in this particular form of amusement is, I think, a bad thing from the point of view of the amusement. Because this Bill does a great deal to bring this matter still further into the class arena and denies reasonable opportunities to a good many people to participate as they would like in it, I shall vote against the Third Reading.
  5.59 p.m.
  Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: Like most of those who took part in the proceedings in Standing Committee D, I feel that in a way we are losing an old friend this afternoon, an old friend who has been a little irritating at times. I was sorry to hear the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton) tell us that we have been wasting our time, because we spent a great deal of time in Committee
  468
  upstairs reminiscent of what happened over some of the Bills brought in during the 1945 Parliament. Debates on this Bill have been very different from debates on them, in the way in which party co-operation has been possible. There has been a great deal of free thinking and free voting on both sides.
  Mr. Paget: Free voting?
  Mr. Digby: Well, there were some abstentions on our side of the Committee. There was an analogy, with those debates in that it is very difficult to foresee the consequences of what we have done. I have not got the feeling that we have been presiding over the production of what might be called a classic winner, to use racing parlance, but I believe that we have produced an animal which is rather better than when we started. There I differ from the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). I feel that the changes in the Bill have been to the good, although it may be that amending legislation will be necessary later. After all, we have been undertaking legislation at its most difficult in trying to deal with the social habits of the country at a time when the law, by common consent, has been ignored.
  That leads me to the main point which I wish to make. We should not imagine that there will not continue to be many evasions of the law, even as we leave it. The main motive of the Bill is to canalise off-course cash betting into the betting shops. The question of street betting and whether it should and could be abolished has been discussed in considerable detail. In a sense, we are trying to impose the social habits of the North upon the South, and I, for one, should not like to venture a prophecy how that will work. Much will depend on the betting shops—how many are set up and whether the totalisator itself goes into the betting shop business; and I, for one, very much hope that it will. I am delighted that the Second Schedule, with its rather grandmotherly regulations about the conduct of a betting shop, has been altered. There, again, I regret to find myself in disagreement with the right hon. Member for South Shields.
  In the Bill we are trying to change the social habits of the country. It is

  469
  true that the gap between the social habits and the law has been narrowed by the Bill, but it is important to remember that it has not been eliminated. It may be all right in the North, because we are merely legalising something which has been conducted illegally up to now— the betting shop. It appears that people in the North wish to place their bets in betting shops. The position in the South is rather different. We are trying to get the people in the South to adopt a method of placing their bets which has not found favour up to the present. The man who has been in the habit of placing a casual bet in the South has probably gone to the newsvendor on the corner or into the nearest public house and asked, "Where can I put on my money?" He will not be able to do that legally; it will remain illegal.
  We are bound to ask ourselves, will he nevertheless continue to do it? Will the newsvendors on street corners stop acting as bookmakers' runners? Will the public houses refuse all bets in the future? Those are two methods which are prevalent in the South, and I for one doubt very much whether we can abolish them very easily.
  We are told that the gentleman who at present places his bet with the news-vendor or the public house should walk about the town looking for a betting shop. It may not be very easy to find one. The Government are still thinking about an Amendment which would prohibit the owner of a betting shop from publishing its whereabouts. We must bear in mind that the smaller country towns are fairly scattered and that it will not be very easy to find a betting shop, even if the punter can be bothered to look for it.
  There are other betting habits in the South of England. The milkman acting as a runner has been mentioned. That method of betting will be legal, provided that the milkman remembers not to stand in the street while he is taking a bet. It is all to the good that he will have to be registered. This system will no doubt continue more or less unimpaired. The old-age pensioner who collects bets from house to house will also be permitted to continue, if he does not stand in the street to collect bets and no doubt he will telephone the bets on to the local bookmaker.
  470
  The problem of the use of a village shop for the placing of bets has not been solved so completely. It is true that if a local punter wishes to go to the village shop he is allowed to do so provided that he goes to a room at the back and provided that he uses a separate door from that leading to the shop. I suppose that the attendant in the shop will be able to go to the room from the back of the shop, but the punter will have to go through a separate door from that leading into the shop. I very much doubt whether that kind of provision will be respected in the country areas. One is left with a picture of unfortunate village constables, who have to look after a number of villages, seeking breathlessly on their bicycles to try to track down all these obvious breaches of the law.
  It is very hard to foretell how far these attempts to change the obvious betting habits in the South will work. Everything will depend upon the success of the betting shops, on how many are provided and how wisely they are conducted. We must, however, face one point: although the Government have shown great courage in this matter and my right hon. Friend the Joint Undersecretary of State has been most understanding about it, there are difficulties to which we have not found a complete answer, and we are once again passing legislation which almost certainly will lead to evasions on a bigger or smaller scale.
  6.7 p.m.
  Dr. Horace King: I join in the tribute which the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) paid to the Committee for the hard work which it has done on the Bill. I believe that the country does not realise how much patient work is done in detailed examination of Measures which leave the House and are sent upstairs for consideration by hon. Members in Committee.
  I am glad to join in that tribute, although I must confess that I was amazed at the description by the hon. Member of what he called the non-party voting which has taken place in the House and in Committee on the Bill. Previously, I have praised Conservative loyalty, but I have never seen it

  471
  expressed to the extent to which the hon. Member expressed it. In every vote which has taken place on this Measure, the Government Whips have been on, yet the hon. Member regards himself as having been free because occasionally someone has abstained.
  Mr. Wingfield Digby: The hon. Member was not present at the Committee meetings upstairs. If he had been, he would know that on a number of occasions criticism of the Government was expressed quite vocally and that there were abstentions and votes against the Government. As a result, the Bill has been considerably amended. The reason there has been much more unanimity on Report is that so many of these difficulties were met in Committee.
  Mr. Paget: If my hon. Friend had been in Committee he would further have observed that, one after another, hon. Members opposite spoke in favour of Amendments and then voted against them in obedience to the Whips.
  Dr. King: The intervention of the hon. Member for Dorset, West has not corrected a single word I said. He has only refuted a charge which I did not make—that Conservative tyranny could be so great as to prevent hon. Members from expressing opinions.
  Mr. Stephen McAdden: Not only did I move my own Amendments and vote in support of them against the Government, but, in the regrettable absence of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) through illness, I moved his Amendment for him, too.
  Dr. King: I intend to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill, and as that is quite an unusual step to take in the House I feel that I ought to explain my reasons. They have been put very well by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) and by the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), to some extent, although he proposes to vote for the Bill.
  I want to turn to what I regard as the chief defect of the Bill. As I see it, the Bill proposes to encourage betting by legalising betting offices or betting shops. Betting needs no such encouragement. I am quite certain that in the betting
  472
  shops we shall create a new, powerful industry. Much capital will be poured into it, and that capital must go out to get business. Betting will, therefore, be encouraged as a result of the legalising of betting shops. At the same time, the Bill is discouraging one form of betting by increasing penalties for betting on the streets.
  There was certainly a case—I will deal with it in a moment—for tidying up the law. I am certain that my hon. Friends who are Nonconformist, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton) will agree that even if they oppose betting itself, the present state of the laws on betting called for drastic reform. But to encourage and discourage betting in one Measure seems to me quite illogical.
  It is obvious that the betting laws needed tidying up. I am sure Chat we are all delighted to see going off the Statute Book, for example, the Unlawful Games Act, 1541, which prohibited all kinds of quite respectable sports and which a docile Parliament slipped through in the reign of Henry VIII in between the Acts it passed legalising his various marriages, divorces and executions.
  There are all kinds of indefensible anomalies in the law. The anomalies in the betting law which made thousands and millions of people in England deliberately be law breakers day after day were bad. However, at a time when we are destroying such anomalies, it is fantastic that we should create a new one. It is right that we should end the distinction between the credit bettor and the cash bettor, one of whom was perfectly respectable and one of whom was thoroughly illegal. Yet we are now to discriminate between betting shop gambling and street gambling. When this Bill is passed it will be legal to gamble in a field—provided that some of the horses of which my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) spoke so eloquently are performing—but not in a street.
  This interference with social habits is not on any grounds which can be justified morally, legally or rationally. I listened to the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) with some attention as he developed the five points he claimed we were achieving under the

  473
  Bill. If we discriminate in this way between street betting and betting office betting, we distinguish between people of the north of England and people of the South. We are saying that a North country habit is one which we are prepared to tolerate, but a habit which exists largely in the South is one which is reprehensible. We are isolating as bad a betting habit which is confined to poorer people. In spite of what the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet said, this still makes a class distinction. It is a class distinction between the betting methods of people, one of which we approve and one of which we are to punish.
  Why are we doing this? I listened with interest to the reason given by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby). I did not take down his exact words but I hope that that never paraphrase unfairly. He said that, if betting on the streets causes some people offence, it is good that it should be taken off the streets. He said that the Bill would take betting off the streets and so avoid giving offence to people who are offended by betting. For a long time the world has accused us of being a nation of hypocrites. The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet said that the Bill gets rid of Victoriana. I suggest that merely to take something which one regards as an offence off the street and tuck it away in a betting shop is a piece of Victoriana in excelsis.
  Mr. Mawby: The hon. Member has not misinterpreted what I said, but he has tended to suggest that I thought that it was an offence to bet. All that I said was that the fact that there could be bookmakers on the streets prepared to do business could give offence to certain people who do not believe in gambling. Street bookmakers would be more obtrusive by the very nature of things if they were licensed. At present, they are unobtrusive mainly because they are unlicensed, and so they are illegal.
  Dr. King: The hon. Member has expressed the same point, but a little more elaborately than before—that something which he thinks is right and which my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields eulogised, but which some other people in the community think is wrong, can be dealt with fairly
  474
  by removing it out of the sight of people who are annoyed by it. This is what the Victorians did.
  Laws will work only if they command the respect of the British people and if they commend themselves to Britain's sense of justice. The need expressed by the Royal Commissions on betting, and the whole purpose of the laborious work of the Committee and the Home Secretary on the Bill, has been to remedy the position in which many people found that the present state of the law was unjust and, because it was unjust, they were breaking it. If people break one law which they know to be unjust this can lead to breaking laws which are just.
  I am shocked to find a parrallel drawn in the debate to what was done about prostitution. I am not certain that we have solved the problem of prostitution by the Street Offences Act. The argument that, because we have driven prostitution off the streets, therefore in the Bill we are seeking to drive betting off the streets is tenable only if the House holds the belief that gambling, like prostitution, is an evil. No hon. Gentleman who has advanced that opinion in this debate holds such a belief. If betting is bad and a sin, it is a sin both in betting offices and in the streets. If betting is good, it is good in betting offices and in the streets.
  One of the five points of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet was that we should have respect for the law. I find it impossible to have respect for a law which makes that distinction, and I am sure that the people whose social habits are being interfered with will have the same lack of respect for a law which they believe to be unjust to them, and will break the new law as they have done the old ones. The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet said that the Bill will make the bookmaker respectable. It will make only certain kinds of bookmaker respectable. It adds ignominy and increased penalties to one kind of bookmaker merely because of the physical surroundings in which he conducts his business.
  In the early stages of the Bill I met the bookmakers of the south of Hampshire. I passed their observations on to my hon. Friends who served on the Committee. I doubt whether I had ever had

  475
  any previous dealings with bookmakers. The men I met were respectable members of their profession. They shared the desire of the House to clean up the book-making profession. They would welcome anything which would get rid of the evils, crookery and cheating associated with gambling, but they resent— and, I think, resent in the name of justice—an unjust distinction between two kinds of bookmaker which depends almost on geography.
  I shall not talk on Third Reading about the morality of betting. I am not a gambler. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields amazes me more every day. When he spoke this afternoon of "spotting the lady" and "pricking the garter", I wondered whether he was speaking on the right Bill. Other people's pleasures and vices are their own affair, unless they impinge on the well-being of the community, but I have some sympathy with the portrait that another Butler gave in "Hudibras", of the man who attacked the vices that he had no mind to as a cover up for the vices which he himself was inclined to.
  Certainly, one's own lack of interest in gambling could not justify anyone leaving the law in the state in which it was until the Bill came before the House. I welcome those parts of the Bill which place the kind of restriction which I would always want to support, anything which removes the temptation to gamble from our young folk. In so far as this Bill imposes certain age checks on gambling, I welcome it, though I support what my right hon. Friend said about its not going far enough in that direction.
  The Third Reading of a betting Bill is an occasion to point out that the sort of encouragement of betting and speculation that the Government, by their other legislation, have given, means that we are trying at present to get by on a philosophy that one can get something for nothing, and that it is right to do so. Britain will certainly not get by in the critical years ahead on such a philosophy. Obviously, we cannot promote a Measure to destroy people's natural interest in gambling, in card playing, in horse racing and the rest
  476
  when the whole of present society is built on a gamble.
  I hope that one day, from the other side of this House, we shall introduce Measures that will remove or curb the element of gambling in land, in property, in finance, and all the rest that makes up the present capitalist society. That is much more important than interfering with the pleasure that people get in gambling. I remain convinced that the Bill contains an injustice as between the street bookmaker and the street gambler and the office bookmaker and the office gambler, and for that reason I shall vote against it.
  6.21 p.m.
  Mr. A. P. Costain: When I was told that I was to serve on the Standing Committee that was to consider this Bill I was quite certain that I had not been chosen because I was an expert on gambling, and those who noticed my silence in Committee must assume that in my youth I was trained to keep quiet in the presence of those who knew better. But no one could serve on that Committee without learning a great deal about what lay behind the Bill, and about gambling. The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton) was not quite fair when he said that the House had discussed the Measure for 88 hours, because 80 hours were taken up with our Committee proceedings.
  Quite frankly, I consider betting to be a complete mug's game, but that does not mean that we should legislate against those people who want to bet. The argument for or against street book-making is much more simple than has been made out, and I am sorry that it has been brought up as a class issue. I do not see any class issue between having a bet in a betting shop and having a bet in the street.
  Throughout our consideration of the Bill I have had two thoughts in my mind. The first was the need to tidy up the law. I think that a lot of the present lawlessness is the result of a lot of quite ridiculous legislation that people have learnt to disrespect. Disrespect for the law gets worse and worse, and I believe that part of the trouble with our youth today is caused by its slipping slowly down the slippery slope. I believe that the Bill will tidy up the law and that

  477
  by it we will be doing the best we can to stop betting among the young.
  I have a fundamental objection to the street bookmaker. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) is an expert on the magisterial side, while my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Dayies) is an expert from the barrister's point of view, and both have given a complete picture of the situation. My hon. Friends the Members for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) and for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) have also given a very clear description of all types of betting—in fact, I began to wonder whether it was anything to do with the mouth of the Thames that made one an expert on betting.
  Whilst these street bookmakers are illegal, they are out of sight. The moment we make them legal, it is quite obvious that they will be seen. If they are there to be seen, children will see bets placed with them, and I can think of nothing worse than children asking, "Mummy, what are those people doing?" and learning about it too soon. For that reason, I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has put this business behind doors, has put beating on a cash basis and has done away with the so-called class issue.
  My second point also concerns youth, and is my reason for yesterday supporting the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) which had to do with what we call "one-armed bandits" in youth clubs. These gaming machines provide another method by which gambling can easily slip into these clubs. I know of a number of golf clubs and other clubs that are now making themselves pay by the amount of money made out of these "one-armed bandits", and I am delighted that they are to be forbidden in youth clubs.
  The Bill also legalises the games of whist and bridge that people enjoy in a sensible way. I know that some of my constituents in Folkestone would be quite alarmed—appalled—to think that they were breaking the law by playing bridge in licensed premises, so I am delighted that the Bill allows that to be done. I would ask my right hon. Friend, who has been so helpful to a new Member, just to clear up one point for me.
  478
  On Tuesday we discussed an Amendment dealing with the prohibition of municipal casinos. I should like an assurance that that prohibition does not apply to the playing of cards in municipally-owned rooms. As my right hon. Friend knows, I now refer to the Leas Cliff Hall at Folkestone, a large municipal hall. The fact that it is a licensed premises has stopped the playing of a harmless game of bridge. I shall be delighted to vote for the Bill, in the belief that it will not encourage betting but will encourage better law keeping.
  6.27 p.m.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: I confess that I was a little surprised by some of the observations made by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain). His idea that children would be corrupted by seeing people pass a bet to a street bookmaker seems to underrate the scope of original sin. Children need more than that to corrupt them—I know that I certainly did. As for children seeing betting being done, again searching my own experience and looking back as perhaps one should not, the only examples from which I think I have ever profited are bad ones. How often do we follow the virtuous? But when we see someone really making a mug of himself we decide that that is something not to do.
  I am, therefore, very doubtful whether hiding the fact that someone has a bob on a horse from the children until they are grown up and discover it as something grown up and exciting and new, instead of having discovered at an early age poor father's misfortunes when the horse always ran slowly, is perhaps not the most efficient way of discouraging gambling.
  Of course, if one took this seriously, one would stop children going to point-to-points or races. At a point-to-point, the place is full of children—it is a lovely children's party. I always take my children, and I think that most other people do. It is a real child's event. The children see the bookmakers there— but we will leave that out because I think that this is really a very trivial aspect of the Bill.
  During our proceedings on the Bill we have spent very many hours considering the contradictory and complex

  479
  muddle of our gambling laws, and with them we have done something that I should previously have thought was quite incredible, if not impossible—we have made them worse. Let us look at this for a moment. The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) said that his great commendation of the Bill was that we have made the bookmakers respectable members of society. That may, indeed, be so. I think that we have probably made them powerful members of society. But a society which respects men who are prepared to devote their lives to the utterly sterile and unproductive occupation of taking money for nothing from people who gamble is not a respectable society.
  We have created a situation in which people like the pool proprietors and greyhound racing promoters are going to bring in and sterilise great blocks of capital. From the point of view of the productivity of this community, much is going to be wasted by what we are doing today. Great blocks of new sterile capital are going to be devoted to property, bricks and mortar, and manpower in pursuance of this gambling obsession. Of course, this Bill will mean more gambling, and advertising and door-to-door canvassing will be legalised. Is this an improvement in our society?
  We are getting a law which is no more enforceable than it was before. We dealt yesterday with the nonsense of trying to prevent children at school from having a card game. We are bringing the law into contempt. But for the street bookmaker the practice is to continue. All we are doing is to raise the level of corruption, just as by sending the girls off the streets we have created the sort of situation which has led to the Pen Club case, by linking crime and strong-arm methods to the promotion of prostitution. We shall have more lawlessness, more crime and more money invested in this sort of activity.
  This is a bad Measure which will make our community more unproductive. I shall vote against the Third Reading of the Bill. I have long wished to see our gambling legislation dealt with and replaced by decent gambling laws, and I bitterly regret that this great opportunity has been missed.
  6.34 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Johnson: The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) referred more than once to the sterile unproductive occupation of taking money for nothing. I wondered what was particularly productive about his own occupation which enables people to wax fat on the follies of human nature.
  I support the Bill. I congratulate the Government on their good sense in introducing this Measure. To try to reform the chaotic laws of betting and gaming is something which has never before been undertaken by any Government. Unlike the hon. and learned Gentleman, I think that the Bill has improved the law. There is no doubt that in its present form it is better than it was when it first appeared on 30th October. That is largely due to the way in which hon. Members on both sides of the House co-operated throughout very lengthy discussions which were most useful and, indeed, instructive.
  All of us must have learned something. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) was kind enough to refer to me as one who had some knowledge of this subject. I freely admit that I know something of it, but I have learned from my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) the precise difference between baccarat and chemin de fer—a difference of which I had not been fully aware. I have also learned something from which I have since profited, namely, that it is possible to back unnamed favourites each way with Tote Investors Limited. I would commend that thought to other hon. Members.
  Our thanks are due to my right hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the patient way in which he has listened to these arguments, although he has perhaps not heeded some of them as much as I would have wished. I disagree with those hon. Members who have criticised the Government for their departure from some of the recommendations of the Royal Commission. I do not look on the recommendations of the Royal Commission as being Holy Writ, as I have said before. Those who have said that in altering the Second Schedule we have done wrong are quite mistaken. I believe that we have removed a lot of quite stupid and unworkable restrictions.

  481
  The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) was grateful to my right hon. Friend for thanking him for the contribution that he made on the First Schedule. I admit that he did a great deal to improve it. Perhaps he did not mean to take it this way, but it looked as if he thought the First Schedule was improved because of his own contribution and that the Second Schedule was made very much worse when my right hon. Friend followed his own good sense and listened to the advice of some of the rest of us.
  The situation of factory runners is one that I have never liked, although for different reasons from those which have been expressed. The factory is the wrong place for the runner. It would have been much better had my right hon. Friend allowed the practice to continue as it has done up to now, outside the factory gates. For those reasons I have supported those who have felt that we should continue with street betting.
  Another suggestion which the Government would not accept was the system of licensing runners. I cannot see how it is more difficult to license thousands of runners than it is to license thousands of dogs or motor cars merely by going to the proper office and paying a fee. Although I have said that I would have liked street betting to continue, I think that the Government are quite right to adopt the system of betting shops. I do not object to that at all. I hope that the betting shops will succeed, and I think they will succeed, given a certain amount of time. Meantime, I believe the Bill will do much to remove the existing absurdities of the present law.
  As to the gaming part of the Bill, it will do something to help the licensed trade, although here, again, the Government have not gone quite so far as I would have liked. Perhaps there will be an opportunity on a future occasion to go into the whole subject of the licensing laws a great deal more fully.
  My final point, with which, I think, the right hon. Member for South Shields will not entirely agree, is that the Bill will provide a framework for the proposals of the Peppiatt Committee. It will provide a means whereby betting can make a contribution towards horse racing. I do not look on horse racing merely as a sport; I look on it as a great
  482
  industry. In my view, this contribution, if we get it, will be of great advantage to all engaged in horse racing, whether they be the people who breed horses, the people who own them, the people who train them or the people who look after them in the stables. I believe, also, that it will provide better amenities for the public, on whom racing so largely depends. That the Bill will provide that framework is not the least of my reasons for giving it my wholehearted support.
  6.41 p.m.
  Mr. George Wigg: It would be churlish if I did not repeat in public my apologies to the right hon. Gentleman for not being present during this debate, but, as he knows, I have two interests. Getting a Bill through is one and Blue Streak is the other. Sometimes, I wonder whether I might get them mixed up and persuade my colleagues on the Tote Board to declare a dividend on Blue Streak. However, at this moment I am sufficiently in charge of my mind to have the two interests completely separated.
  I wish, first, to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kindness during the Committee stage. He faced a very difficult task, for the Government, after a great deal of hesitation, based their Bill upon the Royal Commission's Report, which in many respects was hopelessly out of date. The House will remember that there were four years available to the Government during which time they were making up their mind. In 1956, they declared that they intended to introduce legislation, and I think that it would have been of advantage to use that time to bring the recommendations of the Royal Commission up to date. We might well, I think, have had another Royal Commission, though perhaps one which did not sit so long, to go into the matter afresh.
  I have another confession to make. When that first debate took place, I advanced the view that if the House were asked to bring the betting laws up to date, certainly so far as they affected racing, this would probably be a subject more properly dealt with in a Private Member's Bill. However, when the House was forced to face the fact that the disregard of the betting laws worked in such a way as to bring the reputation of the police into discredit, the matter

  483
  became a task for the Executive, a very urgent task indeed. I should be less than honest if I did not admit, also, that on that occasion I said that I never expected to see the day when any Government, of either party, would have the courage to bring in a Measure. The Government have had the courage to do so, and I congratulate them for it.
  I come now to the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). No one in the House is held in greater affection. This is, of course, because he is so very English. Enshrined in his character and in what he says is a streak of that essentially English characteristic which one never quite knows to be nonsense or hypocrisy. But, as I am always charitable, in his case I think that it is pure nonsense. In my view, the House ought to give the Bill a Third Reading. It has taken ten years to get as far as this, and though I share with my hon. and learned Friend doubts about the Bill in certain respects, I hope very much—and I know he does— that those doubts are unfounded.
  What has happened as regards betting and what concerns the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens is that a practice which has been allowed to grow up, particularly in Scotland but to some extent in the north of England also, namely, the use of the betting shop, is to be in some measure accepted. The House will note that the betting shops which seem to exist already are not the kind of betting shops which the Government say they envisage in their Bill. They are the betting shops in which continuous betting is allowed, with the "blower" operating, the chalker-upper at work, the radio and the television going, even with light refreshments and all the atmosphere of the betting club. Of course, when the Bill becomes law, these practices ought to cease, and the Government hope that a much more puritanical, more restricted and more orderly betting shop will take root in the South of England.
  I do not think that social habits change quite as quickly as the Government think that they will. In my view, the Government would have been wiser to take powers so that, if they were wrong, they could make adjustments by regulation. If they are wrong, the forebodings of my
  484
  hon. and learned Friend and, indeed, the forebodings of myself and of other hon. Members, on both sides of the House, I think, may be realised in fact, and we may have a situation worse than what we have now.
  I come now to something else said by my hon. and learned Friend about the nature of betting. I share with him the view that having a shilling each way, two shillings each way, or, occasionally, more each way or to win, is not a sin. I do not find it in my heart to regard myself as an inferior person on that account. Often, in Committee, hon. Members treated having a bet as if it were something wrong and, putting their hands on their hearts, they said, "Of course, I have never done it. It should not be extended. It is very bad that it should exist, and we must protect the young from it."
  I was greatly impressed, as I am sure the House was, by what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton). He told of the severity of his upbringing, which was similar to my own, although, of course, I did not come from a Methodist family because my family were mostly soldiers in the Regular Army and that sort of discipline one did not readily acquire in those circumstances. But I accept what my hon. Friend says and I know exactly what he means. My hon. Friend says that he never gambled. I think he tends to forget that everyone likes to gamble.
  I remember a very telling retort made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) in this connection. Incidentally, I should like to acknowledge the wisdom which my right hon. Friend has shown and the wise guidance which he has given to the House and to the Committee during the passage of the Bill. One of my hon. Friends expressed the moral view and said that he never gambled. Later in his speech he said that something was casting bread upon the waters, to which my right hon. Friend replied, "There is no bigger gamble than that."
  To return to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West, I am sure he will forgive me if I say that I went to him afterwards and asked him if he had ever played marbles. Yes, he had played marbles. I have played marbles. When we played marbles and

  485
  won, we took the other fellow's marbles. That is a gamble, too. It may be that, for the purposes of this Bill, it is a combination of gamble and skill, but gamble it all is. How many Members who have at all stages of the Bill poured scorn on those who dare to have a bet, go along on Private Member's Day and put their names down in the Ballot?
  Mr. Hilton: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for giving way. It is true that I, like all other boys, played marbles. I have played nearly every game there is. I have played them for love of the game, and I have had as much fun out of playing games for love as my hon. Friend has through gambling. I must make it quite clear that it is possible to play any game without having to gamble.
  Mr. Wigg: I quite accept what my hon. Friend says, but I was brought up in another school. The only game I play is pontoon, and one cannot play that for love. That is the difficulty. I told the House yesterday of difficulties I ran into early in my military career because I acquired a certain skill at pontoon. If any hon. Member cares to invite me to play with him now, I trust that I have not lost that skill.
  Be that as it may, I want to turn now to a very serious point made, quite rightly, by my hon. and learned Friend about the amount of capital tied up in this business. My hon. and learned Friend says that it is non-productive. I thought that the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) was not very kind to compare book-making with the legal profession because, after all, some lawyers do something useful sometimes, and my hon. and learned Friend was saying that bookmakers never do.
  We must accept human frailty for what it is, and betting is part of people's lives. It lightens the burden of life. During the war, the continuation of racing was essential to the national well-being. I know that the horses had to eat. I know that those who surreptitiously went to race meetings in motor cars ought not to have used the petrol, but the effect on the men in the factories, working long hours under very diffcult conditions, was to make life a little brighter for them by the hope that they had brought off a three-cross double or backed the winner
  486
  of the 3.30. That is a fact. It is part of the English scene.
  I want to see racing put on an absolutely honest basis with the dangers of corruption, whether of the police, the owner, the trainer or the jockey kept to the absolute minimum. I agree with the hon. Member that this is also a business. That is one of the troubles. A few shillings each way for me or my hon. Friends is just fun, but when it reaches its final destination it is not a few shillings but hundreds and thousands of pounds, and in some cases, on big races, it is millions. Betting is now conducted on a world-wide basis. Now, if any hon. Member has an old selling plater and he wants to put something on it to win at 20 to 1, the place to do it is not London but Johannesburg. This is done quite often. This business is international in its scope. It has also an effect on international prestige. When the French win the Derby they are to some extent spitting on Nelson. I personally resent that, quite apart from the fact that I have a prejudice against French horses, but we have to recognise these things.
  This is big business conducted on a very large scale indeed from which we all of us receive some advantage. A great deal of it is unproductive. Like so many other things, it becomes utterly wrong if abused. If a considerable section of the population spent all their time in amusement arcades or in betting shops, betting on a continuous basis, that would produce a very great social evil.
  The Bill is not at all that I would like it to be, but I think that it takes a step forward. I should like the hon. Gentleman, when he replies to the debate, to give the House this final assurance. The House has accepted his advice, often against the better judgment of hon. Members opposite. If, after a year or two, it is found that the forebodings of some of us about the way it works are justified, and assuming that the party opposite is still in office, would the representatives of the Government give an undertaking to keep the situation under review and then come back to the House of Commons, if necessary, not to say that they have been wrong but to bring the Bill up to date? It would be absolutely fatal if this Measure were found not to work and another ten years or so elapsed before anything was done

  487
  about it. Provided that this is regarded as an experiment, we can all wish it well, and if the experiment does not work we must have another go.
  6.55 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): I thank the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), and I am glad to have this opportunity of doing so, for the welcome he has given to the Bill. He ended by asking for an assurance that the progress of the Bill, once it becomes law, will be watched. Our laws are not the laws of the Medes and Persians that change not. We are busily engaged with legislation and amending legislation over a large part of the year. I can assure him that the progress of this legislation will be carefully watched.
  Some hon. Members have complained that there was no legislation about it. Today we have had a complaint that the House has spent so much time on this Bill when it should have occupied all its time with international problems. By any standards this is a major Bill. A Bill which concerns the habits of many millions of citizens and which affects the livelihoods of many thousands of bookmakers and deals with the manner in which hundreds of millions of pounds will change hands each year is an important Bill. It has been treated as an important Bill in the House.
  We have had a two-day debate on Second Reading, twenty-five sittings in Committee, the report of which occupies 1,281 columns of HANSARD, and virtually two days debate on Report. Now we are about to conclude the Third Reading. The fundamental difficulty that we have had to deal with is that in the eyes of a large proportion of our fellow citizens the law on betting and gaming no longer commanded respect. It was illogical and discriminatory, and it was being overtly flouted. We have set out to devise a system which will satisfy the reasonable needs of those who wish to gamble without causing offence to those who do not, while providing adequate supervision by the community.
  The introduction of a new system is bound to affect different people in different ways. The choice of a system of licensed betting offices has been made for three main reasons. First, because
  488
  betting offices are relatively easy to control; secondly, because it seems the natural way in which to do betting business and the way in which it would normally and generally have been done had it not been for the legislation restricting cash betting off the course; and lastly because betting in the streets, if it were made legal, could so easily become a nuisance to the public and a danger to the young.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said that he had never seen a street bookmaker. They are illegal now. What would happen if they ceased to be illegal? Does anyone suggest then that he would never see a street bookmaker? He goes on to say that there is a question of class. What difference is there between going into a shop to register a bet and registering a bet in the street? That argument will not wash. It is natural that those who have been accustomed to earn their livelihood as street bookmakers feel aggrieved that their method of taking bets should not only continue to be illegal but should be more heavily penalised in future, whilst others whose methods were no less and no more illegal are to be allowed to continue to work in much the same way as they are doing at present, provided they receive a betting office licence.
  It was right and proper that hon. Members should voice that feeling and should probe the strength of the Government's determination not to legalise street betting and, indeed, to suppress it. But the Government are quite determined about this. A group of Amendments moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields on Report which would have legalised the acceptance of written instructions and cash in streets and public places did not obtain much support in the House. That, I think, shows that the Government's attitude commends itself to the House as a whole on this point.
  Mr. R. J. Mellish: The hon. Gentleman must be fair about this. Do not let it go out from this House that that is exactly how it went. The only reason that the Amendment was not carried in Committee was that the Government applied the Whips. I think that every speech except one favoured the Amendment of my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Macpherson: I think that the Division was five to one or thereabouts on the Amendment. In any case, what is the alternative? There was the right hon. Gentleman's own suggestion. He talked about the creation of a vested interest, but his suggestion was to license street bookmakers. Of course, street bookmakers would also have to be regulated as to numbers so there again that would create a vested interest, but a different vested interest and one much less easy to control.
  The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) wanted to vote against the Bill because it encourages gambling and he is against gambling. He then went on to favour street betting. This did not seem to be entirely logical. He said that if betting is bad then it is bad in the street and in the shop. If betting is not bad then it is not bad either in the street or in the shop. What about liquor licensing? That is something which the House and the country have long accepted. It is a question of where and how one does things. In fact, that is exactly what we are doing in the gaming section of the Bill. We are not making games as such unlawful. We are making games unlawful if they are played in certain circumstances and in certain places.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) complained about imposing the habits of the North on the South. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) answered him in advance by indicating fairly clearly that there are certain parts in the south where there are betting shops. Of course, that is so. Also, it is not the case that there are no street bookmakers in Scotland. There is a very considerable number of street bookmakers still operating in Scotland. There was a tendency at an earlier stage of the Bill to try to find a different solution to the cash betting problem on each side of the border. I think that the desire to do so was based on the misapprehension that there was no betting on streets or in factories in Scotland and that there were no betting offices in England. That was quickly dissipated, and it was by no means true.
  I regard it as one of the best features of the Bill that, broadly speaking, the same law will apply to both betting and
  490
  gaming throughout Great Britain. An Englishman who likes having a bet and goes to Scotland will not be subjected to petty annoyance or even prosecution through finding a different system working there. The same will apply to a Scotsman who goes to England.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) spoke in the debate. I would like to throw the ball back to him by saying that the Government have greatly appreciated his steadying influence on the Opposition side throughout the Bill. There is one point still outstanding, and we are sorry that we have not been able to meet him on it. It is the point concerning the licensing authority in Scotland. As the hon. Member knows, this is an extremely difficult problem, but we take the view that the duties of the licensing authorities in Scotland are not purely judicial. They are a mixture of judicial and social requirements.
  Despite the fact that we recognise the force of the arguments which the hon. Member put forward, we think that it would be a condemnation of our democracy if we could not trust the licensing courts to carry out their functions properly, even though there will be a right of appeal to the sheriff. I cannot believe that the hon. Member has as low a view of our democratic system and of public life in our cities and burghs as that. We must stand by the argument that we have put forward unless there is some further development, as there may be through the Commission which is at present sitting.
  My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), to whom we are greatly indebted for his help throughout the Bill, asked whether we have repealed everything. The answer is that all the provisions at present on the Statute Book dealing with gaming are to be repealed except, first, the provisions dealing with the enforcement of gaming contracts in the courts, secondly, Sections 10 to 14 of the Gaming Act, 1845, which deal with the licensing of billiard saloons and, thirdly, Section 17 of the Gaming Act, 1845, which deals with cheating. I cannot say whether that covers "spot the lady" or not.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) raised the question of municipal

  491
  casinos. It is not our intention that the Amendment which we accepted on Thursday concerning casinos should affect the occasional use of municipal premises for gaming such as my hon. Friend had in mind. We shall certainly look at the matter again, as we said on Report, before the next stage of the Bill.
  It would be too much to expect that a Bill of this kind would receive either universal or wholehearted support, but let us at least do justice to the spirit in which it has been handled by the House and not least by the Government. The Government have been criticised for maintaining their point of view and for changing it to meet the wishes of the House. That is, perhaps, the liberal approach to which my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet referred and for which he gave us credit, but the Government have shown themselves ready to respond to suggestions for the improvement of the Bill so long as its fundamental principles are not assailed. A kind of statutory registration of bookmakers' agents by their principals has been introduced, the prohibition on loitering has been removed, betting offices are no longer to be of repellant austerity and information for punters is to be available in them, which could not be stopped, and the position of the factory runner clarified.
  On the other hand, the safeguards for young persons have been improved, particularly for betting and gaming machines. In the case of gaming, we accepted the new Clause of the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon). The Amendment of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), if anything, would have extended the facilities for young people. I thought that the hon. Member for Islington, East was looking for reasons for opposing the Bill rather than having any firm and decided views upon it. He more or less implied that he did not feel strongly enough on the matter to call a Division but that if anyone else did so he would join in.
  Despite his helpfulness on many occasions, I thought that that was a slightly ambivalent attitude to the Bill.
  Inasmuch as the Bill will enable betting and gaming to be controlled to a far greater extent than at present, I suggest to the House that it ought to command the support of all hon. Members, including even that of the hon. Member for Norfolk. South-West (Mr. Hilton). There has been a lot of loose thinking on these matters. The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West is entitled to his own personal opinions, but he does not seem to mind benefiting from the result of a lottery, although he is strongly opposed to lotteries. I understand that the constituency party funds which helped the hon. Member to victory at the last election benefit to a very considerable extent from lotteries and that much of them is raised by lotteries. That is an illustration of the loose thinking that we have had on part of the Bill.
  Mr. Hilton: I think that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland was present when I made it clear that I had nothing to do with that lottery. I am the Member for Norfolk, South-West. I am a member of the Labour Party, but I am not the Labour Party.
  Mr. Macpherson: The only point that I was making was that if the hon. Member wants to be totally logical he should refuse the support of funds raised in that way.
  As the Bill stands, it lays down principles for gaming which have been generally accepted. It frees gaming for pleasure from restriction while banning commercial exploitation. It establishes a system of bookmakers' permits and licences for betting shops. I think that, with the co-operation of hon. Members, we have a workable and much more enforceable Measure, and I commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill he now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 211, Noes 42.

  Division No. 81.]

  AYES

  [7.10 p.m.

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks)

  Bossom, Clive

  Allason, James

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxeth)

  Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)

  Barber, Anthony

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Brewis, John

  Barter, John

  Bingham, R. M.

  Brooman-White, R.

  Batsford, Brian

  Bishop, F. P.

  Bullard, Denys

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

  Holt, Arthur

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Hornby, R. P.

  Pitman, I. J.

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Pott, Percivall

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  Prentise, R. E.

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Collard, Richard

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Cordle, John

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Ramsden, James

  Corfield, F. V.

  Jackson, John

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Costain A.P.

  James, David

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Coulson J. M.

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Rees, Hugh

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Jennings, J. C.

  Rees-Davies, W.R.

  Critchley, Julian

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Renton, David

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Cunningham, Knox

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Dance James

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Robens, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  de Ferranti, Basil

  Delargy, Hugh

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Seymour, Leslie

  Drayson, G. B.

  Driberg, Tom

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Sharples, Richard

  du Cann, Edward

  Key, Rt. Hon. C.W.

  Shaw, M.

  Duncan, Sir James

  Kitson, Timothy

  Shepherd, William

  Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. H.

  Simon, Sir Jocelyn

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Eden John

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Smith, Dudley (Br'ntfrd & Chiswick)

  Edwards Walter (Stepney)

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Smithers, Peter

  Elliot, R. W.

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Emery, Peter

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Speir, Rupert

  Farr, John

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Fell, Anthony

  McAdden, Stephen

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Finlay, Graeme

  MacArthur, Ian

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Fisher, Nigel

  McInnes, James

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  McLaren, Martin

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Freeth, Denzil

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

  Gammans, Lady

  Maddan, Martin

  Sumner, Donald (Orpington)

  Gardner, Edward

  Maginnis, John E.

  Talbot, John E.

  George, J.C.(Pollok)

  Maitland, Cdr. J. W.

  Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)

  Glyn Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Teeling, William

  Goodhart, Philip

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Temple, John M.

  Goodhew, Victor

  Mathew, Robert (Honlton)

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Gordon Walker Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Gower, Raymond

  Mawby, Ray

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Gresham, Cooke, R.

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

  Turner, Colin

  Grimston, Sir Robert

  Millan, Bruce

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Mills, Stratton

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Morgan, William

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Morrison, John

  Wall, Patrick

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Mort. D.L.

  Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

  Hay, John

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Watts, James

  Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward

  Nabarro, Gerald

  Webster, David

  Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

  Neave, Airey

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Hendry, Forbes

  Nicholls, Harmar

  Whitelaw, William

  Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

  Noble Michael

  Wigg, George

  Hiley, Joseph

  Nugent, Sir Richard

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Ormsby Gore, Rt. Hon. D.

  Wise, A. R.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Hobson, John

  Page, A. J. (Harrow, West)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Page, Graham

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Holland, Philip

  Partridge, E.

  Hollingworth, John

  Percival, Ian

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mr. Gibson-Watt and Mr. Peel.

  NOES

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Hilton, A. V.

  Redhead, E. C.

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Holman, Percy

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Small, William

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Cronin, John

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Stones, William

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Symonds. J. B.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter

  Marsh, Richard

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Evans, Albert

  Morris, John

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Finch, Harold

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Fletcher, Eric

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Coine Valley)

  Probert, Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hannan, William

  Randall, Harry

  Mr. Paget and Dr. King.

  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  DOCK WORKERS (PENSIONS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7.19 p.m.
  The Minister of Labour (Mr. Edward Heath): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I am glad to introduce the Bill to the House. It is designed to facilitate the introduction of a pension scheme for dock workers. This is a scheme which has been discussed in the National Joint Council for the Port Transport Industry between the port employers and the trade unions and has been agreed between them. They have asked the Government to introduce the Bill in order to make it possible to proceed with the pension scheme.
  I warmly welcome this scheme. It is a most important development in the process of improving the security and the status of the dock worker, a process which has been going on since before the last war. Over 70,000 dock workers will have an option of joining the scheme, not only the "men with a hook", but lightermen, cranedrivers and clerks. It is a point of interest that altogether there will be about 1,100 employers belonging to the scheme. These figures of about 70,000 dock workers and over 1,100 employers being involved in it gives some idea of the size of the scheme and also of the complexity of reaching agreement about it.
  It is a far cry from this pension scheme to the strike of 1889, which won the "Docker's Tanner". The slogan then was, "Work or maintenance". In 1912, the first register of dock workers was set up in Liverpool, where I saw the Dock Labour Scheme in action in January. By the beginning of the Second World War there were registers on a voluntary basis in all the big ports. The year 1940 saw the statutory registration of dock workers and the introduction of a guaranteed wage.
  These fundamental principles, as the House knows, are at the heart of the present Dock Labour Scheme, introduced in 1947, which finally marked the end of the casual system of hiring labour in the docks. The introduction of a pension scheme is a remarkable demonstration of the extent to which the work of the dock
  496
  worker has become regular and assured. The scheme itself is evidence of the employers' interest in their men and of the men's interest and standing in their own occupation.
  The scheme and, much more, all that it implies, will surely make a most valuable contribution to the general improvement of relationships in the docks. I hope that this improvement will, in turn, reduce the number of small and sometimes unofficial disputes which still trouble the smooth working of this great industry. The pension scheme itself is a private one, and the decision to introduce it was taken by the National Joint Council for the Port Transport Industry, representing port employers and trade unions together. The Council has drawn up the scheme and it is the Council that will appoint trustees under it to run it and be responsible for it.
  The scheme will be financed by contributions from employers and from workers. In general, these contributions will be collected by the National Dock Labour Board and I propose to empower the Board to do this by making a suitable amendment to the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1947.
  I said "in general" because the contributions of weekly workers will be collected by the employers in whose service they are and I propose to make provision for this, also, in the Dock Labour Scheme. As I have said, the pension scheme is drawn up by the National Joint Council for the industry, but I am sure that the House will be interested to have some details even though we are not discussing or dealing with legislation about the scheme itself this evening, but only with an enabling Bill.
  The workers' contributions will be 2s. 6d. a week and the employers will contribute a sum equal to the total workers' contribution plus whatever addition may be necessary to ensure that the scheme is viable. For a long time after the introduction of the scheme it is expected that the employers will pay about twice as much as the workers. Pensions at 65 or over will vary according to the length of service. At one end of the scale the pension will be 10s. a week, plus £100 lump sum, and at the other end 40s. These will be in addition to any benefits under State schemes.

  497
  including the proposed graduated retirement pensions. There will be also benefits under the scheme in the event of retirement on the ground of ill-health and also payments in the event of death.
  The Board will collect the workers' contributions by deduction from their wages, and this will be the only way in which contributions can be paid. Those who have drawn up the scheme considered this to be the only feasible arrangement in a pension scheme of this kind which, as I have said, will extend to a whole industry and will cover a very large number of workers working for a large number of employers. As far as I know, the scheme is unique in that it will be covering a large industry and, at the same time, a large number of employers. There are other very large schemes, but in the hands of one employer, as is the case with the great nationalised industries.
  Mr. J. T. Price: For the sake of a correct record, may I be allowed to point out that there are some federated schemes, particularly in the flour-milling industry, which cover a great number of employers who have come to an arrangement to make this sort of thing possible?
  Mr. Heath: I am obliged to the hon. Member. His knowledge amplifies our own researches.
  The fact that it is a compulsory deduction would, however, infringe the Truck Acts and for this reason I am introducing this short Bill at the request of the National Joint Council. The purpose of Clause 1 (1) is to put the pension scheme outside the scope of the Truck Acts. Similar legislative provision has been found necessary in the case of other industries—the railway industry, coal mining and the gas industry, and also in the case of the Port of London Authority.
  It is the intention that all dock employers should belong to the pension scheme. All those already employed as dock workers will be given the option of joining, but those who elect to join will not be allowed to reverse their decision later. All workers in the industry at present are given the option to come in or to stay out, but once they elect to come in that remains as a permanent arrangement. All workers who join the
  498
  industry in future will be required to become members of the scheme. I propose to incorporate these obligations in the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme.
  It is possible that the imposition of these obligations on dock workers may offend against the Shops Clubs Act, 1902. It is an offence under that Act for an employer to make it a condition of employment that a worker should join a shop club or thrift fund unless it is registered under the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, and certified under the 1902 Act by the Registrar of Friendly Societies.
  I think that it will be agreed that it is inappropriate that this scheme should be subject to this procedure, which was drafted with the abuses of a different age in mind, and I have, therefore, in the second subsection in Clause 1, provided for the pension scheme to be brought outside the scope of the 1902 Act. Again, there are precedents in the cases of the railways, coal mining and gas industries and in the case of the Port of London Authority for doing this.
  Clause 2 restricts the operation of the Bill to Great Britain. This follows the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1946, the operation of which is similarly restricted. I have already mentioned that, arising from the introduction of the pension scheme, I intend to amend the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme in certain respects. The procedure for doing this is by means of an Order which is subject to negative Resolution and can, therefore, be debated by hon. Members if the House wishes to consider it.
  The House will have realised that the Bill is a short and simple enabling Measure. I very much hope—indeed, I am sure—that it is non-controversial. I have been asked to introduce it by both sides of the dock industry and have done so gladly in the expectation that the scheme will be a source of real and lasting benefit to industrial relations in this major industry, as well as to those who work in it individually. The Joint Council is very anxious to proceed with the introduction of the scheme and the Government have speedily responded in introducing this Bill. I am glad that we have been able to take it at comparatively short notice in the House.

  499
  I commend the Bill to the House without any hesitation, and I hope that it will command support from both sides.
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. Alfred Robens: We on this side of the House certainly support the Bill. It is not our idea of the way in which the Truck Acts should be amended. We have argued—during the passage, for example, of the famous Payment of Wages Act—that legislation to change completely the Truck Acts ought to be before us as soon as possible, and thus obviate the necessity of having to bring in a Bill of this character from time to time to meet a principle which all of us accept.
  The Minister said that he warmly welcomed the pension scheme. I am sure that we are all very happy at the idea that there is now to be a pension scheme for dock workers. In a way, this is a posthumous testimonial to Ernest Bevin's life work. He spent much of his life in the interests of the dock workers, and rightly earned the title of the "Dockers' K.C." He became Foreign Secretary, and it is interesting that we should now be taking a further step along the road along which he started the great movement of dock workers.
  When the Minister said that he warmly welcomed this scheme I had my reservations, because it is impossible for us to make any comments upon a scheme if we have not the particulars before us. When he was good enough to give us some of the principles of the scheme, my heart sank a little. I did not hear him say that there was to be any substantial contribution to a sinking fund to take care of past service. All I gathered was that there would be no provision for past service and that those who had served the industry for a very long time would probably go out with 10s. a week—not very much in modern times; it is hardly worth anything—and £100 gratuity.
  It was not my intention to go into detail about the scheme, which is private and agreed by the unions and the employers. It is not our business to argue the merits or demerits of a scheme of which we have not got the details, but, as the Minister said that some people
  500
  were to go out with 10s. and £100. I cannot share the warm welcome which he gave to the scheme. We are glad of it, and most of us will want to look at its provisions as a matter of interest, but I hope that as times goes on there will be rather better provision for those dockers who served the industry in its hard days.
  These are not the men who will get the good pensions—it is the young men who will benefit by this. In most pension schemes—and I say this in deference to my hon. Friend the Member for West-hough ton (Mr. J. T. Price), who is an authority on these questions, but who has now left the Chamber—one cannot reward dockers or any other workers for back service unless there is a very substantial increase in contributions, or, as is normally done, a very substantial lump sum or annual contribution to the scheme.
  I have no doubt that as time goes on the two parties concerned in this will consider the scheme's provisions and will, I hope, ameliorate the position of those who have given long service and who should be the first in our minds when dealing with schemes of this character.
  The Minister has made it clear that dock workers who are at present employed are not to be forced into the scheme, but may elect to join it. No doubt the majority will do so, and I hope that that will be the case. He did not say what is to happen if registers are to be reduced. If they are reduced, what will happen to those men who have made some contribution? Perhaps their contributions will be returned with some interest and the employers' contribution will go back to the sinking fund, or perhaps the employers will recoup themselves for what they have paid in.
  The Minister was not able to go into details. We cannot really discuss the scheme in any detail, and, therefore, I do not propose to say any more now. But I draw attention to things which would concern us if Parliament had anything to do with the scheme, which, I assume, it has not. In so far as the Bill provides necessary legislation for a dockers' scheme to be inaugurated, we welcome it and will co-operate in giving it a speedy passage.
  7.35 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Rees: In rising to address the House for the first time I do so, as every Member knows, with a fair amount of anxiety and trepidation. I have been here for some time now and have tried to learn the ways and the procedure of the House. The more I have listened, the more worried I have become that my contribution will not be worth all the time which the House grants me. But tonight, in this very straightforward Measure, which, I am glad to see, in non-controversial, I shall try to be brief and shall continue to be non-controversial and, in humility, ask the House for indulgence.
  I intervene because the constituency which I have the honour to represent is part of the major seaports of South Wales. Both employers and employees are residents in parts of my constituency and they welcome this Bill, and it is for that reason that I am joining in this debate.
  Swansea itself has a great and ancient history. It goes back for many centuries and of recent years it has gained a substantial industrial tradition. At one stage it was known as the "Metals Metropolis" of the United Kingdom. Every commercial metal used in the country was being refined there, and the principal one was copper. Copper was brought in sailing ships from Cornwall, which tied up in the River Towy, and refined. The empty ships were sent out again with coal from local pits. This trade developed as the need for ore grew. It was imported in sailing ships from Chile and distant lands, and the coal trade was expanded.
  As this process went on, so the Port of Swansea and the docking industry grew. The Economist at one stage foretold a very rosy future and a vast expansion for it. That was in 1888. Now the port has reached quite large and substantial proportions. It has 226½ acres of deep water docks, extensive quays and sheds, modern cranes and modern handling facilities. It is also blessed with substantial dry docking facilities. Only last year a brand-new dry dock, 670 feet long and called the Duke of Edinburgh Dry Dock, was opened.
  With the industrial changes, we have changed the types of cargo shipped and imported. World demand has changed
  502
  for our coal supplies. Welsh coal is renowned throughout the world for its quality. The emphasis on copper has changed and now we are principally an oil importing centre. It is refined there and, in addition, we export the refined products.
  The Port of Swansea also has a very good general cargo trade. It is interesting to note that between 1938 and 1958 the figure has increased from 5½ million tons to 7 million tons a year. At one stage it rose to almost 11 million tons, but there has been a fall-back in the trade, partly due to a change in the industrial circumstances of the South Wales area, and also due to a recession caused by the closing down of tinplate mills and the general downward trend in the shipping industry.
  In South Wales the labour force is now working at about 75 per cent. capacity. It is an excellent labour force, with an excellent record of industrial peace. This is not entirely due to the fact that there have been no differences between employers and employees. It is also due to the fairness and speed with which the conciliatory machinery has worked. At the moment more and more industry is coming into South Wales, and we hope that that situation will continue. That industry will provide a greater need for our docks. Furthermore, we hope that the roads from the Midlands and London will provide us with more products for export. As a result of all this, I am sure that trade in the South Wales ports will increase. I strongly recommend Swansea and I hope that I will be forgiven for taking this chance of publicing it. I hope that people will look at it with more favour and will use it more often.
  As has been mentioned, before the war the dockers were employed upon a casual basis. Then the fixed minimum wage was introduced, bringing with it a much better basis of employment. The Bill enables the third important step to be taken. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) will not expect me to follow him in his arguments about the details of the pension scheme, because we do not know them fully. Nevertheless, the fact that the dock worker will now have a pension will greatly improve his status. The Bill is designed to permit the pension scheme to come into operation.

  503
  The dock industry comprises many small employers and many employees, and whereas ordinary industrial undertakings can arrange contracts and agreements between the various parties fairly easily, it would be difficult to arrange such an agreement in the dock industry which would enable all the workers to be brought in. Unless they are brought in, however, the scheme will not be an actuarial possibility. It must, therefore, be helped by the Bill. If it proves a success I am sure that large numbers of dockers will join.
  There is no doubt that when we want more labour in South Wales ports it will be necessary for the employers to be able to offer terms and conditions comparable with those of the major industries in the area. One of the most important factors enabling them to do that will be the pension. I am convinced that this pension scheme will enable employers to offer inducements, in wages and conditions, which will cause the ports to prosper.
  We must not overlook the fact that Great Britain has built up its greatness on exports, trade and commerce. For many years we have looked to the dockers to enable us to maintain that position. We depend upon our exports to live, and if our exports are to arrive in good condition and in good time they must have careful and expert handling at the docks. I like the Bill, because it will add to the status of the dockers who have kept the wheels of industry turning.
  7.44 p.m.
  Mr. Walter Edwards: I have been a Member of this House for over seventeen years, but this is the first time that I have had the privilege of extending a welcome to an hon. Member who has made his maiden speech. I have much pleasure in following the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Rees) on the occasion of his maiden speech. I made my maiden speech in 1942, when the subject was Service pay and allowances. I was then still serving in the Royal Navy, and I knew a good deal about the subject.
  The hon. Member has shown the House that he has paid a great deal of attention to the subject of the debate, and knows a lot about it. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will
  504
  join with me in congratulating him on his able speech, and in expressing the hope that we shall often hear from him in the future, on similar subjects and others of even wider scope.
  I want to speak in the debate because I can claim to be one of the few Members who has been employed as a casual dock labourer; indeed, I may be the only one. When I came out of the Royal Navy in 1923 there was not much work to be found, even for those coming out of the Services. One of my first jobs was that of a casual dock labourer, and I was glad to get it. In those days I had to be on call at a quarter to eight in the morning in the hope of getting four hours' work. If I did not get a job, I had to sign on again. Then, at a quarter to one in the afternoon, I had to be on call in the hope of getting four hours' work again. If I was unsuccessful I had to sign on again. If, in any week of six days, I did two and a half days' work, I received no unemployment benefit. That situation continued until decasualisation in 1939.
  This pension scheme has come not from the Ministry, but from the industry —from the unions—and I would like to tell the House a story which bears out what my right hon. Friend has said about Ernest Bevin. In 1935–36, when I was still a casual dock labourer, I happened to be a lay delegate to the London Short Sea Traders Joint Labour Board, composed of employers and dock labourers in the short sea trade industry. After a wage award Ernest Bevin was asked by the port employers to meet the board to try to answer the complaints of the employers concerning the failure of dockers to work late on Saturday nights and on Sundays.
  I had the privilege of attending that meeting, and I remember that Ernest Bevin told the employers two things. First, he said, "Look here, friends— don't you complain about the dockers not giving you all the facilities; you do something about giving them decent conditions and incentives". He then said, "See that we get rid of the shocking casual labour situation, and provide these men with some kind of a pension at the end of their working lives". Decasualisation has come about, and there is now a guaranteed wage if no work is available, but it is not a high wage. We are still a long way from being able

  505
  to say that decasualisation has meant that the dockers receive a decent weekly wage. It is something between unemployment benefit and a weekly basic wage. At any rate, it is an improvement on the old days, when a man had to be unemployed for three days in a week before he could get unemployment benefit.
  With what happened in the dock industry until the beginning of the war, and, in fact, until Ernie Bevin became Minister of Labour, one can see how important this is. Ernie Bevin's ambition was to see that the men who worked in the dock industry had something to look forward to instead of having to slave in the industry as they did in the 'twenties and 'thirties. This scheme will create a better atmosphere between workpeople and employers in the industry.
  The hon. Member for Swansea, West referred to the importance of the dock industry. If the country is to survive and keep its standards, as we want them kept, we must have a well balanced dock industry. Moreover, the workers in the industry must be satisfied with their conditions and the terms of employment. No Minister of Labour can say that he has been let down by trade union leaders representing the dockers.
  Since 1920 the leaders of the Dockers Section in the Transport and General Workers' Union have been great people like Ernest Bevin and Arthur Deakin, and today Frank Cousins. He as much as other leaders wants the country to become greater than it was twenty years ago. The Government and employers have had people with great experience of the industry to advise them on the best way to control the industry to help it to make a great contribution towards the economic future of the country. We have now reached a happy stage in dock relations and the House ought to congratulate the National Joint Council of Dock Labour for introducing a scheme whereby a Conservative Government could introduce a Bill which would enable the Labour Opposition to fall readily into line with the Government's proposals.
  We welcome the Bill. It is a great advance forward, but let us not forget that the economic life of the country depends on sensible joint consultation between employers and the trade unions on important matters such as this. There
  506
  are millions of people who are outside the benefits of pension schemes. The dockers are lucky to have been able to step in before some of the other workers. I express my appreciation to the Minister, his colleagues, and to the Department for the valuable assistance that they have given in seeing that the pension scheme comes into operation at the earliest possible opportunity, thus enabling the industry to function better than it has in the past both from the employers' point of view and that of the employees.
  7.55 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Tiley: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards) in welcoming the Bill. I do not wish to make a long speech. I will make only a short intervention in view of my interest in the House in pensions and because of the declaration which I have made so many times from these benches of my interest in pensions and insurance. I would not wish this occasion to pass without saying how pleased I am that circumstances have arisen in this industry whereby my right hon. Friend has been enabled to bring in a Bill so that a pension scheme for 70,000 dockers can be launched.
  I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Rees). I think all of us after making a maiden speech have very little idea of what we have said. When we read the OFFICIAL REPORT the next day we are delighted and this will apply in the case of my hon. Friend, because he has done two things. He has been loyal to his City and Port of Swansea, and he has done Swansea a bit of good in choosing this subject for his maiden speech. More than that, he has helped the dock workers of Swansea, and when they read his speech I am sure that they will be pleased that he chose this topic today.
  One other thing that happened to my hon. Friend that will not happen again during his career in this House is that he was able to make his maiden speech on a Bill of which he understood every word. In the five years that I have been here I have never seen a Bill in which two or three sentences were so clearly stated. It has not been necessary to see barristers, solicitors, the Cabinet, accountants, or any professional people, or to consult the Library. We have been able to understand the Bill. Indeed, it

  507
  is such an epic occasion that I wonder whether I ought to have the Bill autographed by Mr. Speaker and then frame it.
  It is not often that both sides of the House are as united as we are this evening. It is a happy occasion and it is pleasing to note that one of the odd occasions on which we are united on pensions is the occasion on which we are proposing to do something for the benefit of that great army of workers, the dockers. What a tribute it is to Ernest Bevin that 70,000 dockers in 1,100 separate entities are welded together in one pension scheme!
  When one reads the history of Ernest Bevin's life, it is a tribute to him that it has been possible to weld the dockers together in this Bill. I spent a large part of the Easter Recess reading the first part of the life of Ernest Bevin. When we think of the years between 1940 and 1945 we think of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), but when we think of the dockers throughout the history of this half century we shall think of the name of Ernest Bevin—a truly great man. Of course, the biography is written by a famous son of a famous city. I need hardly say that Alan Bullock is a Brad-fordian. He was educated at Bradford Grammar School, so I had a very great interest in reading the book.
  One of the things that has come about in all the pension debates which have taken place in this House during the last two or three years is the wider interest in the country in pension schemes for the ordinary chap at the lathe and at the bench. That has been engendered by the debates that have taken place in this House and those schemes were given an incentive by the booklet published by the Opposition two or three years ago entitled "National Superannuation", and by the Government's new Bill on pensions which comes into operation next year. It will be a very good thing if the example which has been set in this widely dispersed industry can be followed in industries like farming, which is so widely spread and diverse, and the building industry.
  I am sure that the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) will agree that when Ernest Bevin set out to establish
  508
  the first principle of a pension scheme for the dockers, almost a generation ago —and this is faithfully recorded in the biography by Alan Bullock—he did so with a view to curing the dreadful unemployment which was the scourge of the dockers and the whole country in those days. In other words, his thoughts were not on the benefits of a pension in retirement, but on a cure for unemployment in that the payment of £1 a week, which was what he wished to be paid, would allow older employees to leave the industry and so permit younger men to take their jobs.
  What a happy thing it is—and I am sure that Ernest Bevin would be very glad about the change if he were hereto see the completely different reason for the introduction of the Bill. Not for a moment is it suggested that the Bill is introduced as a cure for unemployment. It is introduced for the very thing for which pensions were invented and which can be stated in three simple words-happy old age.
  I do not wish to delay the House when it is so united, but I hope that the hon. Member for Stepney will allow me to say that, although he said that the scheme has been brought about by the unions, the greatest progress in pensions over the last forty years has come from employers themselves and almost all of the 40,000 schemes—
  Mr. W. Edwards: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there has been no incentive whatsoever from the port employers for a pension scheme and that they have been more or less forced by the unions in the industry to have such a scheme.
  Mr. Tiley: I accept that completely because the hon. Member has a much wider knowledge of this industry than I have, but perhaps he will allow me to say that in other industries great encouragement for these schemes has come from the employers.
  I am glad that the principle of the payment of a lump sum on retirement has been established in the scheme. If there is one omission from the Socialist national superannuation scheme it is that a man who had contributed to the pension fund all his working life, from 25 to 65, will find at the end of the day that all his savings are tied up in pension

  509
  only. It is a very good thing for people on retirement to have at least a moderate lump sum.
  I would like to ask my right hon. Friend one question. When the Government Actuary made his extensive review of pension schemes, he found about 40,000 in existence The majority are contributory and have therefore been introduced with deductions made from the weekly wage packet without the publication of a Bill to permit that deduction. It has been done merely by the employee signing a card containing, first, the statement, "I wish to join the scheme", and, secondly. "I agree to the deduction from my wage of the amount of the weekly contribution."
  It would be a very good thing if it could be made perfectly clear that that is a legal method of dealing with the deduction from the wage packet.
  Mr. Hugh Delargy: The hon. Member began by saying that this was the first Bill which he had understood word for word since first coming to the House five years ago. He welcomed the mention of a lump sum being given for the dockers. Where is that mentioned?
  Mr. Tiley: If the hon. Member had been in attendance throughout the whole of the proceedings—
  Mr. Delargy: I have the Bill before me.
  Mr. Tiley: Let me reply. I do not mind the interruption, but if the hon. Member had been with us all the time, he would have heard my right hon. Friend give the details of the scheme.
  Mr. Delargy: That does not answer the question.
  Mr. Tiley: Every hon. Member present knows where the £100 is coming from. It is not coming from Littlewoods, Vernons, or Premium Bonds. My right hon. Friend explained it at the beginning of the debate and if the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) reads HANSARD tomorrow he will find that that intervention was not necessary.
  I am very glad that the scheme is being launched and that my right hon. Friend has been able to bring the Bill to the House quickly. I hope that we shall
  510
  give it a speedy passage and that the new scheme will soon be able to start.
  8.6 p.m.
  Mr. Simon Mahon: I begin at a slight disadvantage compared with my hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards). All during my industrial life, when I have tried to adjudicate upon dockers' problems, the dockers have always reminded me that I was not a docker. I have always been at a disadvantage with dockers, and I have always had to start work half-an-hour before dockers. However, I have an advantage over my hon. Friend in that while he was in the Senior Service I served with the Royal Engineers and there had some experience of the great work which the dockers did.
  I must tell the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley) that we do not agree about the whole of this pensions scheme, and it would not take us very long to fall out with many people about its extent. What we completely agree with is the principle, for the first time in history, of giving dockers a pension.
  I welcome the Bill, but I must not get into the habit of congratulating the right hon Gentleman too frequently. Nevertheless, I am very pleased with him this evening for being able to introduce the Bill, and I am not being in the slightest churlish when I say that it is long overdue.
  If we are in the mood for being reminiscent, I can remember the first industrial composition which I wrote as a young scaler boy of 14 when I was taking a course in the Transport and General Workers' Union and wrote a thesis on the 1889 dockers' strike. I can remember doing a very great deal of research on that. What annoys me so much with the malcontents in the dock industry today is that many of them do not know the first thing about the history of the industry in which they are working. I suppose that few of them would believe that a great prelate of the Roman Catholic Church was a strike leader in 1889, Cardinal Manning, a contemporary of Cardinal Newman. He joined in the strike in 1889 for the famous "Docker's Tanner", along with great trade unionists like Tom Mann and Ben Tillett. That is all part of history, but it is an indication of how long someone has been most remiss in not bringing

  511
  dignity into the lives of those who work in this great industry.
  From the beginning of my working life I have appreciated that the greatest word in industry is "dignity". This pension scheme, small as it may be, will bring additional dignity into the lives of many men who have been deprived of it in this sense before.
  The Bill is to apply to pensions for dock workers, but "dock workers" is a rather ambiguous term. Anyone who knows a great port like Liverpool or London knows that the Bill will apply only to those people who are registered as National Dock Labour Board employees.
  "Dock workers" could be a misnomer. There might be many people in the country who are dock workers and have spent all their working lives on the docks who may think they will be included in this Bill. Every one of us in our turn have met people in employment on the docks who have spent, say, twenty-five years at sea and twenty-five years on the docks in one capacity or another outside the registration of dockers. After fifty years at sea and on the docks, working in the port, they find they are not covered by any type of industrial pension.
  It is not surprising to me, and never has been, as one born on the Liverpool dockside, that there has been great industrial trouble. What surprises me is that there has been so little. Once he gets a glimpse of what other people are getting in industry and in local government, it is no wonder that the dock labourer becomes annoyed and discontented. I am grateful to the Minister for giving an outline of this scheme. As has been pointed out, there is no mention of the scheme in the Bill. When we compare the figures in the scheme with pensions in local government and for the "lush" people in industry, we find that approximately 2s. 6d. is asked for from the dockers and 5s. from the employer so that an old man, who probably has spent all his life in the industry, gets a 10s. pension, whereas in industry a younger man will come out with 40s.
  Mr. Heath: Plus the lump sum.
  Mr. Mahon: Plus the lump sum. We should compare that with the police pension. Why should there be such a disparity between what the dock labourer gets in pension and what a policeman receives? Why should there be so much disparity between people in local government who come out with approximately two-thirds of their salary and a dock labourer, who has been doing arduous, difficult work and is doled out with a parsimonious pension? I am not blaming the Minister. He is clearing the way, and we are most grateful to him, but I hope this is the beginning of a new era and that the pension will be looked at and constantly increased.
  In industry, I always felt deprived of a sense of belonging. From the very first day I went into industry I felt I was de-personalised and not part of the great scheme, albeit that my great grandfather helped to build the docks in Liverpool. Only the money and those who owned it survived; the labour applied to the docks and its results died. We have to do something so that people may become personalised in the industry and belong to the industry. A pension can do that by giving a man a sense of belonging.
  Mention has been made of Ernest Bevin. Of all the men I have ever known he was the one I most revered. He was a friend of my father when de-casualisation came to Liverpool. That was a great landmark in our history, and things which helped, like holidays and sickness benefit facilities, were of course good, but in spite of that, we still have not achieved the good industrial relations which I want to see in the Port of Liverpool.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Rees) on the excellence of his maiden speech. He spoke of new industries coming to Swansea. There is a great change coming to Liverpool. We have been very fortunate in having six or seven new factories attracted to that industrial area. The acquisition of those factories came as a blessing to the whole port and will affect the whole society in Liverpool.
  When those firms come with their better pensions schemes it will behove those concerned to improve the dockers' scheme in order to meet the challenge

  513
  of competition for employment. Therefore, I not only welcome the scheme, but also the acquisition of Ford's, Vauxhall's and other factories, which, as the Minister of Labour told us, will bring 20,000 new jobs to Merseyside. I hope I live to see the day when that happens and when we have the prosperity which those things should bring, but we must have better industrial relations.
  There are people in Liverpool who have a vested interest in destroying good relationships. This cannot be said too often. They put political loyalty to the Communist Party above any loyalty they have for their fellow workers. This is one of the things I have spoken about for many a long day. It is no use bringing all these things into industry while we have these malcontents. One of the things I want to speak about is the need for a real attempt to bring into the Port of Liverpool the sort of relationship which can add to its greatness and which, when these new industries come, will mean that we shall have a higher degree of prosperity.
  Let us look at the condition for the Liverpool docks from the point of view of unity. The Transport and General Workers Union has played a great part in bringing this scheme to fruition. It is the only bona fide union for the organisation of dock labour within the scheme. By virtue of the difficulties we have had, there are at the moment three groups on the docks, the Transport and General Workers Union people, the "blue" union people—on whom I pass no comment— and another great group of people who have become disillusioned and have dropped out of any sort of trade union organisation. If this legislation is to be a success, it has to be operated by agreement and by people who join the pensions scheme maintaining themselves in it. Unless we are very careful, even this scheme could become a bone of contention for those who have that sort of mind and want to exploit that sort of situation one against another.
  I am sorry to bring a discordant note into these proceedings, but I have had a great deal of experience and have had my eyes opened to what these people will do. In Liverpool, we need unity of labour and getting back into the only organisation which is allowed to organise dock labour there. I want to give some words
  514
  of advice to the Transport and General Workers Union. Many things have happened. The "blue" union was born, maybe out of genuine discontent. There is always discontent and it can be exploited, but the discontent was genuine enough before the exploitation, which was wrong.
  Now, after five or six years, there is the desire for the whole working population to become one again. I want the Transport and General Workers Union to listen to my voice tonight. There is no more knowledgeable person in Liverpool on the question of labour problems than myself. I say that throwing humility to the winds. I have two or three generations of this experience behind me. The great desire is to get back into that union and to take full advantage of legislation of this kind.
  I want the Transport and General Workers' Union to declare an amnesty in respect of all the difficulties which have occurred and to throw the doors wide open again so that they will accept and admit those men who have been slightly recalcitrant in the past. That is the only way in which we can bring back unity to the docks, and, having brought back unity, can go further and further towards a greater dignity in this great industry.
  8.21 p.m.
  Mr. R. J. Mellish: I do not intend to delay the House unduly, but I wish to welcome, as others have welcomed, the introduction of the Bill. The words which my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Mahon) has just uttered are typical of a Member of the House whom we have come to respect and admire over the years. He always speaks with great knowledge and sincerity. I very much hope that the words which he used tonight will be read by all those to whom he addressed them, because any contribution which he can make towards solving the problems of the docks will be appreciated by all concerned.
  Much of what I shall say may appear to be repetition, but this is a unique occasion, because, for the first time in the history of dockland, we have the introduction of the possibilities of a pension scheme. That is what the Bill does; it is an enabling Bill, which means that through it a pension scheme can

  515
  be introduced. Some details have been given of this scheme, but it would be wrong for me to go into detail. I think that we may take it for certain that this is the first and not the last pension scheme for dockers. I am sure that other schemes will follow in its wake— and they will be better schemes.
  I know that I carry with me my hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards), who has a greater personal knowledge even than I have of this subject, when I pay tribute to some of those who have organised this pension scheme and battled against the most appalling difficulties. In particular, I pay tribute to Mr. O'Leary, the National Docks Secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union. I know how hard he has worked and the months of time that he has given to the job.
  One of the problems in the introduction of this scheme has not been the lack of good will on the part of many of the big employers, but the fact that in this industry there are many small employers. The Minister quoted a figure of 1,100 employers in the scheme, the vast majority of whom are very small. The trouble in dealing with this great body of men is that many of these employers, even if they had the good will, have not had the necessary cash. To launch a scheme of this kind without financial stability at the beginning of it was tremendously difficult, and that is why it has taken certain people many hours to get it under way. This is only a beginning.
  Hon. Members have mentioned Ernest Bevin. I am young compared with them in their knowledge of the docks, but I, too, worshipped Ernest Bevin. He represented the best of the Labour and the trade union movements. When we lost Ernest Bevin we lost a great House of Commons man and a great Briton. He would certainly have been pleased to know that at long last we have this pension scheme, although I suspect that some of his remarks about certain aspects of it would have been a little caustic.
  There is one other person I want to mention who was associated with the scheme and did a lot of work for it— George Isaacs. He introduced the de-casualisation proposals which had been
  516
  initiated earlier by Ernest Bevin. George Isaacs will be pleased to know that this scheme has come about. He was always a very great friend of the dock worker, although he himself was not a docker. No docker could have had a better friend than George Isaacs, and we in the Labour Party could not have had a better Member of Parliament than we had in him throughout the many years that he was in the House. He was a first-class Minister of Labour. He had a wonderful fund of humour. We can send a message to George Isaacs tonight that this Bill is a Bill which he would have been proud to introduce.
  Comments have been made about the dockers of yesteryear. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle in what he said about the docker of today and about the fact that there is now a dignity with the job. It is no longer the custom to describe the docker in almost scathing terms. We have heard from hon. Members opposite tributes properly paid to the importance of the docker in the nation's economy. That importance needs to be stressed a little more often. Each and every person in the industry has his contribution to make.
  I cannot go back to the times which my hon. Friend the Member for Stepney mentioned; I remember these things only as a youngster. As my hon. Friends have said, in the past they saw some very hard days. There were times when some sections of society regarded it as almost shameful to be a dock worker. Thank goodness, we have moved away from those days when the dockers were not expected to have dignity and were always expected to accept casual employment as part of their lot.
  Recently, I had a discussion with a man who is regarded as a very progressive employer in dockland and he was complaining bitterly that a number of strikes which had taken place in his firm were not his responsibility. He said that they had been created in other firms and for other reasons, but the next thing he knew was that the men on his wharf were on strike, although it had nothing to do with him. He complained about this bitterly and he said, "One of the problems here is that these men do not seem to owe me any loyalty." I said to him, "What do you expect? You cannot expect men to be loyal to a firm

  517
  which one day wants 150 workers and the next day wants only 10. If you discharge 140 men the next day as being unimportant and unwanted, you cannot expect loyalty. You cannot treat human beings like that."
  If we are talking about dignity and loyalty, we must think of this pension scheme and remember that this is one way in which there can be stability in the dock industry. The dockers must have the things about which Ernest Bevin dreamed in the early days. It must be an industry in which the man who starts on Monday morning knows that he has security of employment and decent treatment, in which there is stability and in which the man is not put aside at the end of the day. This is only the tail-end of the kind of conditions which Ernest Bevin tried so hard to achieve.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stepney was quite right to say that we talk of decasualisation as if it means that no longer have we any of the problems of yesteryear. There still are problems, because in spite of the great efforts of the trade unions the minimum wage of these men is still not high enough. It still leaves room for complaint in dockland. That is not the fault of the unions.
  I will tell the House what I should like to see in dockland. I say this on my own responsibility, and neither the unions nor any other Member of the House is involved in what I say. What I should like to see for this great industry is a few employers and every man employed in the docks a permanent, regular man, with holidays with pay and with a first-class pension scheme. This can be done only when the employers are limited in number and they have the resources and power which are needed in the industry.
  Hon. Members who go to Germany can see the wonderful docks at Hamburg. They were built by the State, but much of them was wiped out during the war. The conditions under which many of our men work today cannot be compared with those at Hamburg. That is not the fault of the dock workers and, in a way, it is not the fault of the employers because, to be frank, the employers have not had enough capital.
  One day the Government will accept responsibility for the reorganisation and rationalisation of our own docks indus-
  518
  try. If we are to compete with the foreigners, we cannot go on in the way we have gone on during the last few decades, with a docks industry which, to a large extent, is out of date. This scheme is a beginning. Those concerned with bringing it forward deserve every credit. I should be the last to criticise any detail of the scheme, because I know how hard everyone concerned has worked to achieve it. However, I wish to ask one question.
  The Minister said that a lump sum was to be payable. I understood that it was to be payable to the older man—the 10s. man—and that he would get £100. Then I understood the Minister to say, when he interrupted my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle, that the £100 would be paid in any case. What is the position about that?
  Mr. Heath: The £100 lump sum applies to the 10s. pensioner at the first stage of the scheme. At the other end of the scheme, the £2 man will not get the £100 lump sum.
  Mr. Mellish: I am obliged. That is my understanding. It is right that that should go on record, otherwise the word will go out from the House that everyone contributing to the scheme is to get the lump sum, and we do not want to start the scheme with a misunderstanding like that. I am only too glad to join in with a warm welcome for the introduction of the Bill.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. A. C. Manuel: I also want to give a warm welcome to the Bill and congratulate the Minister on bringing it forward at this time. It is a very modest start. With the passage of time there is bound to be improvement of the scheme from this initial start. I am delighted whenever another body of workers is brought within the ambit of a pension scheme. Millions of workers are still retiring from their employment with no pension available to them.
  These distinctions among workers are bad. It is iniquitous, because one is conniving at a situation in which many families, after the wage earner retires, have to undergo a reduced standard of living as compared with other workers who have managed, through the organisation of their trade union, to get a pension scheme started, even if on a modest scale.

  519
  I feel that the scheme will improve and that dock workers will think that this is a very big occasion indeed. My hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) represent many more dock workers than I do, but there are several small ports and harbours in my constituency where registered dock labourers are employed. Consequently, I want to be associated with the welcome which has been expressed to the Bill.
  I think that the Bill applies to Scotland. The name of one of the Joint Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland is appended to the Bill. The hon. Gentleman was sitting with us on the Government Front Bench until a minute or two ago. I do not know if he departed from the Chamber because I rose to speak, but I hope that he will return to answer my points, because I do not want to embarrass the Minister of Labour with small Scottish points. The right hon. Gentleman should not have to answer those points when the name of a Scottish Minister appears on the Bill.
  There has been no great publicity of the inauguration of the pension scheme. Is there complete unanimity in Scotland among the employing agencies in the ports and docks? I do not know just how strong the employers' organisation is who control dock workers in Scotland. Some of the harbours are very small, but there are harbour boards and dockers are employed. May I have an assurance that, even though they are small in comparison with the other docks mentioned tonight, the men employed there are within the ambit of the Bill?
  I understood the Minister to say that 70 years is the age when men retire with a lump sum of £100 and a pension of 10s. a week, but is there to be any measure of agreement about elasticity in regard to age according to local circumstances? When we talk about £2 a week, do we refer to a definite period of years, or is there a graduated scale, according to years of service, to apply to men retiring after the start of the scheme?
  I believe that this is a voluntary scheme. Can the Minister tell us anything about the method of ascertaining the numbers who may want to join it? I suppose that the vast majority of the men
  520
  will want to come in, but I would like to be assured that some definite invitation will be circulated in the pay packets, so that every docker can understand the scheme and can sign an application form, which should also be enclosed.
  Although we have no Scottish Member present at this moment, the right hon. Gentleman knows about these small Scottish harbours, ports and docks that are doing very good work. I want to endorse what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Stepney; in promoting a scheme like this we are doing much to bolster and strengthen a section of industry that has a great and close connection with our export trade.
  The hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Rees) mentioned this in a maiden speech, on which I congratulate him. The better the facilities we can provide at our docks, harbours and ports the better will the goods be taken care of, and they will be delivered in better condition than they would be with a dissatisfied force. That is much better for this country and its trade. I hope that the entire scheme will apply to Scotland, England and Wales, no matter what the size of the port.
  I believe that Northern Ireland is excluded. Is that because the people there already have a pensions scheme? If they have not got such a scheme, where are all the Northern Ireland Members tonight? Why are they not asking about it? In their constituencies they have vast docks and great numbers of dock workers, and they must have some interest in an occasion like this—
  Mr. Mellish: They have 7 per cent. unemployment there, too.
  Mr. Manuel: I understand that in the dock areas of certain parts of Northern Ireland unemployment is running at the rate of 7 per cent. or 8 per cent. If there is not a pensions scheme there, and the reason is lack of co-operation by some bodies in Northern Ireland, I hope that the Minister will take what steps are possible—
  Mr. Heath: The 1946 Act itself does not apply to Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Manuel: Where there is a will there is a way. Quite apart from this being an enabling Bill stemming from the 1946 Act, if we willed a scheme like

  521
  this for Northern Ireland dockers we would see that they got it in some way or other. If the Minister now says that he is concerned about the dock workers and the port authorities of Northern Ireland being brought into line with those at the Welsh, English and Scottish ports and will later introduce a Bill to that end, I congratulate him, and wish him every success.
  8.40 p.m.
  Dr. Horace King: It would be ungenerous if I did not welcome this enabling Bill and express the thanks of the Southampton dockers to the Minister for it, especially as my colleague in Southampton, the hon. Member for the Test Division (Mr. J. Howard), is the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary, and, by the etiquette of the House, is debarred from joining in welcoming the Bill.
  This is, indeed, the beginning of something very worth while. My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Mahon) compared the provisions which arise from this enabling Bill with those which obtain for the police and local government workers. The fundamental difference, it seems to me, is that this enables employer and employee to make contributions to a superannuation fund, whereas in the other kind of superannuation fund the Government make a contribution. I hope that the day will come when dock workers and. indeed, all workers will enjoy the kind of superannuation to look forward to in their old age that is enjoyed by millions of people in the professions.
  It is worth while, on this occasion, reminding ourselves how much we owe to the dockers of Britain. In wartime, we could not have survived but for the work that was done by the men at the docks. In peacetime, we could not have built up our export trade but for the dock workers. Tomorrow, I shall be speaking outside the dock gates in Southampton, as I have done every year for the last thirty-five years on municipal election day, and as this Bill is before the House I am reminded of the very different kind of audiences that I have had outside Southampton dock gates during these thirty-five years. I am reminded, too, of how decasualisation has come and— much more important—how labour relations have improved. This Measure is
  522
  the produce of gool labour relationships between good employers, on the one hand, and responsible union leadership, on the other.
  As I said, this is only a beginning. While it is true that there are officially and regularly engaged in the docks about 70,000 workers who will benefit from the Bill, outside Southampton Docks every day this week and, indeed, during the last two years, early in the mornings, men have been waiting to be taken on as casual labour—standing in all weathers without any kind of protection. I have raised this matter with the Minister on previous occasions, and I hope that the present Minister will do all he can to extend the principle of decasualisation until it applies to every worker who is associated with the docks. I regard this Bill as a step forward in the advance towards the conception of the dignity of human labour, and I hope that it will extend in a number of spheres as the years go by.
  It is worth while, in a House of Commons which is paying tribute to that greatest of trade union leaders, that great servant of Britain and of the dock workers, Ernie Bevin, to recognise that we could not have achieved this modest beginning of superannuation for the dock workers if it had not been for the organisation that the dock workers have built up during the last fifty years in the trade union movement, and the great leaders which that movement has produced. I congratulate the Minister on introducing a really worth-while Bill.
  8.44 p.m.
  Mr. R. E. Prentice: This has been a debate consisting of a number of short speeches all of which have welcomed the Bill, and I, too, wish to be brief in welcoming it.
  I should like, first of all, to add my congratulations to those that have been extended to the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Rees) on his maiden speech. I think he observed all the traditions connected with a maiden speech, including the tradition of being non-controversial. If he had been controversial he might have added another cause to the list of causes connected with the decline of trade in the South Wales ports. He might have added the policy of the Government to the list of causes But perhaps it would not be in

  523
  keeping with the spirit of the situation if I were to talk about that.
  A number of my hon. Friends have spoken on the Bill—hon. Members with experience of the dock industry and representing dockland constituencies. I cannot help feeling that, to some extent, it has been a field day for members of the Transport and General Workers' Union in the House. As one of those, I am glad to score that point, although, of course, we have not had quite a closed shop and other hon. Members have joined in.
  Several hon. Members have referred to Ernest Bevin. I am now reading Alan Bullock's life of the late Ernest Bevin, and I do not think that anyone reading that book could fail to be impressed by Bevin's very long struggle for the dock worker and by the tremendous gifts he brought to it. One is impressed, also, by the essential difficulties of his task in the dock industry because of the way in which its fortunes have been so sensitive to the general trade level and the tremendous human cost in dockland of every fall in our trade and what this has meant for the people concerned.
  As one reads the story, one realises how long it took to have the principles of a dock register and a basic minimum wage accepted in the industry. Yet, while he was fighting for those things, Bevin brought in the idea of a pension for dock workers. I agree, therefore, with all those who have said that he would have been glad to know that a start at long last was being made.
  I have two personal reasons for welcoming the Bill. As a member for some years of the staff of the Transport and General Workers' Union, I was concerned in arguing the cases of dockers, among others, who suffered industrial accidents. Of course, the House will not need to be reminded that the dock industry has a much higher accident rate than the average. In doing that work, one was always conscious of the fact that if, for various legal reasons, one failed to obtain proper compensation for an injured docker, he was in a particularly bad position because of the lack of any satisfactory pension scheme in the industry. In that sense, the docker was worse off than some other workers. My other personal reason for being glad
  524
  to make a brief contribution to this debate is that I represent a dockland constituency and several constituents have written to me since I was elected and emphasised the need for a pension scheme in the docks.
  My own view of the pension scheme itself is that it is a modest one, and, from the ideal point of view, too modest. One would like to see the scheme going much further than it does. However, in saying that, I feel that we should give credit to the people who fought for it and negotiated it, and we must recognise the difficulties of an industry with more than 1,100 firms involved in the scheme.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) said that this should be a first pension scheme and we look forward to our sights being raised in the future, the union asking for more and the employing side granting more. We hope that we shall have a much more ambitious pension scheme for dock workers in the years to come. The very fact that this scheme has been brought in at all, I think, is a sign of the relatively good relations which exist in the dock industry today compared with relations at several times since the war. This is something which we all welcome.
  The Bill provides that the Truck Acts shall not apply in respect of this scheme. My first comment on that echoes what my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) said—it shows the extent to which the Truck Acts are out of date and it illustrates once more the need for overhaul of this legislation. I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary can give us any more news about progress being made by the Karmel Committee and if, or when, we can expect any Government decision about new legislation to deal with the matter.
  My second comment is this. The Minister told us that this was one of a series of Bills which would be necessary to amend the Truck Acts in order to bring in a pension scheme for manual workers. He referred to the Port of London Authority and certain of the nationalised industries which were involved. What really impresses me is that the list is still a very short one. In fact, the bulk of manual workers in this country are not yet covered by proper pension schemes.

  525
  The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley) spoke about the spread of pension schemes. There has been a spread, but it has very largely been a spread among black-coated workers and manual workers in nationalised industries. The spread has not very much affected the manual worker in private industry. The very fact that the Truck Acts have not needed to be amended more on this point is an indication of that. Indeed, when there is a pension scheme for manual workers, and this applies to the one we are considering today, it is usually a much more modest scheme—too modest—compared with the pension schemes for black-coated workers.
  We should remind ourselves that this scheme for dock workers will be in addition to the Government's own supplementary pensions to be introduced next year. I cannot resist saying that it is a comment on the inadequacy of the Government's supplementary pensions. Their supplementary pensions are to supplement the basic pension and this is to supplement that pension, but it still will not provide the dock worker with a total pension as large as he is entitled to have.
  Mr. Mellish: There was a delay in the finality of the scheme because of the General Election. If the Labour Party had been returned as the Government of the day, this scheme would never have come before us because our national scheme would have been accepted.
  Mr. Prentice: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for helping me to make my last point. We on this side of the House believe that everybody should have a decent superannuation scheme. We had in mind the introduction of a national superannuation scheme to cover all those who do not have a proper scheme at work. Unfortunately, we are delayed for a period of a year or two at least in putting that into operation. Meanwhile we must welcome any private scheme that begins to make some provision for workers hitherto left out. We regard this as a beginning, welcome it as such, and hope that in due course in the dock industry and other industries there will be really ambitious pension schemes for the manual workers.
  8.52 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Peter Thomas): My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley) said that it was not often that the House was so united on the subject of pensions. I should like to keep it as united as possible. I am sure that the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) will forgive me if I do not follow him in the fascinating matters he introduced at the end of his speech.
  It is not my intention to speak at any length, but I should like to take the opportunity, at the end of this pleasant debate, to thank all hon. Members who have spoken for the very warm welcome they have given to this small but, I think every one will agree, important Bill. It has received the approval and commendation of every hon. Member who has spoken.
  I join with those hon. Members who have congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Rees) on his maiden speech. It is a delight to me to do so, because I was in Swansea yesterday and I know the constituency he represents so well. I think it is the general feeling of the House that he did justice to his constituency in his first speech in this Chamber. It is very appropriate that he should have chosen this Bill; first, because it was non-controversial and, also, because it is a Bill which I am sure will commend itself to many of my hon. Friend's constituents. I think it can be said that although there may have been difficulties experienced in the ports of South Wales, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Ham, North said, nevertheless there is a future for the port of Swansea. I am delighted that my hon. Friend was able to refer to this great port and area in his maiden speech.
  There are one or two matters which perhaps I should mention on points put forward by hon. and right hon. Members. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) paid tribute, as indeed did so many hon. Members, to the late Ernest Bevin. It is right that I should pay tribute as well, not only to that very great trade union leader and statesman, but also to the many people who over many years have co-operated in order to bring about the situation that obtains in the docks today.

  527
  The right hon. Member for Blyth posed one or two questions about the pensions scheme. As he rightly said, it would not be proper for us to go into the merits or demerits of the scheme, which is a scheme proposed by the industry itself. However, I have made certain enquiries into the points he raised. As the right hon. Gentleman suggested, it is not intended that there should be a sinking fund, but I am informed that any person who is regarded as a genuine docker and who has been in the industry for twelve months can join the scheme. After he has joined, if a dock worker who has been in the industry for 12 months reaches the age of 65, having made one or two payments, he would, if he retired, be immediately entitled to the 10s. a week pension plus the lump sum of £100.
  The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the reduction of the register. I am told that, in the event of someone leaving the industry, provision is made for the contribution to be either transferred or paid back to him at 3½ per cent. compound interest.
  The hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards), in a speech which was most interesting, because he spoke from experience, referred to the difficulties of the past when people were engaged in casual work at the docks. I think he would be the first to agree that the provision of a pension is a tremendous advance. As I see it, a pension emphasises, possibly more than anything, the permanent character of the employment and also security of the employment.
  Mr. W. Edwards: Surely the Parliamentary Secretary realises that I emphasised the importance of the pension, but at the same time I said that it has not come as a result of Government action but as a result of pressure on the part of the unions in the dock industry.
  Mr. Thomas: I have not for a moment suggested that the pension has come as a result of Government action. It has come as a result of concerted action in the industry. The national joint council of the industry has prepared the scheme, and it has asked us whether we would introduce this Bill because it was somewhat concerned about the operation of the Truck Acts. I do not think that my
  528
  right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour attempted to take any credit for the pension scheme. I certainly do not do so.
  The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Mahon) said that he was somewhat concerned about the inadequacy of the pension scheme. I am sure that he will agree, however, that it would not be right for me to comment on that point. The hon. Member for East Ham, North was right when he spoke on this matter. The scheme will not be contracted out of the graduated part of the new National Insurance scheme, which will come into force in April next year. The benefits of the scheme will be additional to the full graduated retirement pensions. I also hope that the Bill will contribute in some measure to better industrial relations and to better harmony among the unions. I hope that in the great city of Liverpool it will have some effect of that sort.
  The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) paid tribute to those who have brought about the scheme. He mentioned particularly Mr. O'Leary. I, too, pay tribute to Mr. O'Leary and others on both sides of the industry who have worked hard and have brought about a scheme which, I hope, will be of far reaching effect.
  I do not know whether I can answer all the questions of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel). He asked whether the Scottish employers would be behind the scheme. I am informed that the majority of Scottish employers are members of the National Association of Port Employers, which certainly is 100 per cent. behind the scheme.
  The hon. Member also asked about the retirement age. It is 65 and not 70, as the hon. Member thought. As the hon. Member said, it is a graduated scheme, but it is not voluntary. It is a compulsory scheme. It is voluntary inasmuch as people at present in the industry can join if they wish, but once they have joined they cannot contract out. New entrants to the register are compelled to join.
  Mr. W. Edwards: The Parliamentary Secretary has said that the retirement age is 65. I do not want to go into the details of the scheme, and I do not consider it right and proper to do so until

  529
  they have been before the trade union delegate conference. Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree that to the public or to the dockers it might appear to be a mistake to say that the retirement age is 65, because, from what I understand, the £100 gratuity goes to those dockers now working who are aged 70 and over. I do not know whether that is correct.
  Mr. Thomas: It may be. I can only give the House what I have been told. I am told that the benefits are, first, retirement pensions, at the age of 65 or over, varying between 10s. per week plus £100 lump sum at one end of the scale and 40s. a week at the other end; secondly, ill-health retirement benefits and pensions, and thirdly, death benefits. These are intended to be additional to what may be received under the State scheme, and there is provision for transfer to and from private schemes. That is all the information I have. Clearly, one cannot go in detail into a scheme of this sort, because it will have to be worked out in the industry. In opening the debate, however, my right hon. Friend referred to the scheme and a number of questions have been asked, and I can only give the House what little information I have.
  Mr. Manuel: The point I was making was that it was voluntary for existing registered dockers. The fault is mine if I did not make myself clear.
  Mr. Thomas: The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire asked about Northern Ireland. As my right hon. Friend said when he intervened, the scheme operates by virtue of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1946,
  530
  which does not apply to Northern Ireland. So far as any legislation of this sort is either desirable or necessary, it is a matter for the Northern Ireland Parliament and not for this Parliament.
  The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) said that the scheme was a step forward in the conception of the dignity of human labour. We agree with that. The debate has shown a desire on the part of the House to facilitate the introduction of a pension scheme in the dock industry. As has been said, it will be a notable achievement to cover by a single scheme so many manual workers. It is true that existing dock workers will have the option of joining or staying out, but the option will extend to over 70,000 registered dock workers, as my right hon. Friend said. Whatever proportion chooses to join in the first instance—the whole House will hope that it will be a high proportion—it will certainly increase as the years go by as membership of the scheme is to be compulsory for new entrants to the industry.
  The Bill is intended for a simple purpose, and we have endeavoured to draft it in a simple way. It is gratifying to know that it has the general approbation of all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate and I am sure that the House will be delighted to give it a Second Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Brooman-White.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  HIRE-PURCHASE AND CREDIT SALES
  9.5 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Hire-Purchase and Credit Sale Agreements (Control) Order, 1960 (S.I., 1960. No. 762), dated 27th April, 1960, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th April, be annulled.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to speak to all three Motions, namely, in addition, the Motions
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Control of Hiring Order, 1960 (S.I., 1960, No. 763), dated 27th April, 1960, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th April, be annulled.
  and
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Control of Hiring (Rebates) Order, 1960 (S.I., 1960, No. 764), dated 27th April, 1960, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th April, be annulled.
  and have a vote on each?
  Mr. Jay: If that is agreeable to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it will be convenient to us.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that it would be convenient for the House to take all three Motions together.
  Mr. Jay: My right hon. Friends and I have put down this Prayer tonight against the Government's new hire-purchase restrictions because we do not believe that the House should let these restrictive Orders pass without some protest against the rather opportunist and cynical fashion in which the economic policy of the Government is being conducted at present. If there is really no connection at all between the rather sudden plunges from restriction to expansion and then from expansion to restriction in the Government's policy, on the one hand, and the dates of General Elections on the other, I must say that the coincidence has been rather remarkable over recent years.
  In 1955 we had an election following a Budget of largesse in May, followed by the Home Secretary's famous restrictive Budget in October. This time we
  532
  had an election in October and we have a bout of new restrictions now in May, just six months later in either case between the electoral largesse, on the one hand, and the hang-over on the other. The coincidence is rather striking. I hope that it does not mean that British industry must go through another three years or so of stagnation before we have an expansionist move a few months before some future election. I know that the Government do not use the word "hang-over". The fashionable word is "overstrain" to describe the malady from which we are now supposed to be suffering, but I think that the meaning is very much the same.
  I know that the President of the Board of Trade is in the habit of asking us on this side of the House whether we think restraint unnecessary now or that expansion was unnecessary a year ago. Our answer is that the expansion should have come earlier, in the earlier months of 1958 and not in the earlier months of 1959. Looking back over this story now, it is perfectly obvious that the 1959 Budget should have come in the spring of 1958 when the stagnation in our economy was just as intense and when, incidentally, the overseas prospect was a good deal easier. But the Chancellor refused to do in the spring of 1958 what the national welfare demanded. He was perfectly ready to do it in the spring of 1959 when it suited the electoral convenience of the party opposite —and in opportunism the present Chancellor has very little to learn from the Home Secretary.
  However, having now got the country into economic difficulties again, no doubt some restraint must be applied. We would not deny that. In asking the Government to consider whether the Orders now before us are the right sort or restraint, the House might well recall what the Radcliffe Committee on the Working of the Monetary System, benefiting incidentally by the Home Secretary's misfortunes in 1955, had to say about this business of controlling hire purchase. The Radcliffe Committee thought, first of all, that when a Government resorted to these emergency restrictions, as it called them, a pause—that means a pause in the Government's rake's progress—ought to be enforced by what the Committee called an "established convention" which might

  533
  or might not have legislative expression. It said that
  "… the imposition of the emergency controls . should be made the occasion for a debate in Parliament."
  We have at least the authority of the Committee in initiating this debate tonight. Then Lord Radcliffe and his colleagues said:
  "We name these three as the channels to be controlled in emergency … bank advances, capital issues and consumer credit …"
  The Committee defined emergencies against which these weapons should be used, in its opinion, as either a catastrophic slump or a headlong inflation—and even the threat of headlong inflation was to be regarded as an emergency—and went on to recommend the Chancellor to do what he is now doing.
  I am intrigued to see that these three Orders contain the word "emergency". There, at any rate, the President of the Board of Trade is in harmony with the Radcliffe Committee. Nevertheless, I am surprised to find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade are afraid of headlong inflation at this stage. The language of the Budget speech a month ago did not sound quite as gloomy as that. That is the type of emergency for which the Radcliffe Committee recommended this particular medicine.
  So impartial a Committee as that would never have called the situation "post-electoral hang-over" or anything of that kind. I know that the Chancellor likes to use the word "overstrain" at the moment to describe the disease from which we are suffering. One of the difficulties of this particular treatment for overstrain, that is to say, a sudden stepping-up of hire-purchase restrictions, is that one hits rather hard, every few months, particular industries, mainly engineering in the present case.
  These industries are expected—and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) will agree that this affects the motor vehicle industry—to step up production at a great rate and then to damp it down. The President may say that it does not matter at the moment in the case of the motor vehicle industry because there is a booming export demand. I hope that he is quite sure that there will be no unfortunate
  534
  consequences on the motor expansions on Merseyside and in the North which we all want to see.
  Is he quite sure that no damage will be done to any other industries, like furniture and household equipment, which have not so large and thriving an export trade? The Radcliffe Committee said on this point that as a result of the sudden use of hire-purchase restrictions, certain industries had become what it called "residuary legatees" in the economy and it was apropos of this point that it used these famous words:
  "This is no gentle hand on the steering wheel which keeps a well-driven car on the road."
  The Chancellor may argue that these restrictions are so moderate that they will not have any effect at all. I noticed that at Question Time yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade defended some of the banking restrictions on the ground that they would not really produce any effect on anything. If that is the Government's argument I do not know what all the fuss is about. If they are to have some effect and if we are to hit, rather hard and suddenly, particular industries, I find the Government's priorities, as exemplified in the principal Order, rather hard to understand.
  Will the President of the Board of Trade explain why a down payment of only 10 per cent. is required for jewellery, whereas one of 20 per cent. is required for refrigerators and sewing machines? Does this mean that the Government regard refrigerators as less necessary than jewellery? Why should there be a 10 per cent. down payment for domesic cookers, and a 20 per cent. payment for washing and drying machines? I cannot understand that. Further, there is a 20 per cent. payment for dishwashers and a 10 per cent. payment for sink units, baths and basins. What is the economic, social, financial or even political reason for these apparently subtle distinctions?
  Now that these Orders are before the House, now that the hire-purchase debt has risen to over £900 million, and the principle of some sort of public regulation of hire purchase is admitted, by the very existence of the Orders, I wonder whether the Government should not be taking rather more responsibility for protecting the consumer and purchaser of

  535
  hire-purchase goods against the minority of rather dubious and rapacious firms which seem to have jumped on the band wagon of the hire-purchase boom in the past two years. On the whole it is the poorer and, very often, the less legally and financially expert purchaser who buys his household equipment on hire purchase, and there is a good deal of evidence that some of the old scandals in this matter are continuing, despite recent legislation.
  I should like to mention some of the rates of interest which are now being charged. We all know what happens. A potential unwary purchaser is told that the rate of interest is 7 per cent., 10 per cent., or whatever it may be, but this very often does not allow for the fact that the price is partly reduced by the initial deposit and that the debt diminishes steadily over the period of repayment. Can the right hon. Gentleman deny that in this way interest rates as high as 20 per cent., 25 per cent., and 30 per cent. are still being charged by hire-purchase companies, very often to people of small means and very little knowledge of what is going on?
  Some city firms—generally the smaller ones—are openly advertising and offering 7 per cent. to the public for deposits for funds which they say will be used for what they call industrial finance. I am advised by connoisseurs of this sort of thing that that amounts to hire-purchase trading. One is bound to point out that if these firms can offer 7 per cent. to depositors they must be taking a good deal from their customers, even after paying their own expenses.
  I should like to give the right hon. Gentleman particulars of a case which has been brought to my attention. A bicycle was offered for sale for £22 10s. cash or £27 9s. by easy payments—in other words, hire purchase. If the purchaser bought the bicycle by easy payments he paid a deposit of £3, followed by £24 9s. paid back over two years. That meant that he paid approximately £8 in interest or £4 a year. Allowing for the diminution of the debt over that period, the rate of interest appears to work out at about 33⅓ per cent. When my informant protested he was told that
  536
  bicycles were always sold in that way nowadays and that the dealer could do nothing about it.
  Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Nobody seeks to deny that these practices exist. I think every hon. Member will agree that they are extortionate and much higher than moneylending rates. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no attempt has been made to control interest rates on hire-purchase transactions, and that his Government between 1945 and 1951 made no such attempt? Is he now advocating that that should be done?
  Mr. Jay: The hon. Gentleman probably knows better than I that the Moneylenders Acts which set some maximum limits to some rates of interest in certain cases are still on the Statute Book. I was proposing to suggest to the President of the Board of Trade that he might consider whether there should be some legislative maximum for rates of interest charged in hire-purchase cases. That is a suggestion at which we ought to look when we are controlling hire purchase in these Orders.
  That is not the only sort of abuse for which there is evidence at the present time. There are also cases, of which particulars have been given to me, where innocent people, in spite of existing legislation, are invited at the doorstep to make a down payment, to sign a legal document and to wait for the goods to turn up. In one instance brought to my notice the result was the arrival of a television set which was extremely old and which did not work. When the purchaser tried to get in touch with the firm he found that nobody was to be found at the address in question.
  In two other cases a charming individual—and the same phrase was used in both cases—called at the house and by the time he had left the unfortunate housewife had been induced to sign a contract which she entirely failed to understand, but which it was afterwards discovered imposed a very heavy debt on her and her husband. Yet there is nothing in the Orders which we are discussing tonight which will do anything to correct any abuse of that kind.
  Do not the Government think that some more protection is necessary when this kind of thing is going on? After

  537
  all, since 1938 this House has recognised the need for some legislation to protect the customer in the case of hire purchase. Tonight we are giving approval, or not giving approval, to three new Orders involving Government regulation, and this House passed the Advertisement (Hire Purchase) Act, 1957, which was supposed to correct some of the admitted abuses. It is clear, however, that that Act, although it was published as recently as 1957, does not cover all the trouble. Incidentally, my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) showed this very clearly in a speech in this House on 15th July last when he described the practice of a certain Scottish company which had succeeded in getting round the provisions of that Act.
  Is the President of the Board of Trade sure that in the matter of hire-purchase advertising the 1957 Act is being effectively enforced? How many prosecutions have been started under that Act since it was passed in 1957?
  Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I supported that Bill when it was introduced. I do not know how many prosecutions have or have not been undertaken under that Act, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that it has had a most salutary effect. It has led to a number of trade associations warning their members that if they went into this illicit practice they would be in trouble. The Act has had excellent effects.
  Mr. Jay: This afternoon I read the hon. Gentleman's speech in which he supported the Bill, and I am glad to hear that the Act has had some effect, but it still remains true that the President of the Board of Trade has frequently in the last two years been asked how many prosecutions have been brought under that Act, and I have not been able to discover that he has given any convincing answer.
  In view of the evidence that comes to one, it does not seem that even now the Government are doing anything like enough to protect the consumer from the more dubious members of this trade. I should have thought that, at a time when all the big banks have found it necessary themselves to go into hire-purchase finance, the President of the Board of Trade would find that many reputable firms would welcome action to clear up
  538
  and clean up some of the things which are going on. There are undoubtedly reputable hire-purchase firms in the City of London which would like some of these abuses to be corrected
  If I may take the intervention of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) as a text, why not have legislation setting a maximum at least on the rate of interest charged in hire-purchase deals?
  Mr. Nabarro Mr. Nabarro rose—
  Mr. Speaker: I can see that the debate may wander wider than I should allow. I like listening to the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and to the interventions in his speech, but I have some difficulty in seeing how in the discussion of these three Orders we can get into the realm of the necessity for other legislation. I should like to be assisted about that.
  Mr. Jay: I see the difficulty, but I was led—
  Mr. Nabarro: With respect, Mr. Speaker, you were not in the Chair when I intervened on this matter. I did not recommend legislation to deal with interest rates on hire-purchase transactions. I drew attention to the impossibility of enforcing any control of interest rates in hire-purchase transactions and the fact that the party opposite never sought to do so because of that very administrative impossibility.
  Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is under a misapprehension. It is my duty to keep the debate within order. My complaint was basically against the right hon. Gentleman, but I had to include the hon. Member because he got involved in it.
  Mr. Nabarro: I am always sticking my neck out.
  Mr. Jay: What led me on was the intervention by the hon. Member for Kidderminster before you had returned to the Chamber, Mr. Speaker. I agree that it could be argued whether such legislation is or is not workable, but clearly we cannot argue that this evening. I fully agree that it was I who made the suggestion and not the hon. Member for Kidderminster.

  539
  I cannot help reflecting that it was very largely the hire-purchase boom of the last two years which provided a good deal of such substance as there was in the Government's electioneering claim that we had all never had it so good. A few months before the election, that hire-purchase boom was stimulated. Incidentally, some of the biggest Tory votes were in the areas where firms were manufacturing hire-purchase goods, partticularly in the motor industry.
  Now the Government tell us that this hire-purchase trading has to be squeezed once again, as it was in 1957. If the President of the Board of Trade wants us to believe that all these reversals of policy have been purely matters of economics and have absolutely nothing to do with politics, perhaps he will tell us what the response of the electorate would have been if these Orders had been introduced not this spring but in September of last year.
  9.29 p.m.
  Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I rise to support the three Orders and I hope that I shall not be obliged to follow in close detail the fascinating remarks of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) about the general economic position today. I do not believe that these Orders are in any way associated with a thought on the part of my right hon. Friends, or any Government supporters, that we are in a state of headlong inflation, to quote the right hon. Gentleman.
  I define my attitude within the context of these Orders as being a general supporter of hire purchase, but with appropriate regulation as to the amount of the deposit and the length of time for repayment. I deprecate absolutely the less reputable hire-purchase transactions, involving the payment of no deposit and an indefinite period of as much as ten years for repayment. I think that those less than reputable practices have tended to bring hire-purchase arrangements into disrepute and prey upon poorer families, and notably families where the purchaser, be it the father or mother or any other member of the family, is a little less discerning and discriminating in the matter of precise contracts than he or she ought to be.
  540
  What I dislike about our hire-purchase arrangements—and this is emphasised by the character of the three Orders before the House this evening—is the constant change of Government policy. I do not address these remarks to my right hon. Friend with any political content; I do so much more in a commercial spirit. For many years, following the accession of a Conservative Government in 1951, we have had limited hire-purchase restrictions. They were eased, then removed before the last General Election, and they have now been reimposed.
  It would be impossible for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to say how long the reimposition will last, but what I want to impress upon him, as being the Cabinet Minister responsible for trade and industry in this country, is that the constant removal of restrictions, reimposition of restrictions, off one minute and on the next, without any sort of indication to the House of Commons and the nation as to how long restrictions of this kind are to last, has a very unsettling and disturbing effect upon the pattern of industry and commerce. It has a still more damaging influence on large-scale production.
  If my right hon. Friend cares to scrutinise in close detail the goods which are specified in the principle Order we are discussing, Statutory Instrument No. 762, the Hire-Purchase and Credit Sale Agreements (Control) Order, he will see that the great majority of the articles concerned are those produced in our factories on a bulk or mass production basis where the largeness of the production has a material effect and bearing upon the unit cost of output. Thus, the constant disturbance caused by altering—
  Mr. J. T. Price: A jolly good line.
  Mr. Nabarro: I am grateful to the hon. Member; it is a jolly good line.
  My right hon. Friend need not take my word as a politician on a matter of this kind. He should consult the Institute of Production Engineers, for example, as being the best professional body in this country dealing with a matter of this kind, who will tell him beyond a peradventure that if we constantly bring artificial influences to bear in the form of Statutory Instruments on

  541
  the length of credit which might be allowed for an article as expensive as a refrigerator, of which the average cost may be between £70 and £100, the cost of production must suffer due to the uncertainties following in the train of the Order.
  Therefore, I say to the President of the Board of Trade that, while I support these three Instruments this evening, I want careful consideration to be given by the Government to permanent legislation on hire-purchase matters in two respects; first, the amount per centum of the deposit; and, secondly, the maximum period for repayment. I should have no hesitation in saying that the proper deposit for a person to pay for any article, from a three-piece bedroom suite to a motor vehicle, is 20 per cent. If the person cannot afford to pay 20 per cent., let him go away, do without the article for a few months, and save up the deposit so that it is 20 per cent.
  I say that a maximum time for repayment on any article should be two years. [Interruption.] I am sorry that my hon. Friend disagrees with me, but I say that it should be two years. That is the impression I have gained, if I may say so with due modesty, through wide commercial experience, which my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) does not possess, though he may have considerable legal experience, which is a different matter.
  What I am saying is that if a person cannot afford to save the 20 per cent. for a deposit, he should deny himself the article for a few months until he has saved the 20 per cent. There should also be a maximum repayment period, in my view, of two years, because I think that after that period the dangers of depreciation or deterioration of the article outweigh the advantages of a hire-purchase transaction.
  Mr. Raymond Gower: Does not my hon. Friend think that there are cases in which his proposal would be unfair? For example, a person who lives in a residential caravan is purchasing a home, and surely he needs a longer period than two years. For the person who buys a house the period for the mortgage is twenty years
  Mr. Nabarro: With respect to those who like to live in caravans, I depre-
  542
  cate, in the social sense, turning caravans into permanent homes. I quite agree that a few people do it, but I am not prepared to seek to legislate for a tiny minority.
  Caravans may be an exceptional case, but hard cases invariably make bad law, and in the overwhelming majority of cases a 20 per cent. deposit and a two-year repayment period is, in my opinion, appropriate. To avoid the continual disturbance to trade and industry by the on-and-off of this ministerial hiccoughing of which my right hon. Friend is guilty, this sort of dyspepsia manifesting itself on the Ministerial Bench, he should consider permanent legislation along the lines which I have suggested.
  There are other aspects of the principal Order which I wish to probe. Since hire-purchase restrictions were last removed we have a new manifestation in the economy in the form of the personal loan schemes of the banks. One is now encouraged to go to a joint stock bank and borow any sum of money on a personal account to buy an article of equipment; it may be a motor car, it may be a refrigerator, it may be a bedroom suite, or it may be a caravan if the bank manager takes a view opposite to my own about caravans. It may be any one of a large number of articles. The bank gives the customer an overdraft and it gives him many years in which to repay it.
  Is that a hire-purchase transaction within the context of this Order? Is it? My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade shakes his head to give me a negative. That is exactly what I wanted him to do. Indeed, I never ask him a question without first knowing the answer. I tested these matters, and my right hon. Friend has given the very answer which I wanted to be brought out.
  There are two methods of hire-purchase transaction in this country today. One is through the personal loan schemes of the banks, which is a hire-purchase arrangement. The other is in the form of the transactions dealt with in this Order. But here is the unfairness: the banks' schemes are excluded from this Order, and, therefore, the banks are given a preference as compared with a hire-purchase house.

  543
  I am not allowed to talk about what is outside the Order, but I merely bring out this point as a contradistinction, and I underline the unfairness of this situation as it exists today, because in the last few weeks my right hon. Friend has taken two measures in connection with hire purchase, directly or indirectly. One is the set of Orders before the House tonight. The other is to require the banks to deposit 32 per cent. instead of 30 per cent. with the Rank of England. Did my right hon. Friend have his eye on hire purchase there? Does the hire-purchase debt of over £900 million take into account loans by banks for hire-purchase purposes? Again, I know the answer, but why does it not? The hire-purchase loan figure rose by £31 million last month.
  If we are to legislate for hire purchase, and if the Government accept the principle Chat it is desirable to legislate for hire purchase, for goodness' sake let us do the job properly and not piecemeal and by half measures, because that is what we are doing this evening. Let my Conservative colleagues make no mistake about this. We are legislating for hire purchase through hire-purchase houses and retail shops, but we are not legislating for the alternative method which involves a customer of a bank obtaining an overdraft. There is a further—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I have duties in this matter. It is perfectly clear that in a discussion of an Order of this kind the discussion of alternative methods of stopping a parallel kind of transaction is out of order. The hon. Member knows this. I hope that he will not pursue it.
  Mr. Jay: Further to that point of Order, Sir. Presumably it is in order to point out what is not in these Orders.
  Mr. Speaker: No, I do not think so. It is in order to point out an omission from the Order in the context of the Order, but not in parallel fields.
  Mr. Nabarro: I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker, to have allowed the exuberance of my oratory to run away with me. I had no intention of doing so. I was trying to demonstrate to the House the inequity of this Order.
  544
  I want to put to my right hon. Friend that two years is the general period and 20 per cent. is the general deposit. The buyer on a hire-purchase contract referred to in the Order has to pay substantial sums in interest. He cannot claim the interest as a rebate of his Income Tax. If he borrows the money from a bank, he can. That is a further inequity to which attention should be drawn.
  In other words, this Order is only partially efficacious and hon. Members on both sides of the House would do well to recognise that if we favour regulation in respect of hire purchase we should attempt to make our arrangements comprehensive and not discriminatory in character in favour of one section of banking and trade and against another section of banking and trade.
  I turn now to specific cases in the Order. This is very important. We are all concerned today with the level of coal stocks, and I shall at once relate this to the Order. Hon. Members will have observed that Part I of the First Schedule to Statutory Instrument No. 762 refers to:
  "Space heating installations and appliances of a kind designed exclusively or mainly for domestic use, and parts thereof."
  The minimum percentage of cash deposit required is 20. The maximum period for repayment quoted in the Order is 24 months. Many of these space heating installations and appliances burn solid fuel.
  Item No. 18 is:
  "Cookers, including solid fuel cookers, designed exclusively or mainly for domestic use."
  There the deposit is only 10 per cent. and the period for repayment is 48 months. Why should a modern, solid-fuel-burning appliance for space heating, often combined with a cooker and a back boiler, be subject to alternative deposits, in one case 20 per cent. and in the other case 10 per cent., and to alternative repayment periods, in one case 24 months and in the other case 48 months?
  I hope that the Board of Trade will not argue with me that the best modern solid-fuel-burning appliance for the home is one which combines space heating, water heating and cooking. It is all part of one article of equipment, yet it is subject to two rates and to alternative

  545
  periods for repayment. I say to my right hon. Friend that he must take this Order back to his advisers and ask them to consider these points which, to say the least, are incongruous, especially in view of the interests of the National Coal Board.
  The Sunday Express—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] A very good newspaper —on 8th May, on page 10—[Interruption.] Yes, I know that it accused me in its leading article a few weeks ago of cowardice, but I did not issue a writ against the newspaper on that account. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Why not? Because I think that politicians ought not to be mealy-mouthed. Last Sunday, the Sunday Express carried, on page 10, a large advertisement by the National Coal Board. It is instructive, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade should immediately consider it.
  The Coal Board, is, of course, responding magnificently to the pleas made from both sides of the House that, in competition with oil, it should make its selling policy for solid fuel much more dynamic. It has no better friend in this House than myself on that account. This series of advertisements is magnificent. This is what the Board advertised last Sunday:
  "Plan now for a warm winter with the National Coal Board's help"—
  This is the advertisement. It is perfectly serious, it is a very good advertisement, and I compliment the Board on it. I shall hand it to my right hon. Friend in a moment, because it relates itself precisely to the Order. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, if I have made a mistake. I shall lay it on the Table—or I shall leave it on the bench.
  The advertisement says:
  "The National Coal Board have arranged … to lend you the money. Terms are generous. No deposit. Only 5 per cent. a year interest. Two years to pay on loans of £20-£50. five years to pay on loans of over £50"
  These are solid-fuel appliances. They are central heating systems, back boilers, cookers for the home, yet this Order says —and I have quoted it already—that on all space heating appliances there will be a 20 per cent. deposit. The Coal Board says, "No deposit." The Order says that for space heating installations there will be 24 months in which to pay—the Coal Board says, "Five years to pay".
  546
  I am not attacking the Coal Board—I shall justify it in a moment. I do not attack the Coal Board, but I point out to my right hon. Friend that this advertisement appeared on 8th May, after this Order had been published. Mr. Speaker, you will see on the Order itself that it was made on 27th April. What is my right hon. Friend doing about enforcement? Does he propose to enforce these things? I do not want the Coal Board to be inhibited in putting in modern appliances. I do not want it to be inhibited. I want it to support my clean air legislation—[Laughter.] There is nothing to laugh at; it is a very serious matter. Furthermore, I want to encourage people to burn coal more efficiently.
  The Board promises five years in which to pay, but the Order maximises the period either at two years, interpreted in one way, or four years interpreted in another. Here, however, is the nub of the matter—from whom does one buy the appliances? [An HON. MEMBER: "A flaw."] No, not a flaw but a nub, and a nub is different from a flaw. Who finances this? Does one buy these appliances from a retail shop or store? No, Mr. Speaker, it is financed by the Forward Trust, one of the Midland Bank Group. In other words, one law for the banks— no period for repayment, and no deposit; another law for the ordinary retailer in terms of the Order.
  That is wholly faulty, discriminatory and equitable, and the President of the Board of Trade should now apply himself to this very important matter, for Parliament, if it does nothing else, should surely secure equitable treatment within the financial field for all agencies of every character in the support and financing of hire-purchase transactions.
  Subject only to those few modest and relatively mild criticisms of my right hon. Friend, I will support these Orders in the Lobby, this evening, but I shall press him unremittingly—[An HON. MEMBER: "Press him tonight."] No, I cannot do so tonight. I should be out of order if I tried to do so. Mr. Speaker has already pointed that out to me. I shall press him unremittingly to do two things. First, to let us have permanent legislation, resting on a minimum 20 per cent. deposit and a maximum 24 months in which to repay for all hire-purchase transactions. Secondly, to see that when

  547
  that legislation is passed it shall be applicable to all financial agencies responsible for hire-purchase transactions, whether they be banks or credit houses, or hire-purchase houses, retail shops, or stores. That is nothing less than equitable, in my view.
  9.52 p.m
  Mr. George Lawson: I am happy to say that I agree so much with what has been said by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). I am only sorry that he is not going to come with us tonight into the Lobby, for there is so much with which he disagrees in these Orders.
  I have a difficulty, and I am sure the hon. Member for Kidderminster will be interested to know what it is. He has described two ways by which one can in effect buy articles on the instalment basis. I want to describe a third way, and I am anxious that the President of the Board of Trade will pay attention and tell me whether what I say is accurate.
  What I want to describe is a matter that affects Scotland. I have yet to learn that it has developed to any considerable extent in England, but it certainly has become a widespread practice in Scotland and many thousands of people have been affected in this way over a number of years. Those people are what I would call hire-purchase customers. They go to a shop that anyone would take to be a hire-purchase shop and they think in terms of buying an article or articles on the hire-purchase system. I would say that the Orders that we have before us tonight are clearly designed to cover this kind of person and this kind of transaction. Yet, I put it to the President of the Board of Trade that this will not be the case.
  There exists in Scotland a practice that escapes these Orders—not a system by which the banks extend credit, but a system that is called a personal credit scheme. It is not operated by the banks, and it does not operate on a basis of 5 per cent. interest. It is operated on a basis of 2 per cent. per month compound interest. It is a system that operates without any kind of deposit being made, and the payments can continue indefinitely. Indeed, they can continue beyond the grave because, as I could show hon. Members, the people who are
  548
  called guarantors, who guarantee somebody else's purchase under this scheme, undertake—many of them quite unwittingly—that
  " in the event of my liability not being determined prior to the death of the aforementioned or of any guarantor "—
  the aforementioned being the person who contracted the obligation—
  "any sums due, whether becoming due prior to or after the death of the aforementioned or of any guarantor, shall transmit against the estate of the respective parties."
  Mr. Speaker: I am very sorry to stop the hon. Gentleman. I hate to have to interrupt him, but I am obliged to confine the debate on the Order. We cannot treat it as a general discussion of methods in the hire-purchase trade.
  Mr. Lawson: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I should like to put this to you. I am satisfied in my own mind that the President of the Board of Trade thinks that he is covering the kind of transaction to which I refer. The transactions are carried out in what everyone would think of as a hire-purchase shop. AD my hon. Friends from Scotland know this.
  Mr. Speaker: That may be, but it does not put the matter in order.
  Mr. G. R. Mitchison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I point out to you that, in Article 8 (2, ii) of the Hire-Purchase and Credit Sale Agreements (Control) Order, 1960, it is provided that:
  "'hire purchase agreement' means … in Scotland, a contract to which section 1 (a) of the Hire Purchase and Small Debt (Scotland) Act, 1932, applies or would apply if the limitation as to value contained in that section were omitted."
  Is not my hon. Friend entitled to inquire whether a contract commonly thought of as a hire-purchase agreement in Scotland is in fact such a contract as he has indicated?
  Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I have no doubt that his hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) also will be obliged.
  Mr. Lawson: It is from that angle that I am trying to present the matter, Mr. Speaker.
  We are confronted with great difficulties in Scotland as a result of these transactions, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look very closely into this

  549
  type of case. I did on another occasion call these transactions substitute hire-purchase agreements. I am convinced, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will say that my conviction accords with his wish here, that he is trying to cover transactions of this type. The extent of them is very widespread indeed. Yet they have hitherto escaped the provisions of the hire-purchase laws because it is stated that each transaction is not a hire-purchase transaction. The matter has gone to the courts. It has been stated that the transaction is not a hire-purchase transaction and that the article or articles concerned have been bought outright.
  On the basis of the transaction not being a hire-purchase transaction, there is no written document given and there is no clear enunciation of the amount of money which will have to be paid. There are none of the protections which should be given by our hire-purchase legislation. There is no protection, for instance, in respect of the type of advertisement appearing in the Press. This is the kind of practice which I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at. I want him to assure me that it will be covered.
  The person or persons who purchase articles on the basis I have described do it under a system which does not give them the protection which the House of Commons has plainly intended that they should have. We in Scotland have sought ways to give people the protection which they plainly should have but which, as I have explained, they have not had under our hire-purchase legislation. We have thought that the Moneylenders Acts would cover the matter, and, indeed, only recently one case was brought before the courts on that basis.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That really must be hopeless, even on the ingenious argument of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering. The hon. Member really must keep off the Moneylenders Acts.
  Mr. Lawson: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I take it that it is the intention that the Order should cover what we all have in mind as hire-purchase transactions or credit sales. I am not speaking of bankers' credits. I am speaking of what everyone, without going into the matter in great detail.
  550
  would take to be a hire-purchase transaction or a credit deal. That, I would say, is certainly intended to be covered by these regulations.
  The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Reginald Maudling)The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Reginald Maudling) indicated dissent.
  Mr. Lawson: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. If the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to cover this type of transaction I should be very interested to hear why not.
  Those are, in fact, hire-purchase transactions. They are hire-purchase transactions, although by means of a device, which I shall try to describe, they are intended to get round the Hire-Purchase Acts. The device is the simple one of giving the person who wants to buy an article a voucher for the loan of money which is called a personal credit voucher. It is this personal credit voucher which is handed over for the article. The article is bought by the medium of this voucher which enables the dealer to get round the law as it is at present by saying that it is not a hire-purchase deal, that it is a transaction by means of personal credit, not given by a bank but given by the firm itself. In this way, right up to the present, this type of device has grown up. One firm which I could mention boasted last year of having about 80,000 open accounts.
  Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Member can tell us about the firm. I am sorry; I really sincerely dislike having to stop him, but this debate may wander over a very wide and irregular field unless I do. I am sure that he is entitled to ask whether a certain type of transaction is one within the meaning of the Order. That I understand. But I am sure that he is not allowed to describe, in this context, the extent of that particular transaction, or methods which he and his hon. Friends have attempted to set a check upon that which they regard as a malpractice.
  Mr. Lawson: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I shall shortly describe the transactions I have in mind and ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will tell us whether or not these will be covered.

  551
  A customer or potential customer wants to buy a television set. He goes to this shop and says, "I want to buy a set. What do I need to put down?" He is told, "You do not need to put anything down". In point of fact, it is advertised as "No deposit". "Our personal credit scheme is the best way you can do it. We only charge 2 per cent. a month."
  Many people do not understand what that means. It is 2 per cent. a month at compound interest. The customer is told, "We cannot take the goods back from you. This is far better than the ordinary hire purchase". The person signs, gets someone else as guarantor and gets the article right away, without having to pay a deposit. Week by week a certain sum is paid and month by month the interest is added to the balance outstanding. If there is any difficulty at all he is taken to the courts.
  Here is a transaction by which a person has come to buy an article on the instalment basis and who gets a voucher which enables him to get the article right away. He is not the partial owner of the article; he is the sole owner of the article. He is in debt to the extent of a certain sum of money plus the interest added month by month. On this basis, it is not a normal hire-purchase transaction.
  I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this type of transaction is covered and, if so, how it is covered in the Statutory Instruments which he is putting before us. If it is not covered, I can assure him that a very large number of people will continue to obtain these articles and that a very considerable number of dealers in Scotland are evading the law.
  10.5 p.m.
  Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: Although a number of irrelevant points have been introduced in the debate, I think that the Opposition are trying to ask the House to annul these Statutory Instruments and to vote against them. I assume that they are panting to vote on them.
  I do not think that the House can quarrel with the hire-purchase restrictions outlined in these Statutory Instruments. I take the view that anyone who wants to buy a television, radio or motor car ought to pay a 20 per cent. deposit.
  552
  That is reasonable and I think that most reputable hire-purchase companies expect their customers to do that.
  I do not, however, quite subscribe to what my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) said, although I know that it is a well publicised point of view that hire-purchase restrictions should not be put on and taken off by Governments as quickly as they are. They are not put on and off as quickly as many people think. In my view, hire-purchase restrictions are a weapon of Government against potential inflation which should and can be used from time to time. They are easy to apply. They are applied in other countries, like America, quite frequently, and I do not think that they should be a weapon to be afraid of.
  My purpose in rising is to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, when he is considering amendments to the Statutory Instruments, to the case of residential caravanners. They are subject to a 10 per cent. deposit with 24 months to pay. That means that a person who is buying a caravan to live in—there are people doing that at present—and who, in the past, has been paying, over three or even four years, about £20 a month, is now asked to pay £30 a month for his caravan. A rise from £5 a week to over £7 a week is quite substantial.
  When one compares a caravan as a home, although a temporary home, with a house that can be bought on mortgage over twenty years, there is a special case for treating residential caravans differently. Whether one is able legally to separate them from the mobile caravans, I am not sure, but I think that the point that I have raised should receive further thought by the Board of Trade. Subject to that small criticism, I think that these three Statutory Instruments ought to receive the approval of the House.
  10.8 p.m.
  Mr. John Cronin: The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) probably carried the good opinions of both sides of the House when he expressed some criticism of the constant changes of Government policy on hire purchase.
  Mr. Gresham Cooke: No.
  Mr. Cronin: That was the impression the hon Member gave the House, and I thought that he was very well supported by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro).
  Mr. Nabarro Mr. Nabarro rose—
  Mr. Gresham Cooke: If the hon. Member had listened—he was, I think, asleep at the time—he would have realised that I said exactly the opposite. I said that it was a weapon that could be used by the Government.
  Mr. Cronin: I was listening to the hon. Member with the greatest possible attention. It is clear that there is some new meaning to his speech that must have escaped me.
  I would give full approbation to the view of the hon. Member for Kidderminster—
  Mr. Nabarro: That is better.
  Mr. Cronin: —when he expressed severe criticism of the Government's changes of policy. We have a most odd situation. Whenever there is an increase in production, there is automatically an increase in curbs on production. It is not as though this country has a particularly good record in this matter. We are not doing nearly as well as other countries in Western Europe, and our record is quite derisory compared with those of the Soviet Union and China. It is rather unfortunate that most of the economic machine under Conservative Governments has been running irregularly. Either the brakes are burning or the radiator is boiling over. It has never worked smoothly.
  All of us on both sides of the House appreciate the economic difficulties with which the Government are faced—overfull order books, increases in imports and balance of payments difficulties. It is obvious that something had to be done, but I should like to know the reason for this curious timing. It was plain last year that these economic difficulties were imminent and would occur this year. The President of the Board of Trade may smile, but he will agree that the hire-purchase debt had reached an all-time record last year. There was a tremendous boom in the motor
  554
  industry, which is the industry chiefly affected by the Order. One wonders why the Order was not introduced last year if the Government consider it efficacious.
  Obviously, the purpose was entirely electoral advantage. There can be no escape from the fact that in elections the Government have always behaved with a Machiavellian cynicism which must earn the reprobation of everyone who thinks about these matters carefully.
  I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will answer a few questions when he replies. I should like to know why it was necessary for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make dark hints in his Budget speech and why there was this period of uncertainty before these hire-purchase Orders were announced. Nothing but confusion and difficulty has been caused in industry. People did not know where they stood. Are we to continue to have economic legislation by hints and pregnant silences?
  Will the President of the Board of Trade also give us rather more detail in his assessment of the economic situation which makes these Orders necessary? To what extent does he expect the total hire-purchase debt to be decreased by these Orders? To what extent does he think that it should be decreased? I hope that he will answer the question put to him by the hon. Member for Kidderminster: what will be the effect on personal loans from the joint stock banks? The President of the Board of Trade should tell us more of the generalised effects of these Orders on the economy as a whole. How will they affect areas where there is considerable unemployment? This is a serious matter and the House should have specific reassurances.
  Certain industries are going through great difficulties, for instance, coal and shipbuilding, which is in a considerable state of recession. The oil and chemical industries are reducing their capital commitments. It is no use the President of the Board of Trade looking puzzled. The steel industry does not intend to expand as much as it announced originally, and industries which are making heavy

  555
  capital goods are in considerable difficulty. How will they be affected by these Orders? I know that they do not apply to capital goods, but capital goods are affected by consumer goods.
  The Orders are undesirable because the effect could have been achieved by other means. I do not propose to dilate on those other means, because that would be out of order. Surely, however, consumer consumption could have been attacked by measures to deal with the enormous boom, for instance, in Stock Exchange securities. There is an increase of £2,000 million in the value of securities, an enormous increase of consumer consumption. Something should have been done to deal with business expenses. They cause enormous consumption.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): That goes beyond the Order.
  Mr. Cronin: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was merely adverting to those small points en passant. I was careful not to dilate on them, because these are matters on which one could speak for a long time. If we want to keep in order, which is, perhaps, desirable in a debate of this nature, perhaps we should refer to the individual items of the Order. I wonder why there has been this savage attack on the housewife. We know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a bachelor, but we thought that the President of the Board of Trade might have had some restraining effect upon him. Hon. Members on both sides of the House know that housewives are perhaps the hardest-working members of the community.
  Mr. John Diamond: My hon. Friend is apparently suggesting that more restraint ought to have been laid on the Chancellor. Could he say what particular housewife the Chancellor made a savage attack upon?
  Mr. Cronin: I think that my hon. Friend did not hear me well. I did not suggest that the Chancellor attacked any specific housewife. I used the word in the plural—housewives. [An HON. MEMBER: " Bigamy now."] I am sure
  556
  that all hon. Members have too much respect for the Chancellor's character to think for a moment of the imputation suggested by my hon. Friend.
  Why are housewives to be the principal recipients of the hardships brought about by this Order? We know that they have these heavy burdens of keeping house, bringing up children and doing the cooking, and there has been little alleviation for them except by means of mechanical domestic appliances. These are the only rays of comfort which have entered the housewife's activities during the last few years. The difficulty about domestic appliances is that they cost quite a lot of money, and the only helpful factor has been hire-purchase, but the housewife has now been deprived of this.
  I am sure that the President of the Board of Trade is aware that washing laundry is a very heavy tax on the housewife's strength and her temper. He and most hon. Members must know what a heavy burden washday is in the home without an automatic washing machine and what a heavy burden ironing is without an electric iron.
  Mr. Nabarro: And motoring without a Rolls-Bentley.
  Mr. Cronin: That intervention is wearing thin. We have heard it before.
  Mr. Nabarro: But it is a jolly good one.
  Mr. Cronin: How does the housewife get on without floor polishers? Do the Chancellor and the President of the Board of Trade expect her to get on her hands and knees to polish the floor? Why deprive housewives of electric carpet cleaners? Have they to get down on their knees and sweep the carpet? These are matters which affect the most deserving members of the community. We know that refrigerators are one of the principal ways of avoiding waste of food, and that half our food is imported. Refrigerators also prevent ill-health, and food poisoning is one of the most common causes of ill-health in this country.

  557
  Why has the President of the Board of Trade made this attack on newly married people? Why are they to have these difficulties in obtaining furniture? It is a very heavy burden to be obliged to pay for one's furniture in two years, although that may not be obvious to the hon. Members opposite. These are heavy burdens which are being imposed on a
  558
  section of the community which deserves our support and sympathy. Anyone who appreciates the difficulties of the housewife and of young married people and, indeed, of everybody in this country except those of the upper income group should enter the Division Lobby with us on this side of the House this evening without hesitation.
  10.19 p.m.
  Mr. William Shepherd: I shall not detain the House as long as the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) has done, but I feel that I ought to make one or two critical comments on these Orders. In doing this, I am not unmindful of the extreme difficulty which any Government face when they try to contain the economy at a level which is pretty near the top. I would not pretend to say that the Government have no justification for these Orders, but there are some criticisms of the Orders and of the principle behind them which I should like to make briefly.
  My own conviction is that the control of hire purchase has singularly little effect upon the total volume of demand, and my further criticism, which is perhaps even more to the point, is that it is, in effect, on one or two industries and can be exceedingly upsetting to them.
  I am president of a chair-frame manufacturers' association, and, with my members, I have been through the ups and downs of hire-purchase restrictions being lifted and imposed and have seen what effect it has. Despite the fact that there may well be a case for using this instrument in the absence of any really well-proven methods of control in the existing economic circumstances, I doubt whether on balance the total amount of disturbance that these Orders will create justifies the economic advantage to the community.
  I believe that there is a case permanently to set a minimum deposit for the purchase of various classes of goods. The community might well be advantaged if the Government did that. In many trades, certainly before the war and to some extent since, we have had goods sold not because they are goods but because they are goods sold on terms. That is very bad for any country. I would not be against the maintenance of a minimum level of deposits in respect of various classes of goods. Most people who want to serve the community in trade and industry would, on the whole, welcome such a provision.
  560
  If one accepts this concept, it negates the possibility of doing what the Government have been doing in the past five or six years. If I were to be asked where I think the balance of advantage lies, I would say that it lies definitely in maintaining a permanent minimum level of deposits in order to safeguard the trades against violent fluctuations and the public against exploitation.
  I shall vote for these Orders tonight with some regret, because I appreciate that we are faced in the post-war period, like almost every country, with the problem of containing the economy almost at the top of the brim without having the proven means of so containing it. I am, therefore, prepared in these circumstances to vote for the Orders, though I shall do so with some reluctance.
  10.24 p.m.
  Mr. John Diamond: I can think of scarcely one sentiment expressed by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) with which I did not profoundly agree, but there is perhaps one side remark which he made which I cannot accept, and that is that he is to vote for the three Instruments.
  It is a good deal easier for us in the Opposition to carry the argument to its logical conclusion, but it is far more important than making party points to draw the attention of the Government to the real lack of feeling on both sides that these Orders are the right thing at the right time. There is a sense of unease that this is the right way either of curing inflation or of encouraging production or consumer demand. I want to ask one question and then offer three short arguments against the Orders.
  First, I should like to know whether I am right in saying that the Control of Hiring Order has the prejudicial effect of preventing Members of Parliament who are fighting election campaigns from hiring loud-speakers if they wish to do so for a period of more than twelve days. Assuming that most of us campaign for at least fourteen days, and generally for twenty-one, we shall all be denied the pleasure of hiring a loudspeaker We may have to buy the wretched thing.
  Mr. J. T. Price: All these restrictions will be off before the election.
  Mr. Diamond: Such a thought had not entirely escaped me, and it is up to the right hon. Gentleman to indicate how long he will maintain the Orders, and whether Members of Parliament will be affected in the way I have suggested.
  I support the hon. Member for Cheadle. I very much doubt whether this action is justifiable on the grounds upon which the right hon. Gentleman will attempt to justify it—of controlling inflation at a time when consumer demand is pushing too hard. It affects only a small part of consumer demand. The fact that the banks themselves are encouraging borrowers to borrow in a fantastic and entirely unbanklike manner to meet their personal requirements, in addition to all the other credits open to many people, means that this action must be taken in its proper perspective. It leads to the conclusion that this is a very small part of the total borrowing and can hardly be sufficient to justify the claim that it will affect inflationary demand.
  Both the hon. Member for Cheadle and the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) have said that these Orders will have a most prejudicial effect upon certain industries and production lines. They will inevitably cause increased costs through inefficient production, because the production lines will be over-full on some occasions, then under-occupied, and at other times running smoothly and efficiently. Anybody who is interested in the cost of production must know that the most damaging action which can be taken is to interrupt the free flow. I can only repeat what the two hon. Members opposite have said. They are substantial arguments against the Orders.
  There are other reasons why I opposed the Orders. First, they make no provision for solving the problem of very harsh dealing. Many people find themselves at the receiving end of some very harsh hire-purchase deals. Having agreed to buy the goods, they find that they are subject to very harsh contracts, and there is nothing in the Orders which lightens their burden. The Government are not taking anything like a sufficiently serious view of that point. Further, the Government are encouraging borrow-
  562
  ing far too much. I am probably the odd man out in this matter. I have a very simple view of it, which I have expressed previously. I take the view that people should not buy things until they have sufficient money to do so.
  That is terribly simple and old-fashioned, and I well understand that there are certain durables—such as houses, which may be bought or rented —which are subject to similar arrangements but where the lending and repayment go on more or less in perpetuity, in respect of which this system may be justified on economic grounds, but ordinary articles, which are part of one's desire to make life more satisfactory or easy, in respect of which people are encouraged to borrow in all sorts of ways both by banks and by hire-purchase firms, should not be bought in this way.
  I am justified in saying this because, although there is a general belief that most hire purchasers pay up, and therefore hire-purchase lenders are encouraged to go on lending, my information is that the law courts are becoming full of cases of sellers trying to recover their money from defaulting hire purchasers who have no vice in them but have been induced by salesmanship, charm and encouragement of one kind or another to take on commitments which are greater than they can afford, for the simple reason that they are no good at adding up their total commitments. Many of us are not all that good in adding up our total commitments, which is one of the reasons why a certain profession which I know has always a good deal to do.
  However, I am referring simply to people being encouraged, on the doorstep and in the shop, to undertake far more weekly and monthly and quarterly commitments than they can well manage. Frankly, I see only one answer to this, and that is some form of discouraging hire purchase not only temporarily but for all time. I entirely agree with the hon. Member that there should be a minimum deposit for all time.
  There is no argument against it. It discourages excessive spending. It makes it impossible for the Government to upset trading by increasing and decreasing deposits at will. I think there is every argument in favour of a minimum deposit, which I, of course, would put far

  563
  higher than 20 per cent., though less than that, though substantial, on everything like a cooker which is part and parcel of the permanent and minimum equipment of a house.
  In addition to a permanent deposit as a discouragement to hire-purchase buying, there ought to be some means— though I recognise the difficulty of it —of covering the weekly total commitments of the would-be hire-purchaser before he enters into yet a further hire-purchase transaction. The real difficulty is that the banks have no alternative method.
  As the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) said, there is no reason against having this additional method, no reason why the banks in their present ill-advised habit of lending to customers on personal account should not lend to the customers, the customers having said that they are proposing to do such and such and to buy such and such, and for the customers to buy the articles on hire purchase as hirers. Thus we get double borrowing, and thus we get a state of affairs in which the individual is encouraged, as I say, to get absolutely up to the neck in commitments of one kind and another which cannot be covered in the short space in which only he can foresee his income.
  We must realise that there is a large section of the population which has, over many years, been adopting the habit of budgeting weekly. So much is earned each week; so much goes for the rent; so much goes for food; so much goes for insurance and old age. That is how the weekly budget is laid out. That means that among those who calculate in that way, when they are earning well, and earning overtime and are in a good job, the earnings which come in week by week are fully committed. Only the slightest recession in an industry is needed, it needs only overtime to be cancelled or the job to be lost for a few days or for a week or so—or, of course, for unemployment to arise—forthe most frightening difficulties to arise, which all of us know who have "surgeries" in our constituencies. Most of us have come across constituents in the most frantic difficulties of hire-purchase commitments because they have lost jobs or overtime, even temporarily.
  564
  I can see only one answer to that problem, and that is some form of accumulating total indebtedness, the total commitments of the would-be borrower, before he is permitted to borrow yet more. I deeply deprecate that the banks, which should act in a responsible manner, are so solely concerned with competing with one another to gain customers that they ignore their responsibility. It is because these Orders do not touch what is the very real problem, of which one can see the results in the law courts, that I am proposing to vote against them.
  10.35 p.m.
  Mr. Raymond Gower: From what he said towards the end of his speech, I would have thought that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) was strongly in favour of the Orders. He said that he did not much like hire purchase and would prefer to do without it. Here he has a series of Orders which are at least likely to make the prospective purchaser think a little longer before embarking on a hire-purchase contract.
  Mr. Diamond: That is not enough.
  Mr. Gower: That may be, but the logical result of what the hon. Member said is that he should vote for the Orders.
  I think that the House will wholly reject the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) that the main motive for the changes in hire-purchase rates, as in some other things, has been political and electoral. That is an argument quite unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman.
  He will recall perfectly well that, about a year before the last election, he and his right hon. and hon. Friends were pressing the Government not merely to sustain but to increase the purchasing power which Government policy had succeeded in obtaining during the preceding twelve months. Indeed, all the pressure from hon. Members opposite during those twelve months was to increase the level of consumer expenditure. In part, the Government followed that course because the economic needs of the country at the time demanded that kind of policy.
  The right hon. Gentleman also professed himself surprised that under a Conservative Government there was sometimes a

  565
  time when there was inflationary pressure while at other times the danger was of a different kind. He was surprised that the economy did not always run on an even keel. That is a very remarkable statement coming from one who was Financial Secretary to the Treasury in a Government who were calculated to produce a first-class financial crisis every eighteen months or so. We on this side of the House admit that in a country whose economy is as finely balanced as ours it is not susprising that at times there should be inflationary tendencies while at other times the tendencies will be different.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) that this is a weapon which should be used because it is flexible and can easily be applied. On the other hand, turning to the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who spoke from his great commercial experience, to which he referred with such restraint, and with his quite extraordinary diffidence, surprisingly enough, despite his great commercial experience, he seemed to regard himself as incapable of any misjudgment of any situation and incapable of any mistake. In spite of his experience, I still disagree with him to some extent.
  However, I accept and agree with his view that it is desirable that there should be some minimum deposit in hire-purchase contracts, and I think that that deposit should be fairly substantial and not derisory. I accept, too, that there should be a specified period for repayment. But I feel that he was too inflexible and too rigid in prescribing such a code. In some cases, two years may still well be a suitable period for repayment, while for heavier goods and exceptional goods—for instance, the caravans to which my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham and I have referred previously—another period might be more suitable.
  In future, we should try to have a permanent minimum deposit on certain kinds of articles, while in other cases there should be a different deposit and a different time for repayment. This is not the kind of thing, however, which can be hastily conceived.
  566
  I certainly subscribe to the view that the time for repayment should not be excessive. I subscribe to the view that a person contemplating a hire-purchase contract should at least be able to produce a substantial deposit. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster will not think it unreasonable if I take a view slightly different from the rigid code which he wanted to apply. The arguments we have heard from hon. Members opposite, including those of the right hon. Gentleman, should lead to the support of hon. Members opposite for the Orders. They have made it perfectly clear that they think that at present consumer credit is a little too easy and that in some cases people are led into hire-purchase transactions without due thought. Therefore, they should have no doubt about supporting the three Orders.
  10.40 p.m.
  Miss Margaret Herbison: I will not detain the House for many minutes at this late hour. I support the Prayers to annul these Statutory Instruments, for the many reasons adduced by my hon. Friends. But there is one specific question I wish to ask the President of the Board of Trade. I hope that he will be able to give me a clear reply.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) raised a matter which is of the greatest importance to many people in Scotland. The specific question I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman is this. Will the Hire-Purchase and Credit Sale Agreements (Control) Order cover the firm about which he has a great deal of information, a firm which we consider to be most disreputable in its tradings in Scotland? Will the Order cover the trading of that firm?
  If the answer is "No," and it does not cover the trading activities of this firm, does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the very passing of this Order will drive more and more people in Scotland away from the more reputable firms that all of us trust into the hands of this most shockingly disreputable firm? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that every weekend I —and I am sure other hon. Gentlemen representing Scottish constituencies— have constituents coming to me because

  567
  of their very great worry about what is happening in their dealings with this firm? Does he know that this firm gets over—
  Hon. Members: Which firm?
  Miss Herbison: The name has been given time and time again in this House. The name is quite definitely Napier's. I have no hesitation in giving the name, because every week ordinary decent people are taken to the courts of Scotland by this firm. The charges are 2 per cent. per month. If it takes three years to pay whatever is obtained from this firm, my constituents and the constituents of other hon. Gentlemen representing Scottish constituencies have to pay 100 per cent. interest on the cash price.
  We on this side feel very strongly about that. If the right hon. Gentleman says that this firm's type of trading is not covered by the Order, he must accept the responsibility for driving more and more people into the hands of this disreputable firm and away from the more reputable firms in Scotland.
  10.43 p.m.
  The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Reginald Maudling): We have had a wide ranging debate on these Orders. I think that it would be fair to say that public opinion has understood and accepted the need for the Orders. In listening to the many vigorous arguments advanced in the House, I am still a little at a loss to understand why anyone should vote against them.
  They are limited, but they are limited for one very special reason. The power the Board of Trade has to make these Orders is limited by the Emergency Laws (Repeal) Act, 1959, paragraph 1 (b) of the First Schedule of which says that we can by Order provide
  "for imposing in respect of the disposal, acquisition or possession of articles of any description under hire-purchase agreements or credit-sale agreements, or under agreements for letting on hire, such prohibitions and restrictions as appear … to be required for restricting excessive credit."
  Therefore, we have the power to act only for the purpose of restricting excessive credit and only in the case of hire-purchase agreements, credit sale agreements, or agreements for letting on hire. Therefore, while I listened with great
  568
  interest, and will study what has been said by a number of hon. Members, starting with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) himself, about interest rates and other practices, they cannot come under the Order, and could not be covered, as far as I know, under the legislation from which the Orders derive. Therefore, as the Orders could not have contained such provisions, it is not a logical ground for voting against them that they do not contain something that the legislation does not permit them to contain, and I have read out the only powers we have to make such Orders.
  That gives rise to certain difficulties. There is the problem that has been raised by two hon. Members opposite about certain activities in Scotland. I can only say that, as I have just read from the Statute, our powers are limited to hire-purchase agreements and credit sales agreements, and both are defined. A hire-purchase agreement involves the bailment of goods, and I would not have thought that the type of transaction referred to was a hire-purchase agreement.
  Whether it was a credit-sale agreement I could not say without knowledge of the individual case. A credit-sale agreement is a contract of sale of goods under which the whole or part of the purchase is payable by instalments. If the contract refers to a particular article, or certain goods, and the money is payable in instalments, it might be covered by the Order, but it sounds to me as though the transactions referred to—and I must speak without prejudice, not having the details—are more in the nature of personal loans.
  That is where we get into a realm of very great difficulty, indeed, because an unsecured personal loan is something that is exceedingly hard to control, and the more the matter is studied the more difficult it is to finding a way of limiting unsecured personal loans—or secured personal loans, for that matter—without interfering with the normal freedom of the individual to lend and to borrow money. That is the difficulty—
  Mr. Mitchison: Perhaps, in answering my hon. Friends from Scotland about this Scottish matter, the right hon. Gentleman would use the Scottish rather than the English definition in his own Order.
  Mr. Maudling: Yes, I have checked up—as I saw the hon. and learned Gentleman running through his book—that, in fact, the practice is the same. Although it may be expressed differently, I am told that the legal effect is the same.
  Mr. Lawson: Could I suggest that if, in fact, the type of transaction we have described is not covered by the Orders, it is open to other hire-purchase firms to adopt this device and so escape altogether the intention of the Orders?
  Mr. Maudling: I shall certainly consider what the hon. Gentleman says, but I must make the point that it is not in the Orders, and could not be in the Orders because they go to the extent of our powers. If something were done to cover transactions of another character, it would involve legislation. It would not be in order to discuss that, but perhaps I could say that legislation to cover secured or unsecured personal loans is an exceedingly difficult task on which to embark.
  This, of course, is relevant to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and others about personal loans given by the banks. Perhaps I could remain in order by saying that the difference is that one operates in the field of personal loans by restricting the amounts that the banks have available to lend, but it is not possible to deal with that in terms of an Order which deals in a different way with different forms of extension of credit. If I went beyond that, Mr. Speaker, I should be trespassing on your patience more than I should.
  I must say that I find it difficult to understand the reasons advanced for objecting to Orders that impose certain minimum deposits and certain maximum periods of repayment. Apart from the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin), who made, I thought, a vigorous if somewhat peculiar speech, everyone else who has spoken has not only been in favour of the restrictions but has been rather inclined to say that they should be made permanent, and possibly even more stringent.
  As I have explained, under our powers we cannot do that, because we can act only for the purpose of restricting excessive credit. It would involve legislation, but I cannot see why people
  570
  whose only complaint is that our Orders do not last for ever should vote against them, just because they are on a temporary basis. Surely, temporary action is better than nothing at all.
  Mr. Diamond: Is there anything to prevent the right hon. Gentleman from taking these Orders away and bringing in other Orders which are tougher?
  Mr. Maudling: That is the point that I am making—I can introduce Orders only to restrict excessive credit. The point that the hon. Member has in mind is not that there is excessive credit but that it is socially wrong. That may or may not be right, but it cannot be done under the present powers.
  Mr. Jay: If someone took the view that there always ought to be a down payment on social grounds, might it not be thought that there was excessive credit when there was no down payment?
  Mr. Maudling: I think the phrase "excessive credit" must be taken to mean economically excessive and not socially excessive. I think that must be right.
  As to the degree of effect on the economy, here again there seems to be some disagreement. Some argue, as the right hon. Gentleman did, that the effect would be very severe, and some people say, as the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) said, that the effect would be very little. The expansion of the hire-purchase debt last year was of the order of £300 million. It is a pretty large item in the economy. But the measures that we have introduced —the minima that we have prescribed and the lengths of payment that we have prescribed—are very much in line with the current practice of the better and more reputable traders.
  I would not expect the effect of these Orders to be drastic in any particular field. It is not possible to give an assessment in mathematical terms of what would be the amount of reduction or possibly the amount of further increase of the hire-purchase debt in succeeding months. Certainly these measures will exercise a restraining influence, although I would not have thought more than that, and I hope very much—and I see no reason to suspect

  571
  that this hope will be unjustified—that no industry will feel any severe effects.
  Certainly in some cases that have been mentioned—for example, motor cars— there is scope for a substantial increase in export sales, since our manufacturers are having to quote long delivery dates at home and abroad because of the enormous expansion in demand. I think they are doing a magnificent job. They are exporting a very proper proportion of their present output. They can argue that as long as the motor car market in this country is so vigorous, the more they export the more that is imported to fill up the gap. So I think a certain restraining effect upon the motor car market will have a good effect on the balance of payments.
  In the case of furniture, mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, we have deliberately kept the deposit to a modest 10 per cent. I cannot help feeling that an industry that cannot build its prosperity on the basis of this degree of control is not a healthily-based industry. I do not believe that the effects of these Orders on the furniture industry should be in any way severe.
  It has been said—and it has been rightly raised—that constant changes in these matters are difficult for industry. I think the number of changes that have been made in the past can possibly be exaggerated. But we must be realistic about this. Any Government would try to run its economy as close as it can possibly be run to the danger of inflation. We want the maximum production and output that we can have without going back to inflation and balance of payments difficulties. Therefore, we are always working on a very small margin indeed, and there will be constant need for watching out for possible adjustment in one direction or the other. It would be ideal from the point of view of productive industry for a steady level of demand to be guaranteed over a period, but that is not within the grasp of a country with our overseas trade commitments, and inadequate reserves and with all the difficulties there are in the international trade on which we depend.
  A number of other points were raised. The point relating to caravans is interesting. We kept the deposit at 10 per cent. rather than raising it to 20 per cent. which I hope will be a help, but I will
  572
  certainly study what hon. Members said on that matter and keep it in mind.
  Mr. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend deal with the fascinating point about the National Coal Board?
  Mr. Maudling: If my hon. Friend will give me time, I will. My hon. Friend made the point, if I understood him, that all hire-purchase transactions should be on the basis of at least a 20 per cent. deposit, and there should be no more than 24 months for payment. Then he seemed to be arguing the case of coal-fired appliances and saying that that should not apply there. As for the advertisements by the National Coal Board, of course, I cannot comment on them without looking at them. Obviously these Orders apply to the nationalised industries just as to any other person.
  I think that my hon. Friend had better study both the Order and the advertisement, because, although he tells us that he always knows the answer to the question before he asks it, on this occasion he failed to provide us with an answer.
  Mr. Nabarro: I told my right hon. Friend the answer. He is being a little less than just. I told him the answer and he listened to it with great care. In fact, the Coal Board is financing these arrangements through a trust, a subsidiary of a bank. That is in effect a hire-purchase transaction, but an evasion of what we are now discussing. I instanced it on the ground that it was quite inequitable that there should be two different methods, one controlled and one uncontrolled.
  Mr. Maudling: Yes, I have dealt with that. I think the point my hon. Friend was raising was directed to whether these Orders were being evaded by the National Coal Board. To that, I do not think he gave an answer.
  I think I have covered most of the points. Frankly, I do not know about the hiring of a loud-speaker by the hon. Member for Gloucester. I think the limitation in the Order is a maximum of 12 days in a period of 28 days. But, by putting two twelves together, one might make it up to 24, which would be enough even for the hon. Gentleman's campaign, I think. I hope I shall not be quoted on that in a court of law, if the occasion arises.
  Mr. Jay: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the point about discrimination between 10 per cent. in the case of jewellery and 20 per cent. in the case of refrigerators, and other instances which both the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and I raised?
  Mr. Maudling: I thing the jewellery one was the important one. Looking into it, I find that the 10 per cent. was the rate in previous years, and, in general, these particular periods and deposits are based on experience of practice in the trade. I think a longer period for cookers was originally based on the fact that, usually, cookers were sold over a longer payment period. Also, as regards the down payment in the case of jewellery, it is true, as I think the right hon. Gentleman said, that a good deal of jewellery bought is in the form of engagement rings and wedding rings, and there is, possibly, a reasonable case for easing a little the difficulties in those circumstances.
  I have given this some thought. I was doubtful about it, but as in the past jewellery had been treated on this basis, I could not think of a good reason for treating it on a more severe basis, comparatively, on this occasion. That is the reason why it stands at that point in the Schedule.
  Generally, on the discrimination between one appliance and another, it is based normally on the custom in the trade. I remember that on previous occasions the case of wash boilers and cookers was rather strongly argued by hon. Members who said that they should be given the special treatment which they are given in this Schedule, and which, of course, carries on the special treatment they had at the time the Regulations lapsed in October, 1958.
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: Will the President of the Board of Trade deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) in respect of the differential deposit on the different types of solid fuel appliances?
  Mr. Maudling: I understand that cookers have always been, according to the custom in the trade, sold on a longer term basis of payment than space heating appliances. That is, I think, why we have done what we have here, repeating what was followed between 1955 and
  574
  1958, and copying the practice of the past. Also, I think there was a considerable argument on earlier occasions that cookers and wash boilers were fundamental requirements of the home whereas space heaters were not to the same extent and should be treated differently. Those were the reasons in the past why they were treated exceptionally, and we have continued the same treatment for the same reasons on this occasion.
  There was a certain amount of political argument from the right hon. Gentleman back to his old theme about our opportunist and cynical policy, but that was, I think, dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), among others. The right hon. Gentleman talked about—[Interruption.] It is a silly argument from the Opposition. Although the hon. Member for Loughborough said that he saw this coming a year ago, he said precious little about it at the time. During 1959, we were encouraged to go ahead and expand consumer demand and expand it faster than we did at the time. Now, we are told by the right hon. Gentleman that hon. Members opposite agree now that there should be restraint. They agreed with us then, they agree with us now. Why is the Opposition's motive pure and ours opportunist and cynical when we both arrive at the right conclusion in the interest of the national economy? [HON. MEMBERS: "Come off it."] The restatement of the argument tonight by the right hon. Gentleman was even feebler than I heard it during the Budget debates.
  We have examined the Orders with care. As I explained earlier, they are limited in scope, but they are limited by the legislation under which we are operating. Therefore, it is not fair to criticise the Orders on the ground that we are not doing things that we are not empowered to do.
  Mr. Diamond: The right hon. Gentleman has heard great expression on both sides that there should be a permanent minimum deposit. Will he, therefore, say whether, under these enabling powers, he is compelled to withdraw the Orders as soon as the inflationary pressure is reduced, or whether, in the circumstances, it is Government policy to let them stay as long as possible?
  Mr. Maudling: I would say that we have power to maintain these Orders only so long as there is a danger of excessive credit. The question of imposing permanent control is an extremely interesting one upon which we should all reflect. My point is that it is not something which can be done under the Orders. Because we cannot do these things under the Orders, they should not have been criticised for omitting them.
  As for the effect of the Orders concerning minimum deposit and maximum period of repayment, we have been
  urged by both sides to go further than we have been willing to go. That is not a good reason for voting against the Orders. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that the reasons of the party opposite for voting against the Orders, if it decides to do so, are as bad as the reasons that the right hon. Gentleman tried to give for the action that the Government are taking.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 78, Noes 172.

  Division No. 82.]

  AYES

  [11.2 p.m.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  Hannan, William

  Randall, Harry

  Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Rankin, John

  Blackburn, P.

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Redhead, E. C.

  Blyton, William

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)

  Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)

  Hilton, A. V.

  Ross, William

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Holman, Percy

  Small, William

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Cliffe, Michael

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Hunter, A. E.

  Steele, Thomas

  Cronin, John

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Crosland, Anthony

  Jeger, George

  Stones, William

  Darling, George

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Sylvester, George

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  King, Dr. Horace

  Symonds, J. B.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Lawson, George

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Deer, George

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Thornton, Ernest

  Dempsey, James

  Loughlin, Charles

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Diamond, John

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Mclnnes, James

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter

  Mackie, John

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Manuel, A. C.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Marsh, Richard

  Willey, Frederick

  Fitch, Alan

  Millan, Bruce

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Forman, J. C.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Morris, John

  Ginsburg, David

  Oram, A. E.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Prentice, R. E.

  Mr. Mahon and Mr. Charles Howell.

  NOES

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Hiley, Joseph

  Allason, James

  Dance, James

  Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

  Arbuthnot, John

  de Ferranti, Basil

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hobson, John

  Barber, Anthony

  du Cann, Edward

  Holland, Philip

  Barlow, Sir John

  Duncan, Sir James

  Hollingworth, John

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Elliott, R. W.

  Hopkins, Alan

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Emery, Peter

  Hornby, R. P.

  Bingham, R. M.

  Farr, John

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia

  Bishop, F. P.

  Finlay, Graeme

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Bossom, Clive

  Fisher, Nigel

  Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Gammans, Lady

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Brewis, John

  Gardner, Edward

  Jackson, John

  Brooman-White, R.

  George, J. C. (Pollok)

  James, David

  Bullard, Denys

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Goodhart, Philip

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Cole, Norman

  Goodhew, Victor

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Collard, Richard

  Gower, Raymond

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Green, Alan

  Kitson, Timothy

  Cordle, John

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Corfield, F. V.

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. H.

  Coulson, J. M.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Critchley, Julian

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Cunningham, Knox

  Hay, John

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Curran, Charles

  Hendry, Forbes

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  McLaren, Martin

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Teeling, William

  Maddan, Martin

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Temple, John M.

  Maginnis, John E.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Maitland, Cdr. J. W.

  Ramsden, James

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Turner, Colin

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Rees, Hugh

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Mawby, Ray

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Maydon, Lt.Cmdr. S. L. C.

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  Mills, Stratton

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Wade, Donald

  Morgan, William

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Wall, Patrick

  Morrison, John

  Sharples, Richard

  Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

  Mott-Radoliffe, Sir Charles

  Shaw, M.

  Watts, James

  Nabarro, Gerald

  Shepherd, William

  Webster, David

  Neave, Airey

  Simon, Sir Jooelyn

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Noble, Michael

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Whitelaw, William

  Nugent, Sir Richard

  Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Smithers, Peter

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Osborne, Cyril (Louth)

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Wise, A. R.

  Page, Graham

  Speir, Rupert

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Stodart, J. A.

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Peel, John

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Worsley, Marcus

  Percival, Ian

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Pilkington, Capt. Richard

  Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

  Mr. Edward Wakefield and

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Sumner, Donald (Orpington)

  Mr. Chichester-Clark.

  Pott, Percivall

  Talbot, John E.

  Motion made, and Question,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Control of Hiring Order, 1960 (S.I, 1960, No. 763), dated 27th April, 1960, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th April, be annulled —[Mr. Jay]—
  put and negatived.
  Motion made, and Question,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Control of Hiring (Rebates) Order, 1960 (S.I., 1960, No. 764), dated 27th April, 1960, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th April, be annulled—[Mr. Jay]—
  put and negatived.

  SOUTH WALES COALFIELDS (EMPLOYMENT)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Finlay.]
  11.13 p.m.
  Mr. S. O. Davies(Merthyr Tydvil): On 11th April I had to give notice that I would raise at the first opportunity presented to me the subject of the disgraceful treatment meted out by the National Coal Board to those employed in small or licensed mines in South Wales. I would say at the outset that I have no financial interest, directly or indirectly, either in the mining or the marketing of any kind of coal.
  I wish the House to consider the terms laid down by the Coal Board. For the nine months from 1st April to 31st December of this year, the Board has decided that the output, compared with a similar period in 1959, must be reduced from 16 per cent. in some small mines to as much as 66 per cent. in others. This shows that the Board has given no consideration to the varying circumstances existing in these mines. I am very glad to be able to say, however, that in the South Wales coal field the Board says that output from deep mines will not be cut this year.
  In addition to this disastrous imposition by the Board, it also demands that royalties of from 4s. to 6s. a ton be paid to it by these small mines, and that each licensee must deposit in a so-called "security fund" held by the Board the sum of £100 for each opening of these small mines, plus £10 an acre of the individual takings.
  These are the crippling financial penalties which have been imposed—and I say deliberately imposed and irresponsibly so—on the small mines by the National Coal Board on the principle of "accept them or clear out". The Board has never done anything for the small mines. They have always been left by the Board to their own devices. Neither in the working nor the marketing of their coal have these small mines been helped by the Board in any way. These demands are made by a body which accepted huge opencast schemes without a word of protest which have driven thousands of miners out of the deep
  580
  mines in South Wales and other parts of the country.
  I must explain that there are a dozen of these small mines in my constituency, where nearly half of the men employed in them have been written off already because of the conditions imposed by the Board. Furthermore, a very substantial proportion of these men will never return to the deep mines because of their age or because of injuries which they have received while working in them. The position is roughly the same throughout the whole of the South Wales coalfield. Miners who have been injured are already out of work by the hundreds in that coalfield, and the Board apparently can do nothing for them.
  Among these small mines there are between 65 and 70 working anthracite coal, the scarcity of which has now reached famine proportions. But the Board is determined to destroy them. No distinction between these and the non-anthracite small mines has been made by the Board, although many of these produce anthracite of a very high quality. The Board officially admits the extreme scarcity of this type of coal. Two weeks ago a member of the Board's opencast executive said in South Wales that "there was a serious deficit of high-grade anthracite as against the demand in world markets and that the new projects for deep mines would not reach peak proportions in production for another two or three years or more. If this state of affairs continues, we cannot meet this demand, and the markets will be lost, possibly to oil, and if that happens, we shall never regain those markets."
  This was said in an appeal to the Carmarthen Rural District Council to work anthracite by opencast in that very beautiful county. As I have said, the National Coal Board is in the process now of destroying nearly 70 small mines. This disastrous, contradictory, and ever-changing policy of the Board has characterised its administration during the last several years. At one moment, the miners are urged to sacrifice everything, even their negotiated agreements, in the interests of greater output. This they do, with the result that almost in a matter of months thousands of them are displaced from their collieries.
  We are tired of being regaled by the Board with a spate of speeches about

  581
  uneconomic and exhausted pits, about so-called unforeseen difficulties which—I say again deliberately—could have been foreseen by anyone with an elementary knowledge of economics and a little interest in the mining industry. Is it any wonder that the leaders of the South Wales miners say that the industry as administered has destroyed the belief that coal mining any longer offers security of employment? They say that never again will their union be shackled by the obligation of persuading men to work in the pits. I know the leaders and every one of them knows the industry very well indeed. They are responsible men, whose lives have been spent in the mining industry, and no person or body of people is more desirous of seeing the industry prosper than they.
  The Board's attack on the small mines is only one of many disastrous steps. It is time someone should say so, and in this House, and particularly those ex-miners here who have backed the Board all along the line since vesting day. The attack on the small mines is only one of many ignoble steps which have been taken in the Board's 13-odd years of existence. It has, as I indicated, destroyed the confidence of the miners and the mining communities in the industry. The Board has been far more concerned with satisfying such a Government as this than in making the mining industry a success.
  When we talk about coal we are referring—I wish the Board would wake up to this—to the infinitely richest mineral in this world. Its potentialities are almost incredible. Some of us—I must confess to this—in the last forty years have tried to awaken the interest of the people, including Governments, in the vast riches known to exist in such coal as we have had in this country. Some of us had hoped that when the mining industry was nationalised we had broken for ever with the terrible wastrelism which characterised that industry in its long and its barbarous history, when for generations coal was regarded merely as fuel. Four-fifths of its thermal content was destroyed, and for the last forty years, that is, to this day—and I defy any coal man on the
  582
  Board to dispute this—not a tenth of its known values have been extracted for public use: not one-tenth. Aided and abetted by a Government such as we have these days, the Coal Board has made no contribution to remedy this.
  I am told that at last—and I welcome this spot of news which has come my way—the Board is doing something about coal derivatives and their possible extraction. I appeal to the Board to wake up about this matter. Let it start with an inquiry into the services rendered by the coal industry as far back as the 1914–18 war when dozens of derivatives —by-products as we called them then— from anaesthetics to high explosives, from saccharine to rivers of paints and dyes, an almost complete pharmacopoeia and other most essential products were extracted from the coal mined by British coal miners.
  I now make the awful suggestion that the Coal Board visits East Germany and the mines of the Hoyerswerda-Sprem-berg district there to see the vast and almost fabulous industries which have been built up on lignite, always regarded contemptuously by both the British coal owner and the British miner as that inferior brown coal. There, not only scores but many scores of derivatives have been extracted and many large industries have been brought into being thanks to the scientific exploitation of this lignite, or brown coal. So successful has that been, that in that district lignite is now known not as an inferior coal, whose geological development was held up as it were and never evolved, a coal which we treated with contempt, but rather as black gold.
  Knowing of the tremendous work which had been done on this inferior brown coal, I asked for a booklet to be sent to me. This is what a German scientist says about lignite:
  " When you come home in the evening"—
  this could have been written by a Welshman; there is a touch of poetry about it and usually only the Welsh people know how to put it in words like that, and it is beautiful, even in the English language—
  "and switch on the electric lamp whose bulbs flood your room in warm light, do you know what is almost invariably the source of your electric power? The girl buying perlon underwear"—

  583
  here it could be nylon underwear—
  "in a department-store, does she know what perlon is made of? The man over there, nervously stroking his forehead, who takes a headache powder, does he realise what is the basis of many drugs? The discs placed on the gramophone, the candles for the Christinas tree, the soap with which you wash, the petrol for the motor car, the gas flame in the kitchen, smelting coke, detergents—all these have their origin in the basic material called lignite or brown coal"—
  this is not Welsh bituminous coal, rich in an infinity of by-products, but lignite or brown coal—
  "the formerly despised peat-earth."
  My time is rushing mercilessly on. I want the hon. Gentleman to have something to throw back at me. I am sure that he will do his best to throw something back. As long as it is nothing worse than a piece of first-class Welsh coal, with which I am well acquainted, I shall stand it very well.
  The Coal Board should stop playing about with this great and rich mineral. Why do not the Government encourage the Board to extract these by-products, these derivatives, from coal? First, I suggest to both Government and National Coal Board that they should have the brains, understanding and desire to establish a national fuel policy, coordinating the coal, gas, electricity and atomic energy industries so that a planned fuel policy could be evolved. From this would follow far more scientific research into coal and the development of many other new forms of coal utilisation.
  I am sorry that I have had to put the case so strongly this evening, but there is a limit to the patience of those who have spent so many years of their lives in the mining industry and who in fact—we might as well admit—know only that industry. We are getting tired of the continual frittering away of the richest of all mineral deposits in the world. I look to the Parliamentary Secretary to give me some encouragement so that we can carry on with some sense of security in the future.
  11.33 p.m.
  Mr. Raymond Gower: The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies) referred to the small mines in Wales. I hope that my hon. Friend will pay particular attention to them. I
  584
  gather that the small mines in England have reluctantly taken the view that they must accept the terms which are offered. The terms offered to the small mines in Wales, employing in the aggregate nearly as many workers as the small mines in England, are far less satisfactory. Whereas in England the cut back is by about 40 per cent., in Wales for some mysterious reason it is larger, despite the fact that the National Coal Board is not in the long run to decrease its production in Wales in a similar way to most of the other areas in the country.
  I wish also to mention the amount of increased royalty being asked. There used to be criticisms of the old coal owners. If they had asked for a 600 per cent. increase in royalty, I can imagine what would have been said to them. I ask my hon. Friend to ask the National Coal Board to look at this again.
  11.34 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. J. C. George): The subject of this Adjournment Motion is unemployment in relation to the coalfields of South Wales. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies) has travelled very far, indeed, but has dealt very little with that subject. However, just for a moment, I should like to deal with the subject of the Motion.
  The fact is that there is practically no unemployment in the coalfields of South Wales today. On 14th March there were on the books of the labour exchanges only 1,050 miners, which represents about 1 per cent. Unemployment of miners in South Wales does not present a problem generally—
  Mr. S. O. Davies: What about the disabled miners, too?
  Mr. George: The disabled miners, of course, are included in that total. Had the hon. Gentleman dealt with unemployment, he would have known exactly the position, but it should be recorded that amongst the miners in South Wales there is only about 1 per cent. unemployment.
  I turn now to the subject with which the hon. Gentleman actually dealt at length, and which my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) has just mentioned—the treatment by the National Coal Board of the small mines in South Wales. The Board was

  585
  given authority by this House to extract coal in Britain. It still has the sole authority to extract coal, but within that authority it has power to grant licences, and to those licences it has the power to attach any conditions that it thinks are best for the industry. The Board, in pursuance of the powers given to it by this House, decided that quotas should be a condition of the licences to be issued this year, and in the years ahead.
  The initial purpose of the Board was to put a stop, if possible, to the anomalous position that while the Board was forced seriously to reduce output year after year, the small mines were, at the same time, raising their's substantially—
  Mr. Davies: Only at the request of the Coal Board.
  Mr. George: The hon. Gentleman had more than his full share of the time available, so perhaps he will allow me to use the last few minutes he has left me to give him information that may help him.
  The hon. Gentleman says that the reductions range from 16 per cent. to 66 per cent. Of course, they are nothing of the kind, as I shall show in a moment. He has also spoken of what he calls the terrific injustice of increased royalties, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Barry. The National Coal Board, and we at the Ministry, had the pleasure of meeting the small mine owners and listened to their grievances more than once. They never once raised the question of increased royalties. That is a fact. I repeat; never once did they raise that question as an injustice in any way—
  Mr. Davies: Not with the Coal Board.
  Mr. George: I therefore leave that question where they left it, and turn to the quotas. The Coal Board made up its mind that the small mine owners should play the same part as the Board itself was playing and should help the industry as a whole. It decided that the quotas should be reduced. In 1958 the small mines produced 2·6 million tons, and, initially, the Board said that their production in 1960 would be 2 million tons, and in 1961, 1·5 millions tons—
  Mr. Davies: Why not compare it with 1959?
  Mr. George: As I say—1·5 million tons in 1961. That was the Board's proposal.
  The small mine owners resented the reductions and approached my right hon. Friend, who made it quite clear that the responsibility was the Board's and that he had no authority on this question whatever. However, he used his good offices, and further negotiations took place. In the end, the representatives of the small mine owners—the people whom the owners had elected to lead them as trade unions appoint people to lead them—came to an agreement with the Board, on behalf of all their members, to accept in 1960, not 2 million tons, but 2·2 million tons; not 1·5 million tons in 1961, but 1·8 million tons; and 1·7 million tons in 1962. The leaders of the small mineowners accepted these terms and promised to recommend their acceptance to their members. It is true that the vast majority of small mine-owners whose licences expired on 31st March have accepted new licences incorporating the quotas. In South Wales and Monmouthshire 19 have decided not to renew their licences for various reasons, but the majority of small mineowners in the country have accepted the terms of the new licences.
  Mr. Gower: Under protest.
  Mr. George: I am not aware of that. The hon. Gentleman may have more information than I have, but I understand that that is the position. Let us see why. The hon. Gentleman said the reductions were 16 per cent. to 66 per cent. Of course, they are nothing of the kind. It is true that the reduction in 1960 is 16 per cent. But within the 16 per cent. there is power for every National Coal Board Division to give a 10 per cent. hardship allowance. If there is any danger of hardship in a small mine the division is allowed to increase the quota by 10 per cent. This means that in 1960 if there is hardship there is no reduction beyond 6 per cent.
  The hon. Gentleman raised the question of the shortage of anthracite in South Wales and the action of the "stupid Coal Board" in doing everything to prevent an increase in output. Had he known the facts of the situation he would have learned that the Coal Board in its agreement with the small mineowners have said to South Wales that where in

  587
  any district the qualities of anthracite in short supply are produced they will have an open quota to produce as much as they like. That is the agreement. The hon. Gentleman ought to have known that. There is a hardship allowance reducing the 16 per cent. by 10 per cent. and there is an open quota enabling the small mineowners to produce all the anthracite they like. The majority of the small mineowners have agreed to the position and have accepted the licences. The agreement was accepted by the mineowners' representatives. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman must accept what I am saying. I have told him the arrangement. I do not care what document he has in his hand; that is the arrangement.
  The hon. Gentleman says that the Coal Board is determined to destroy the small mineowners. The Board had an instrument in its hand by which it could have destroyed them all. It only had to refuse to renew the licences and they would have been out of business. But the Board did not do that. It drew up an agreement which was equitable to itself and to the mineowners. I must make it clear that I am not taking sides on this question. I rest upon the fact that an agreement was reached between the leaders of the two sides of the industry and that it is being put into execution.
  The hon. Gentleman tried to impress upon the House that derivatives were the cure, that they would require millions of
  588
  tons of coal and would have meant the saving of the mining industry. Of course, nobody in his senses would suggest that any production of derivatives would consume millions of tons of coal per annum. That is not true. But the Coal Board is not so unmindful of its responsibilities as not to be looking into this matter and we at the Ministry are keenly aware of the problem.
  My right hon. Friend's predecessor appointed the Wilson Committee to do the job which the hon. Member suggests should be done. That Committee is studying all the knowledge available of every form of derivative, and the use of coal for purposes other than simply for burning. The Wilson Committee will report soon and we hope it reports favourably on some of the systems which have been devised so far. But let no one try to deceive himself or this House that the manufacture of coal derivatives will play any great part in consuming millions of tons of coal annually, for it will do nothing of the kind.
  A great deal of ground was covered in this debate, and great emphasis was laid upon the unfairness and injustice—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at seventeen minutes to Twelve o'clock.

POST OFFICE
  S.W.I Postal District
  S.W.I Postal District
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Transport Aircraft (Backward-facing Seats)
  Transport Aircraft (Backward-facing Seats)
  Reconnaissance Aircraft (Flights)
  Reconnaissance Aircraft (Flights)
ROADS
  Accidents
  Accidents
  Hull-Barnsley Railway Line
  Hull-Barnsley Railway Line
TRANSPORT
  Motorists (Car Insurance)
  Motorists (Car Insurance)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Blue Steel II
  Blue Steel II
EMPLOYMENT
  Health, Safety and Welfare (Advisory Committees)
  Health, Safety and Welfare (Advisory Committees)
  Industrial Disputes
  Industrial Disputes
SOUTHERN RHODESIA
  Meetings
  Meetings
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Personal Incomes (Value)
  Personal Incomes (Value)
  Exchequer Financing Figures
  Exchequer Financing Figures
  Central and Local Taxation
  Central and Local Taxation
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Blue Streak
  Blue Streak
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Plastics, Synthetic Fibres and Rubber
  Plastics, Synthetic Fibres and Rubber
COLONIAL TERRITORIES
  Congo Basin Countries (Trade)
  Congo Basin Countries (Trade)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Improvement Schemes
  Improvement Schemes

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

THE LORD BISHOP OF OXFORD
Harry James, Lord Bishop of Oxford—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham—Took the Oath.

ST. MARTIN'S PARISH CHURCH BIRMINGHAM BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

UNIVERSITY AND OTHER HIGHER EDUCATION
2.42 p.m.
LORD SIMON OF WYTHENSHAWE LORD SIMON OF WYTHENSHAWE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government to appoint a Committee to inquire and report on the extent and nature of the provisions of full-time education for those over the age of 18, whether in universities or in other educational institutions; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I begin by explaining my justification for moving this Resolution? It is that I have been a member of the Council—that is, the lay governing body—of Manchester University for nearly fifty years. I have seen this University grow from about 2,000 to nearly 6,000 students. It is the oldest and largest regional university in England. The regional universities of this country have now become, and especially will this be so for the next twenty years, by far the most important universities of the country, in the sense that practically all the expansion will be in the regional universities.
In the last twenty years the number of students in the universities of Britain has doubled, from 50,000 to 100,000. At the
616
same time the dons have increased 2½ times—that is to say, at the beginning each teacher had 12 students to look after, but he has only eight now. That is striking proof of the steady help given through the University Grants Committee by the Treasury in staff salaries. At the same time, the universities during the last twenty years have adopted many new fields of study, chiefly scientific—new kinds of chemistry, physics, engineering, and exciting nuclear development; so that, on the whole, both as regards numbers and as regards variety of work, there is no doubt that the teaching and research standards have been fully maintained in spite of the increase in numbers. At the present time Oxford and Cambridge have between them 16,000 students, and London has 20,000. Between them they have one-third of the students, the other two-thirds belonging to the regional universities, English, Scottish and Welsh.
In the last few years there has been a remarkable acceleration in the vigour and energy of the University Grants Committee, due to the fact that (and this came out in the Crowther Report the other day) there is a great increase in the number of sixth form and of persons anxious to go to the universities. Public opinion has been demanding that places should be available for all those willing to go, and Parliament looks like paying three quarters of the necessary funds. I have discussed this with various authorities, and it seems to me likely that the numbers having doubled from 50,000 to 100,000 in the last twenty years, they may double again in the next twenty years, from 100,000 to 200,000, and nearly all that increase will be in the regional universities.
I had an interesting lesson in the new vigour which the University Grants Committee and the schools and others are putting into this when I visited the University of Sussex at Brighton a few days ago. Some of your Lordships may have noticed in the Daily Telegraph to-day a long and vigorous article about the prospects of Brighton. I saw what was being done there; I saw the energy and enthusiasm of the Vice-Chancellor, and I must say I came away very much encouraged and feeling that the University Grants Committee, who have always done a good job in many ways, are warmly to be congratulated on making

617
their new plans with imagination and vigour. The Vice-Chancellor was most interesting. He thought that, for the first time in the history in this country, it was possible, owing to the fact that there were so many willing parents and so many children in the sixth forms of secondary schools and money available from the University Grants Committee, now to plan in advance a new university, with all the modern knowledge, right from the start. That, I think, is a most encouraging thing. Incidentally, they have there a lovely site.
My Lords, my Motion calls for study not only of the universities, but also of non-university institutions for those of eighteen-plus. There has been a remarkable growth in recent years. To-day, there are 30,000 people in teacher training colleges and 40,000 in technical, commercial and art colleges: that is, 70,000 altogether, which is not so very far behind the 100,000 of the universities. All the non-university institutions are under the Ministry of Education. It has just been decided that the training colleges are to extend their course from two years to throe years. I had hoped that Lord McNair, who some years ago brought out two most important Reports on these training colleges, would be here to explain the whole position, but I am sorry to say it has been found impossible for him to arrive. I had also hoped—I think we had all hoped—that Lord Weeks, who was chairman of a Ministry of Education Committee on higher technical colleges, would talk about their most important development. He was quite recently chairman of one of the largest concerns. It is unfortunate that he has been taken ill and is in hospital. He knows more than anybody else about these top training colleges. Training colleges are now called "C.A.Ts." Just before going into hospital he made a full speech on this subject, and sent a copy to the Lord Privy Seal and to me. It is so important that, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to say just a word or two about it.
Your Lordships know that these C.A.Ts., as they are called, are high-level training colleges. They award the "Dip. Tech.", as it is called. Lord Hives had a lot to do with the introduction of these. They are supported by some of the largest engineering firms, and practically all the boys in the
618
C.A.Ts.—and girls, if there are any—of whom there are about 9,000 now, do what is called a sandwich course, half the time in the works and half the time in college. Universities do not do those courses nor produce that kind of person. The contacts between the colleges of advanced technology and the universities are very slight—in fact, this coordination is almost a new movement. It is, however, very important, and it can be done only by inquiry, and by co-operation between the universities and C.A.Ts., and only if Her Majesty's Government set up a Committee, appointed, no doubt, partly from the Ministry of Education and partly from the Treasury, with authority to look into the whole subject and co-ordinate those two. I would further suggest to the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Privy Seal, that that is one of the most important tasks for the kind of national Committee we are proposing.
I understand that this is the first debate dealing with the broad position of about 180,000 young men and women—a total which in a few years is likely to rise to about 300,000—partly in the universities and partly in local, non-university organisations. It is clear that our standards of living in this country, and especially our export trade, depend greatly on our scientific, professional and technological education. Those young people are equally important as our future leading citizens strengthening our civilisation and our democracy; and I should like to repeat that, of all the important reasons for appointing a Government Committee to co-ordinate the work of universities and other organisations, this may well be the most important of all.
May I at this stage say a few words about the way in which our universities are governed? There are 27 of them, each with almost complete academic freedom, receiving three-quarters of all their capital and income from the Government, and administered by the University Grants Committee—a typically British, unusual and admirable body under the Treasury. I believe your Lordships will hear a great deal about the University Grants Committee during the course of this debate. As your Lordships will know, that Committee is headed by a university man picked by the Treasury—a very able Chairman—with

619
about twenty able university men and other part-time advisers. We are fortunate in having here to-day the noble Lord, Lord Dalton, who as Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1946 gave the U.G.C. new terms of reference as follows:
"To assist in the preparation and execution of such plans for the development of the universities as may from time to time be required to ensure that they are fully adequate to national needs."
The vice-chancellor of the universities willingly accepted these terms, and I am sure noble Lords will agree that the terms make very high demands on the efficiency of the universities. May I, in this connection, also warmly welcome the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, who as head of the Treasury for many years has kept a fatherly eye on the U.G.C. and has helped to ensure their efficiency and protect them from irresponsible attacks. It is gratifying that he has chosen to make his maiden speech in your Lordships' House on this subject.
The essential work of the University Grants Committee is to study the needs of the universities, to persuade Parliament and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make adequate grants and then to distribute those grants with absolute fairness to the best advantage among the 27 universities. I believe that the Committee are remarkably successful in doing that—certainly, Manchester University has no complaints. I think it will be agreed that the history of our universities under the U.G.C., especially in the last twenty years since World War has been a story of continuing development and great success of which we can all be proud.
May I mention a few other problems which I feel ought to be dealt with by one of the Committees appointed by the Government? I have already mentioned the possibility of aiming at a total number of 200,000 students by 1980. That may be all that we can manage, and certainly would represent important progress. But the number of students per 1,000 of our population to-day is almost the lowest in the civilised world; and even if we were to double the number again we might still be below—and much below—the figures of Russia, America and other countries. I hope that this whole question of total numbers will be dealt with by the noble
620
Lord, Lord Chorley, who as honorary secretary of the Association of University Teachers has unique experience in this matter. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, too, has ideas.
May I turn now to a very important new question, the size of individual regional universities? Twenty years ago, Manchester had 2,500 students; to-day it has 5,000. In a few years, under pressure from the U.G.C., we shall have 7,500 there. If we add those at the Manchester College of Technology, which has now become part of Manchester University, we shall soon have 10,000 students, making us larger than either Oxford or Cambridge, or any other university except London. We are getting rather near to the giant universities of the United States which many of us regard with concern and some dismay. The needs of new universities have already been mentioned. We had Keele nearly ten years ago, and we now have Brighton coming along. A great deal of thought is required, and has already been given, to where these new universities are to be situated—whether in beautiful country, in industrial areas or near to famous laboratories; and what size they are to be. Clearly, in regard to the size of regional universities we have rather drifted. There has been no serious thought about them, but the time has now come when serious thought is badly required.
Next I wish to say just a word or two (for many noble Lords will wish to speak) on halls of residence. Opinion in this country has been greatly strengthened in favour of more and more halls of residence. It is recognised that although these cannot give students the advantages that, say, Balliol or Trinity give them there are certain advantages to be gained, if we can get good tutors, to do something, at least, to break up the mass of 5,000 or 10,000 students. That point certainly requires more inquiry. Another subject which requires inquiry is finance. Her Majesty's Government have been steadily more generous since the war. Though far from generous with building grants originally, they are now getting better; and at present the U.G.C. are giving about £60 million to the universities. And that amount will, of course, increase. There is one aspect of the

621
U.G.C. which must be watched. They have immense power. They are paying three-quarters of the cost of the universities and, if they desired, could become almost an autocracy. They have tried to avoid that, but there is some nervousness; and it is clear that that aspect needs careful watching.
There is only one other administrative point; that is, whether we are learning what we can learn from foreign universities. Many of our professors go to see what their opposite numbers are doing in Germany and Russia. The whole organisation of M.I.T., of Cal. Tech., of various Russian universities and of Aachen and Zurich is in many ways in advance of what we have done here; and we do not know how and why. I am told, for instance, very emphatically, that the big American law schools, such as Harvard and Yale, produce types of industrialists and others in the public service who are a long way ahead of those we produce. We may be a little complacent in that matter, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Chorley, who has been to Harvard, who knows about it and who has a great admiration for it, may tell us something about it. I hope that we shall have what I think will have to be a Government Committee which is ready to go and learn what it can in America, Russia and other countries.
I have indicated about seven matters, all mainly of an administrative nature, which urgently require examination by a national committee: the probable rate of expansion over the next twenty years; the relationship between the administration of university and non-university educational institutions; some aspects of the work of the U.G.C.; the best size, location and number of universities and the need for responsibility; the whole problem of university finance, and the great need of learning more from overseas universities. There are plenty of acute problems to be investigated there, and I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will not fail me. Apart from these administrative questions, there are a number of academic questions which go on from year to year and generation to generation and never really get solved. There are at this moment—perhaps it is the most acute matter—more boys and girls anxious and qualified to go to universities than there are places avail-
622
able. There is, therefore, very keen competition and very much specialisation. The question of entry is, admittedly, unsatisfactory. Although the Vice-Chancellors have produced an important report, the question is far from being solved and further inquiry is needed.
Another internal question is the balance between teaching and research. Oxford and Cambridge have strong teaching, as well as research, traditions. Many students and dons live together in colleges, and contacts and teaching are very good. In the regional universities they are much less good. It still happens in some universities that a good many teachers have not a room of their own, which makes individual teaching, which is the best kind, totally impossible. That situation was remedied twenty years ago by the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, at the London School of Economics, but too many of the regional universities, including, I am sorry to say, my own university, have not yet solved it. I hope that he will be able to tell us how he did it and what the results are.
I think that another problem concerns the fields of study. Over the last 100 years science, which at one time hardly existed, has now come to dominate the university. In the last ten years technology has come on, and is becoming still more powerful. The social sciences have been greatly strengthened, but the arts have not been strengthened: although the numbers of students are increasing the arts, as a proportion of the universities, are decreasing. The one thing that we do want is general education which includes both science and the arts, and we do not know much about how to get it. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, and my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger, and, I hope, the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, will deal with some of these academic problems which are much the most difficult and, in many ways, much the most important.
My Lords, I have suggested the setting up of a number of committees, both administrative and academic. Some of them might be appointed by the U.G.C. or by the Vice-Chancellors' Committee, but it would be hardly fair to ask these two Committees to take on a study of

623
these long-term problems themselves. Moreover, they have so much responsibility for the present work of the universities that it would be hardly reasonable to ask them to sit in judgment on their own work. For these reasons it is quite clear, I think, that some, at least, of these subjects should be dealt with by independent persons nominated by the Government. I suggest, therefore, that it is reasonable to ask the Government at this stage to appoint a Committee or Committees (I do not know exactly what sort of a Committee or whether there ought to be one or several), or possibly even a Royal Commission. But certainly the conditions under which these 180,000 men and women are now working, are a matter requiring serious thought and study, and a report on proposed developments over the next generation.
Of course, there is always the danger that a powerful Committee of that sort may slow down existing work, and that must not be allowed, in any circumstances. I hope that the Government will announce that this Committee, or Committees, when appointed, are to work for three or four years to consider the next twenty years, or even the period right up to the year 2,000. But the U.G.C. and the Vice-Chancellors' Committee should be told that they must go on with the work they are now doing, and that in three or four years' time we expect a report that will indicate the best kind of development over the next twenty years. In the meantime they should go ahead as hard as they can with the present proposals of the U.G.C. and the Minister of Education. I have pleasure now in moving the Motion standing in my name. I beg to move for Papers.
3.7 p.m.
LORD BEVERIDGE: My Lords, may I begin by expressing my great gratitude to the noble Lord the mover of this Motion—and I am sure that gratitude will be shared by all Members of the House—for giving us the opportunity of discussing this vitally important question that he has raised. His Motion covers a large amount of ground. I shall limit myself to one part only: to universities and their problems. That is not because I think that the universities are the only important subject within this Motion. I
624
do not think that at all. But it so happens that the universities are the only part of the noble Lord's subject about which I personally know anything.
The universities are a blessed interval between the two disciplines that make up life—a sudden freedom. I remember saying that just more than thirty years ago, in welcoming a new body of students to the London School of Economics. The first discipline in life, of course, is that which parents and schoolmasters apply to children. The second discipline comes, when the university course is over, to those who have finished their course and then set about earning and managing their own affairs. When I welcomed the students to the School of Economics in those terms I did not stop at merely welcoming them to have a glorious party: I went on, as parents generally go on when they are welcoming their children to a party or taking them to a party, to play the heavy father and to warn them that they must learn how to behave. After saying. "The universities area blessed interval between the two disciplines that make up life—a sudden freedom," the "heavy father" went on: "Every man is known best by the way in which he uses riches; and the greatest of riches is freedom." That was as good as telling the students that they would be judged by the way in which they behaved at the university, by the degree of responsibility they had for their work and for their studies, and by their behaviour in general.
I am glad to say that on that occasion the students of the school took their "heavy father" well, and I hope that on this occasion this House will take me as its "heavy father", if only half as well. Because to me the university years are not meant to be treated, and should not be treated, as a good time for all. They are a privilege given to a limited number of people, carefully selected for a public purpose; and that privilege has to be taken and used responsibly. To me, our universities should be taken very seriously indeed, as a part of our social structure; as a vital instrument for increasing the happiness and wisdom of all our people, not only those who take part in the life of the university or its activities. Although those who take part in universities, whether students or teachers, will always

625
be a small proportion of the total population, they can add to the happiness of all. But they can and will add to that happiness only if those in charge of universities accept three principles, which I wish to lay down for guiding their actions.
The first is that those who control the universities should recognise that the most important purpose of a university is to spread knowledge, rather than to add to knowledge. Of course, any university teacher worth his salt will wish to add to his knowledge. He cannot be a good teacher unless he is interested in learning more and more. His work may well include the guidance of advanced students in research; and he will have, I hope, from time to time, a sabbatical year, so that he may be able to learn more himself. Many of them, although they teach admirably, ignore research: others, who indulge in a great deal of research, cannot teach. Those of us who have experience know those alternatives. But what is essential is that the teacher must not sacrifice teaching the next generation for writing his own books.
That, I am glad to remember, was laid down to the dons of Balliol just before I went there, years ago, by Jowett. He said that the business of dons was to look after young men, and not to write their books; and that was one of the things which made my college, Balliol, the absolutely marvellous place it was at the time. After all, research can be done without teaching: it can be done in an institute. At this moment, there are 70 institutes in Oxford itself which are concerned not with teaching but with research. It can be done without teaching. But you cannot turn young men and young women into useful citizens without teaching them, and without doing many more things in the process of teaching. That is my first point: that the most important function of any university or of anything entitled to call itself a university, is teaching rather than making new knowledge.
Let me now come to my second point: that the blessed interval of freedom at a university should be given to young men and young women, not on grounds of wealth or of birth, but on their personal qualities. With the demand for entrance to a university to-day so
626
immensely exceeding the places available, admission is a privilege which must not be wasted on anyone who cannot use it well. I shall return to that problem of selection at the end of what I have to say. In the meantime, it is enough to say that selection is much harder than before, chiefly through the extension of the different kinds of schools from which the students come and of the social background from which they come; and although I know, from direct knowledge, how the devoted university authorities welcome their task of selection, often they cannot avoid making mistakes, letting in one person while keeping out someone who is better and who should go in. But let me say that that possibility of mistake is one of my reasons for reinforcing the plea, which I shall make in a moment, for keeping evening study for university degrees alive, so that the person who fails to get in at university age but who is a born student can, after he goes out to work, still go on being a student.
Thirdly, the personal contacts and practical conditions of life of every university student should make easy and natural for him his personal contacts, not only with fellow students but with senior members of the university outside the laboratory or the lecture room. That point is strongly and most justly emphasised in several Reports made by the University Grants Committee, particularly those on university development, from 1947 to 1952 and from 1952 to 1957. In the first of the Reports they described the failure to raise the proportion of students living in colleges or halls of residence, as opposed to those living in lodgings or at home, as the "outstanding disappointment" of that quinquennium, 1947 to 1952. They said—and I quote:
"At the beginning of that quinquennium nearly all the universities and colleges expressed a strong desire to extend largely their provision of residential accommodation."
At the end of the quinquennium, exactly the same proportion of students were in residence in such accommodation as had been at the beginning of it. The number in residence had risen, but so had the number of other students; and, in the view of the University Grants Committee, at the end of the next quinquennium there would still be only about a quarter of all the students in such residence—just a little more but very little more.

627
The University Grants Committee had another disappointment, and I want to be allowed to illustrate that disappointment by a few detailed facts drawn from what is, to me, one of the most important publications of the Committee: a table showing for each of the 29 separate university institutions in Britain which were receiving grants the number of students living, respectively, in colleges or halls under academic care, as opposed to those in lodgings or at home, during the last academic year for which we have records, 1957–58. From this table I have had the temerity to prepare a table of my own giving all these appallingly dull figures as percentages, which can be understood and compared directly; and I found that they were of absorbing interest. Let me say that I have furnished members of the Government who are going to answer in this debate with a copy of that table, and if, after this debate, any other Member of the House is interested in what I deduce from the figures, I shall be happy to supply him or her with a copy. Indeed, I wish that I could read every figure out so that the whole table should be printed; but that is not for me to say.
I found the table of absorbing interest. It shows, first, the extreme differences of practice between one university institution and another. Let us begin upon the percentages of students who live in academic colleges. There is a maximum figure of 97 per cent. in the small college of North Staffordshire, and a respectable one of 61 per cent. in the Durham colleges; but the numbers go down to 3 per cent. in residence at Glasgow and to 1 per cent. in the University of Aberdeen, which, I am delighted to recall, gave me my first honorary degree. Aberdeen prefers this sort of provision to starting residences for its students.
To look at another item, at the numbers living at home, of all the students in Glasgow University to-day, 73 per cent. live at home; at Exeter it is only 4 per cent. and at Cambridge and Oxford, only 1 per cent. I cannot help suspecting that one of the attractions about Oxford and Cambridge—and they are both very attractive—is that students get right away from their families. Then we come to the question of lodgings. The figures vary from 63 per cent. at Birming-
628
ham and at other civic universities of that size down to 35 per cent. and less in other institutions. To me one of the most interesting contrasts in practice in regard to student residence—and I wish to emphasise this difference in practice of universities because I want to deal with their differences from one another in their surroundings and traditions of work—is that between two of the oldest universities in Scotland, St. Andrews, founded in 1411, and Glasgow, founded 40 years later, in 1451. Let me show how they compare in 1957–58. St. Andrews had about 40 per cent. in colleges and halls, nearly the same proportion in lodgings and 20 per cent. living at home. Glasgow, founded for the same purposes and in the same spirit, had 73 per cent. living at home, 20 per cent. in lodgings, and colleges and halls for only 7 per cent. This is a most striking illustration of the way in which the surroundings of a university affect the way in which it develops.
I hope I may be allowed to add something about the close personal interest which I happen to have in the great university of Glasgow. My father, though born in a different part of Scotland, owing to the recurrent insolvencies of his father, was moved suddenly to Glasgow so that his father might earn a living writing unreadable, interminable books, which he did with success. My father—he was going to be my father—took the opportunity of taking a degree at Glasgow and that did him so well (it was obviously a very good university) that at the age of 20 he came out top in one of the first examinations for the Indian Civil Service. Having gone to India, he became an oriental scholar, and when he and my mother died in 1929 I had the pleasure of giving, under their instructions, all his oriental books to Glasgow University. My father never forgot his alma mater.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, the noble Lord will forgive me for one moment if I venture to suggest, as one who has no little interest in the University of St. Andrews, that what he has said with regard to residential buildings, may give rise to the impression that we can consider the position at St. Andrews with equanimity. It is not so bad at St. Andrews itself, but the problem of residence in Queen's College, Dundee, and the lodgings problem has now risen to almost frightening proportions. I should

629
not like the noble Lord to give the impression that, while things are very bad at Glasgow, all is well at St. Andrews; because it is not satisfactory.
LORD BEVERIDGE: My Lords, may I say that so far as possible I am avoiding any judgment, good or bad, upon any university or anything we are discussing to-day. The whole purpose of what I have to say is to beg that a really impartial body be appointed to consider the many difficult problems affecting universities to-day.
I have dwelt on this fascinating problem of the differences of various universities and the fact that in different ways they do equally well—I do not know; we have to find that out. I must pass from their differences to the second point, to the broad picture of the kind of provision for student residence as it is to-day. My table shows that though the earner British universities, from Oxford to St. Andrews, were collegiate, designed for common residence of teachers and students, nearly all the larger modern universities have taken a different line. Of the 29 universities and institutions in my table and that of the University Grants Committee, 19 (two out of every three) rely more on lodgings than on anything else for the residence of their students, and between them these 19 "lodger universities"—I hope I may call them that without offence—contain two out of every three full-time students. Broadly speaking (and I do not say this as a criticism but merely as a statement of fact) our university system in Britain, having begun as collegiate and still retaining many intriguing varieties between one institution and another, has become in bulk a system for lodgers. The University Grants Committee are frankly disappointed and unhappy about that, and so am I, because I do not believe that the lodger system is the best system for university students.
Before suggesting how the remedy for that can be found, may I be allowed to set out a few conclusions from my personal experience, in Oxford and then in London? My time at Oxford as an undergraduate at Balliol showed me, once and for all, the vital importance of personal contact, not only and not mainly between student and student, but also between student and teacher. Both kinds of contact were very easy in my
630
day because few of the dons were married and the number in the college was so few that one could spend many years there. I had three years, whereas now a student is pleased if he can get two years, and some can get only one. But personal contact with seniors was, and I think is, in some ways even more important than contact with one's fellow students.
The purpose of a university to-day is not to teach men how to make money in professions; it is to make them fit and eager to render professional service to their fellow citizens. The university is there not simply to sharpen wits, but to build character. How better can you build a desirable character than by giving to young men as friends dons whose purpose in life is obviously neither to make money for themselves nor to get fame for themselves, but service to others? I have spoken here of my own experience, as a student mainly in arts. I suspect and hope that there are better contacts even to-day in science and in the laboratory than there was or is in arts subjects.
Let me now come to the University of London. There I went as Director of the London School of Economics in 1919 and my eighteen years there showed me, once and for all, that there could be full community life of old and young, of teachers and students, in a university, without making them all sleep together in a mediæval building or in a red brick building, either. To show this, it was necessary to do many things at the school which had not been done before I got there, and to three of these things I attached great importance. The first was that every regular teacher must have a room, and did have a room, of his own in which he could see students. Secondly, every regular student, from the beginning to the end of his course for a degree, or the like, must be attached individually to an individual teacher—that was the tutorial system carried out by us, without joint residence in a mediaeval building. Thirdly—and this is most important for the universities which are not going to be fully collegiate—the building of the School must provide for everything except sleeping in it, and must be kept open at all waking hours, from early morning until late at night, so that the students who come to study by day

631
should find full opportunity for everything else—concerts, drama, debates, lectures, games and all the rest—in the evening. That is what we set out to do.
That happened to be easy in the School of Economics in my time, because we had a great body of evening students—three day students to every two evening students, in the beginning. The proportion of evening students is much less now, due to the war, but there is still a solid body of evening students and they are an important element in the life and variety of the School. I say no more about the School, except that I know from recent experience—and I go there whenever I can to meet the students and teachers—how vital a community of young and old of many different races the School remains to-day, without having residences.
London University and its colleges may well add some halls of residence to what they have already, but I do not see how they can ever be mainly residential. Nor, I am sure, can the larger civic universities become so in any reasonable time, if ever. But they can, and should, all become communities for making good citizens by friendly contacts between their members of all ages, as the London School of Economics has done, as was done in Oxford and Cambridge and the collegiate universities, by the full use of their buildings. Individual contact between teachers and student is vital. It can be got without the full collegiate system, and no university authority should rest until it has done its best towards that end.
I am already taking much longer than I intended and I must hasten on to the next item. As your Lordships all know, the world around the universities has changed greatly since the time of my experiences, which are all in the dim past. Although there are these other changes, due to the redistribution of wealth, full employment and the rest, the really important change is the change of the provision of Parliamentary grants on a large scale for university students. There were no grants when I was a student at Oxford. When I got to London I found (and these are approximate figures) a grant of £1 million out of £3 million, just about one-third; and in the last year before the Second World
632
War the grant was still one-third of the total income of the universities, although it was doubled and was £2 million out of £6 million. In 1957 and 1958, as we can all discover for ourselves, the Treasury grant was £34,455,000 out of £49,418,000, representing 71 per cent. of the total university income. Our universities have become a public service, though, as I shall urge before I end, a public service of a very special kind, whose management needs something different from most public services. I express great sympathy with what the mover of the Motion said about the importance of self-government, so far as is possible, and the new conditions of universities.
I want now to give a short list of the problems affecting the universities which should like to see considered by some kind of impartial body. There is, first, the problem of the total number of students at which to aim. My personal view on this matter is coloured, I admit, by the fact that to me quality of university teachers and students seems more important than quantity. Enjoyment of university life, as I suggested, is not a citizen right, but a privilege to be given, irrespective of birth or wealth, and after stringent selection; and stringent selection, as we are all finding, is becoming more and more difficult, admirably as I know the university authorities work at the problem. There is a further ground for perhaps going a little slow in pushing up the number of university students, and that is that it is no good having university students without teachers good enough to teach them. That is the kind of problem that will arise with universities, as I have heard it said in this House it arises in other fields of educaton.
The second question is the method of selecting students for universities. Selection to-day, with the much wider range of schools and social backgrounds from which applicants come, is, as I have said, undoubtedly much harder than it used to be; and it is worth adding that I have come across a number of suggestions and criticisms from people who think that there is an undue proportion of failure among students at our universities to-day. I shall be happy to give to any Member of your Lordships' House who is interested references to some of the quotations I have seen.

633
Some of them come from my native county of Fife, some from the U.G.C. Report itself and some from a Fabian tract. I hold no responsibility for the Fabian tract or the U.G.C.; but there is the criticism.
Thirdly, there is the size of the particular universities, particularly those which are or must be collegiate. Frankly, I should be sorry to see either or any of them grow much larger. There are limits to the growth, particularly of collegiate universities, and that is one of my reasons for so strongly supporting the new universities, to which the Government have already committed themselves. I only mention, without saying anything about them, three other changes: change in the scope of studies, bringing in more natural science and its applications and more social science, with added emphasis on research. That produces problems. There is the relations of universities to other forms of advanced adult education in this country. That is one of the most important problems of all, because, without flooding the universities, we want more people than they can take on university lines and we want to open all the other means of higher adult education to them. That, I am glad to see, is also included in this Motion.
There is the question of how much we can learn for our own universities by comparison and contact with universities in other countries. I am afraid I cannot help remarking on one thing which has struck me about my old university of Oxford, and that is its changed social structure. In my time, it was a purely masculine society. The dons were not married, and I am wondering whether what is happening now is really necessary and the best thing for a learned institution. When I was at Balliol I was given the advice of the Master of Balliol, Edward Caird, that, until my studies at Oxford were safely over, I should not become either a philanthropist or a politician. I cannot help feeling that if it had occurred to Caird that I, or any of us, was contemplating undergraduate marriage, he might have added a third to his list of activities for postponement. Until Greats were over, he said we should become neither philanthropists nor politicians, nor husbands and fathers. Let me say at once that he would have gone on to say, as he said to us about philanthropy,
634
"When you finish, go and philanthropise as much as you like." As he was happily married to a slightly alarming Mistress, I think he would have said, "When you have taken your degree, I hope you will be as happy as I am."
My plea for an inquiry depends on seven practical problems, and I think it would be helpful if I was allowed to read them out. These are the practical problems upon which I want to express no judgment myself, but to get an impartial judgment from somebody not directly concerned either with the Ministry or the universities themselves. They are as follows: the total number of university students to aim at; the method of selecting students; the size of particular universities; the growing emphasis on research; the relation of university education to other advanced education for adults in Britain; the study of university methods outside Britain and the changes of social conditions and their effect on university life. My plea for a study of those problems—and any others added by other noble Lords—implies no reflection whatever upon the universities themselves. The case for examining our universities is not, as I think has been suggested by some statisticians, that we are behind other countries in the number of university students in relation to the total population. I say at once that I frankly do not accept at all the figures I have seen on that subject. I do not believe the figure of 1 student to 163 inhabitants in Soviet Russia. I know they are not doing the same as the 1 to 611 inhabitants in Britain, and I am sure the same remark applies elsewhere. I do not think we are behind.
My case for an inquiry starts from the increase of our leisure and from the changed world in which we have to live. Growing leisure should be turned to good use and to civilisation rather than to idleness. That is one of the functions of the universities. To hold our own, in a new world we must know more. Universities are the instrument for spreading knowledge, for increasing knowledge, and for making good citizens. All our universities are different from one another in their local problems and their relation to surroundings. I do not believe that our universities, as they stand to-day, are a good subject for drafting a Bill at once by the best possible civil servant, or even by a

635
committee as admirable as the University Grants Committee have proved themselves in practice. Any serious change in the treatment of universities should be preceded by an inquiry as distinguished, impartial and thorough as it can be made. This is my final point. Our universities are nothing if not free and self-governing, and each with a character of its own. Somehow they must be kept so, in spite of having become a public service drawing so largely on the taxpayers. University making and management are among the most important of all the applied social sciences; and the basis of all applied science is free experiment.
3.48 p.m.
LORD DALTON: My Lords, I begin by repeating the thanks that I am sure we all wish to tender to the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, for initiating, not for the first time, a debate on this very important question of the universities, and also for his suggestive and wide-ranging speech. I should also express my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, under whom I served for many years on the staff of the London School of Economics, but who afterwards gave me tit for tat by serving under me for a short period when I was President of the Board of Trade: he made out an ideal scheme for rationing fuel, but, owing to political opposition, it could never be introduced. Afterwards, he was kind enough to start the building of two New Towns in County Durham when I was the Minister responsible for that matter. Therefore, he and I have reciprocal regard.
I also wish to say one more personal word, echoing what the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, said about the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. He is one of the outstanding public servants of our time, and this House is enriched by his presence. It will be further enriched by the speech which we are all eagerly awaiting. He is not only the son of a Poet Laureate; he is also a man of great distinction in many fields, including the field of university education, of which he has considerable knowledge; and he therefore has also chosen an apt occasion on which to address
636
your Lordships' House for the first time. He was for nearly twenty years Secretary to the Cabinet and Permanent Secretary at the Treasury, and those twenty years included the two last years of Mr. Chamberlain, the whole of Sir Winston Churchill's Coalition Government, the whole period of Lord Attlee's post-war Administration, and also Sir Winston Churchill's post-war "second innings". Therefore the noble Lord has seen a great deal of history close up, and has also helped to make it; and I repeat, we are all looking forward eagerly to what he will say later in our debate.
If I may make one personal reference, again echoing what the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe said, it so happens that immediately after the war I was able to play some small part in the early post-war expansion of the universities. And I was very proud to do so, because for me, as I think for many others, at the end of the war the universities stood out clearly in my vision of the new Britain which we were all determined to build when we had at last defeated all our enemies. And indeed great progress was made. At the Treasury I was well served by the University Grants Committee at that time, of which Sir Walter Moberly was then Chairman, and I was well advised at the Treasury not only by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, but by Sir Alan Barlow, author of the famous Barlow Report which the Government of the day adopted, the aim of which was to double the total number of university students within a period of ten years—and very nearly, though not quite, that target was hit within that time.
Much may be said about the question of quantity versus quality in the matters of university expansion. For my part, while taking account, I hope, of other considerations, I am strongly of opinion that we still need a very considerable increase in the total number of students in our universities. Let us not complicate the simple. I am sure that that is nationally necessary, and it is within the terms of reference that were just quoted of the University Grants Committee. We do need more students. As to the question of the article to which the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, referred, about how we stand relatively to others, I will, if I may, touch upon that matter later;

637
but I am quite sure that, in terms of the numbers of the university population, we should all have an expansionist bias. I hope that as regards the universities we are all expansionist now. Of course there must be an appropriate increase in the number of teachers—and good teachers—and all the other requirements necessary to enable the young men and women coming into the universities to make the best of their opportunities. But all this, in a sense, is ancillary.
As to the target for the total number of students, my noble friend Lord Pakenham initiated a debate on this subject in 1957 and ventured an estimate of 176,000. He said that by 1966 we should have in Great Britain a university population of 176,000. Many cautious men commented that this was a wildly excessive figure. I hope that my noble friend was not unduly discouraged by these cautionary tales but was rather perhaps comforted by the words of Blake in one of the mystic books:
"The road of excess is the path to the palace of wisdom",
where we are now arriving, because very soon we shall hit the Pakenham target, if I may so describe it, of 176,000. I will quote a few (but only a few) more figures in a moment. It has been shown that 176,000 was not an excessive estimate in relation to the desirability of rapid expansion and the practical possibility of achieving it. In March this year, we have been informed the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked the University Grants Committee to discuss with the universities a further expansion by 1970 of from 35,000 to 40,000. That further expansion would be over and above the present target figure of 135,000 for the later 1960's. So, without wearying your Lordships' House with much arithmetic, I can say that we have reached a point where the target is set at 170,000 to 175,000, very close indeed to what my noble friend Lord Pakenham indicated three years ago. I hope that in the coming years we shall not set our sights in respect of total numbers too low.
Now I come to the article which has been referred to (the author has not been named), by Mr. Bowden, who is the Principal of the Manchester College of Science and Technology and who published a very startling article in the Universities Quarterly of January, 1960. His figures
638
are designed to show that the proportion of the population of this country in full-time attendance at universities is much smaller than in most other countries. So that, according to Mr. Bowden's researches, in this competition we are almost at the bottom of the world league, which is not prima facie a creditable position for this country. He quotes figures in this article which I commend to anyone who may be interested in it. And according to a table he gives—I will comment on the reasoning in a minute—in the proportion of population in full-time attendance at university not only are we much behind the two giants, American and Russian (we are accustomed to being assured of our inferiority to them, though we need not believe all we are assured), but, what is more striking, on his figures we are also behind France and Belgium, both Germanies and Italy (I take only a few names), besides Yugoslavia and our own Commonwealth countries of Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Indeed, he gives a long list, with the statistics of most of the known countries in the world; and on his estimate the only countries below us, in terms of proportion of the population who are full-time students in universities are Ireland, Norway and Turkey.
Of course definitions of universities vary, and standards within universities vary—this is platitudinous. But the basis of Mr. Bowden's argument is very clear. He allows the different countries to declare what are universities within their countries. He leaves it to them to declare what are their universities, and to declare what is the total number of students attending at these universities. This is a perfectly intelligible process and, so far as it goes, logical; and however these figures may be qualified or in part explained away, I cannot think that the position is at all a happy one for this country. Certainly it reinforces the view which I put earlier: that, whatever else we do—and we must do a lot more—we must very substantially increase the numbers of our young men and women who are full-time students in our universities.
I agree with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, and I think Lord Beveridge agreed with him: that if we are going to set forth on a substantial further increase, the main part of this must fall upon what

639
I prefer to call the more modern and younger universities. I warmly agree that Cambridge and Oxford—I prefer to put them in that way; that is the alphabetical order; whether it is also the order of merit is debatable, but I am in the habit of so describing them—should not grow much more. I think they have probably already passed the optimum size, and great congestions and difficulties are developing in both, upon which I will not elaborate. Shortly, perhaps, they should grow a little more. At Cambridge we want to see Churchill College completed and occupied, and there is one women's college which needs to be expanded up to a reasonable size—the so-called New Hall. I should hope that beyond that there will not be much growth at Cambridge in the total numbers, but that the numbers will become nearly stationary, or at any rate increase only a little more. I suspect that for Oxford the position is not dissimilar.
These two universities will, of course—this is one of the facts which might be looked into from various angles by one of these Committees of Inquiry—and to some extent deservedly, have an overwhelming prestige with large numbers of schoolmasters and parents over and above all other universities in this Island. In some respects that is perhaps not quite a healthy situation, but I think that this overwhelming prestige of our two oldest universities (I believe there were some medieval institutions started before them elsewhere) will stop or diminish only when some of the younger and modern universities have increased their own reputations, especially with schoolmasters and parents, and when some of these younger universities have become famous in their own excellence, at least in certain studies, and. I would add, when they have also increased their social facilities and amenities in general, including, but not only including more and better halls of residence. But I shall return to that subject later.
At the present time, as I understand, a further increase in numbers is being discussed by the University Grants Committee with each university separately. That, I think, is the right procedure under our arrangements. But I hope that the Treasury will strengthen the hand of the U.G.C. in these discussions by assuring them that there will be an
640
increased total financial provision to be distributed by them among various universities over the coming years; and I hope that the universities, when facing the question of further growth, will be imaginative and audacious and prepared to co-operate in working out plans which will, I have no doubt, be suggested to them by the University Grants Committee, in some cases for substantial additional numbers.
I, too, am most anxious that a number of new universities should be created, should become strong, and should play their full part in the total expansion which I have been urging. Perhaps one of Her Majesty's Ministers who is going to reply will give us in the course of his remarks a progress report about the promotion of new universities. Many paragraphs appear in the paper, and I meet various people who are genuinely keen upon one or other of the new universities and are anxious to take part in raising funds, and generally promoting and assisting the growth of these new institutions. We know of the University of Sussex situated at Brighton. I had the pleasure of talking to the new principal, Sir John Fulton, who did a splendid job of work at Swansea University College before he came to Brighton, and who, I think, is one of the most lively, dynamic and talented of the younger men holding high administrative posts in the university world. I gather that they will fairly soon become, if I may so put it, a going concern.
Then we read of York and Norwich To both of them I wish all success—I am sure we all do. I think that these are two admirable sites. I do not think that Cambridge is afraid of any unfair competition from Norwich. We read that their creation has been accepted in principle—that was the phrase I saw—and I hope that we may hear how they are getting on. Then I gather that there is considerable pressure building up behind Canterbury as a claimant for a new university. I should think that Canterbury also would be a good site for a new university. But are there any more? I hope that either the noble Earl who is to follow me or the Lord Privy Seal later on will give us a progress report both as to what is contemplated in regard to new universities and, in particular, whether any others, possibly those which have been men-

641
tioned by myself, are, as it were, on the road up and are likely to gain this particular status soon. I am sure that we must have new universities—perhaps a few more than those I have mentioned—in order to give reasonable opportunities to people coming from different parts of the country, and to adjust the present geographical distribution.
Now I wish to say a word about the University Grants Committee. This body has been described by previous speakers. Under Governments of both Parties since the war it has become the chosen instrument of the Government for university development, and in my judgment it has done a very good job. Sir Keith Murray, the present chairman, is proving himself as good an educational statesman as his predecessor. I venture to claim that the U.G.C. is a characteristic creation of British pragmatic genius or, if you prefer, British administrative common sense. It has the confidence of the universities, which, after all, is a most important consideration, and it also has the confidence, I believe, of the Treasury, which is its paymaster. Therefore it is a good starting point, and I myself would not change the present system whereby the U.G.C. acts for the Government in relation to university development. But I do support the proposed new high-level committee of inquiry which is adumbrated in the Motion, and which has been referred to both by Lord Simon of Wythenshawe and by Lord Beveridge. I will say a word about that in a moment. I think that such a body is needed, not to replace the U.G.C., but to work with it and assist it to do its work.
I am going now to make a blunt remark about the Ministry of Education. In my view, the Ministry of Education should not intervene directly in university matters. I wish my opinion about this to be quite clear. Others may disagree with it—indeed, I know that my noble friend beside me does, but I shall seek to convert him to my opinion. In my view, the Ministry of Education has plenty to do as things are—not only all the tasks which the Ministry of Education a few years ago had to tackle, but the new ones crowding in upon the Ministry by reason of the great development of teacher training colleges, with their new three-year course, which is going to
642
lead to a greater volume of work for the Ministry and the teacher training colleges. There is a great mass of activity upon which the Ministry of Education quite clearly can properly embark, over and above the university field altogether. To seek to aggrandise the Ministry of Education at the expense of the University Grants Committee in the field of university education would, in my view, be a great mistake. Nor do I believe there is much backing behind such a claim.
I remember my friend Miss Ellen Wilkinson, who was Minister of Education in the first years when I was at the Treasury, coming to me on this subject one day. I suspect the idea had been put into her head by some of her officials, eager for new kingdoms to conquer—what are called in another context "imperialistic motives". She and I were very good friends, and that made it all the easier. She was a graduate of Manchester and a very eager personality. After a friendly talk, she was convinced that I intended to do my best for universities at large, not excluding Manchester and other regional universities. I said to her, at the end, "Will you leave this one with me?", and she said, "Yes". I am sure that it is better left so, because, to begin with, to aggrandise the Ministry of Education in the university field would be most unpopular with the universities; of that I am well assured. I have much evidence.
Bluntly, universities do not trust the Ministry of Education as they trust the University Grants Committee. They are quite clear as to their preference. In the second place, anyone who knows the simple facts of life in Whitehall will know that the Treasury have far more power for good or for evil, under all Governments and under any Chancellor of Exchequer, than the Ministry of Education, either at ministerial or official level, can ever hope to have. I regret to say that some Ministers of Education within living memory have been only marginally in the Cabinet; and the universities could not have a more powerful friend at court, or in the Cabinet, than the Treasury. And I believe it is both their wish and in their interest that this relationship should remain.
May I just say one word about the proposals that have been made for inquiries. It is often said in an easy way

643
that we ought to have a Royal Commission on the universities, and I admit that at some stages I have been attracted by that idea; but on second thoughts I do not feel that a Royal Commission is the best instrument for what is desired by those who have spoken to-day or those outside who take an interest in this matter. The field of university education has now widened so much and is now so very wide that even the most devoted and talented Royal Commission would certainly take quite a long time—several years—to cover the whole field in any adequate way. There is also the danger if they were appointed, that while they were sitting great delay would follow, where what we need is not delay but vigorous forward motion, largely uncontested (provided the money is provided), in many sectors of the university front.
I believe a much better plan than that for a Royal Commission would be what I have called, for short, in preparing these notes, some kind of high-level Committee of Inquiry, something authoritative and distinguished in personnel but not a Royal Commission, and not charged with such wide terms of reference. There could be a series of inquiries stemming from one standing Committee of Inquiry which might run on for some years. These are details on which I do not pretend to dogmatise, but I suggest that it should be some body not less authoritative than a Royal Commission, which would help university progress and the University Grants Committee by separately studying and reporting from time to time on a great variety of questions relating to the universities. Subjects such as have been suggested by the noble Lords, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe and Lord Beveridge, and others, could be added. I believe that this would be a better approach to the subject than contemplating a Royal Commission in the ordinary sense of the term.
There are only two other matters on which I wish to say a few words. First, with regard to halls of residence, in my view—and many others (though not all) would agree—we cannot have a true university without a substantial residential element; and without such an element the best that we could hope to have is a glorified day school with the
644
working day from 9 to 5 and what is called in various official Reports "the 9 to 5 mentality". That is well enough if we cannot do better, but in my view it is much preferable to do better and gradually to inject into all universities claiming university status a considerable residential element. I am not wanting to be precise or pedantic as to how substantial that element should be. I would simply say that the larger the better, within possibilities.
This view of the essential nature of a substantial residential element, although it has not always been accepted in university circles, has been rapidly gaining ground in recent years in a great many places where a few years ago it would not have been seriously entertained. I would recommend to all who are seriously interested in this subject what I regard as a first-class work, Halls of Residence, published by a subcommittee of the University Grants Committee in 1957. That is a first-class study of both the general argument and of particular problems, including details of how to administer halls of residence, where the warden should live, the formation of what was called the "high table", senior common room and so on. All these arguments are admirably deployed in this Report.
As the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, has explained to your Lordships in detail, the present position is very patchy in some of our universities. At Cambridge and Oxford, after all, they have only 56 per cent. of the men and 75 per cent. of the women living in college at any given time. Their figure of 56 per cent., or just over half, for men must be taken in relation to the fact that very often an undergraduate who is up for three years is not in college for more than one or two years; for relatively few are there for the whole of the three years. If one must take a shot at this and indicate an estimate that is not totally out of reach, I should like to see the overall average of residents in the halls of our universities brought up within a reasonable period of years to about 50 per cent. Nor do I think that that is quite out of reach if we study carefully the detailed figures, to some of which the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, referred.
The percentage at a number of our younger universities—those born only in this century—is already just over 50 per

645
cent. while others are well within striking distance of it. The University of Nottingham which, on such evidence as I have, I regard as one of the most lively and hopeful of our young universities, announced last month that they are to build six new halls of residence over the next few years—five for men and one for women. Roughly speaking (and I took some note of the details) the halls of residence for men will have just over 200 students and the hall for women, 150. When all these are built, Nottingham will be housing in halls of residence just over 50 per cent., not of its present number but of the number expected after a further period of expansion, by the year 1968. If Nottingham can do that, it shows that others can do no less, with equal effort. Another point which I must mention in connection with the Nottingham announcement, because it seems to me most admirable, is that they are to provide suites for six resident dons in each of their halls, and, in addition, wardens' houses. It is, I believe, most important.
We often think that more halls of residence are needed in order to enable more undergraduate students to sleep in and enjoy the benefits of a residential life. But they are not less important to enable a number of dons to sleep in. I am very glad that Nottingham are taking this initiative, because it is most desirable to mix up some of the dons with the undergraduates in one community; and that can be effectively done only if the dons have a room of their own (I will come back before I finish to the reform of the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, of which I was one of the beneficiaries) and if there is established a mixed community of those of undergraduate age and those who are somewhat older and who are engaged in teaching in the university.
I am delighted to see from the Halls of Residence Report that I have been referring to, that in some of the new halls of residence being planned for some of the younger universities they are even going so far as to provide married quarters. If we have to deal with the sociological fact of the earlier marriage habit extending also to university teachers, it is surely most desirable that we should have some facilities, as good and as agreeable as we can make them, for dons who marry, so that they may occupy
646
married quarters in the halls of residence attached to the university.
If I may for a moment be reminiscent, when I look back to my golden years at Cambridge, not long before the First War, next after my friendships with my contemporaries, which I valued most of all, came my friendships with some of the younger dons in King's who lived in college and regarded it as one of their chief duties—I emphasise that—and as one of their great pleasures to have a series of friendships, personal friendships, year after year, with a number of the undergraduates passing through the college. I am sure that that is one of the things that should give the greatest value of all to a university life: to be on easy terms of friendship and frankness with a number of dons who are not yet so old as to be past understanding what the young man thinks; and the recruitment and appointment of dons should be so regulated as always to allow a considerable number of persons in that age grouping to be available.
But it is, of course, a platitude that all these dons with whom, as undergraduates, we used to mix had rooms of their own in college, to which one could go and sit down and talk about anything under the sun, without inhibition and without restraint. That was one of the most valuable elements—and, I believe, still is, when it can be arranged—in the education of young men and women. It is essential—and the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, has already referred to this point—that the younger and developing universities should aim at providing teachers, particularly those who are going to live in halls of residence with the younger men and women, with at least a room, and not too small a room, of their own. When the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, was carrying out a number of revolutionary improvements in the London School of Economics just after the end of the First War, it was indeed quite a sensation when the reforms to which he has referred were brought into actual reality; when all of us who were then on the teaching staff were able to see, and chat quietly, freely and confidentially with, students, in a room entirely of our own. That is still far from being universal in the younger universities, and

647
I hope that the University Grants Committee will be encouraged to see that this most desirable provision is universal.
There is only one more point on which I wish to make some very brief remarks, and that relates to what I may call the Commonwealth background to our discussion to-day. We have all followed with great interest the Commonwealth Educational Conference that was held at Oxford last year, the first of its kind ever to be convened, when many admirable schemes were adopted, including, among others, the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan. Your Lordships will be familiar with that scheme and with others that also have been adopted and are to be put into operation. It is a most admirable development, bringing out the simple truth that no member of the Commonwealth can live unto itself alone in education, any more than it can in other matters: that we must co-operate and seek exchanges and movement of persons from one place to another and from one occupation to another.
The schemes devised at this Commonwealth Educational Conference will be mainly of benefit to post-graduates of universities. The scholarship plan that I have just mentioned lays down that normally the people who will benefit from this scheme will be graduates who will travel to some other university than that at which they graduated, mostly post-graduates of universities in different parts of the Commonwealth and also persons concerned with teacher training and technical education throughout the Commonwealth. There are great possibilities for these exchanges and ideas, all admirable schemes. But there is one noticeable gap in this new Commonwealth educational network. Nothing is proposed to help boys and girls leaving school in this country to go as undergraduates, not post-graduates, to universities in the Commonwealth overseas. Yet this would surely be a most desirable development, among all the others. Many of the universities in the overseas Commonwealth are now admirable universities with high standards.
I beg your Lordships' leave to refer, in a sentence or two, to a scheme which has been devised in an effort to begin to fill this particular gap, an effort made
648
by the Drapers' Company, a company which has often in the past pioneered and financed new educational developments in this country. And since I had the honour to be the Master of this Company last year, and so was personally involved in the discussion of this project, I was delighted to read in The Times last Wednesday, May 4, an account of the newly-created Drapers' Commonwealth Scholarships. It may be that some of your Lordships also noticed this account. What the Company is doing is to award, as a pilot scheme, nine such scholarships to be available at undergraduate level at universities in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. We have within the past month chosen the first three scholars. One is going to Canada, to the University of British Columbia; one to Australia, to the University of Western Australia, at Perth; and the third to New Zealand, to the University of Canterbury, at Christchurch. I hope my Lords, that this new venture, in creating what I think is a special kind of new educational opportunity within the Commonwealth, may both arouse interest and, perhaps, give a lead which others, each in their own way, may decide to follow.
4.30 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, I should like to thank the three noble Lords who have spoken with such great authority for the very constructive and helpful observations which they have all made on this extremely important subject. There are a great many more of your Lordships to whose speeches we are all looking forward, and I think it will save time if I confine myself now to those matters which are the responsibility of the Treasury, and not of the Ministry of Education—that is to say, to the policy and planning of the University Grants Committee. My noble friend Lord Hailsham, when he comes to wind up, will no doubt have something to say on questions such as how we can best co-ordinate the activities of our universities with those of other educational institutions, such as the colleges of advanced technology, in the light of the many interesting things which we shall no doubt hear as the debate proceeds.
This Motion, my Lords, calls for a Committee of Inquiry. There are, of

649
course, a great many official Inquiries which are continually going on, usually with very fruitful results, into a great many aspects of adult education. The Government certainly do not rule out the possibility of a more general Inquiry such as the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, appeared to have in mind, provided, as the noble Lord was himself very careful to mention, that it would not in any way delay either the developments which have already been decided upon or those further developments which might be decided upon during the time this Committee of Inquiry was sitting. We certainly do not rule out the possibility if it should seem to be useful, but I should like to submit to your Lordships that the University Grants Committee is in itself a permanent Commission of Inquiry. It is not simply an administrative body whose only function is to allocate sums of public money from year to year: it has the function of advising the Chancellor of the Exchequer about university policy for as far ahead as it is reasonable or practicable for anyone to look; and it has the duty of trying to ascertain what is the best way of carrying out the general aims and objects of the Government in regard to our universities.
A former master of my own college and that of the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, the late Lord Lindsay of Birker, in a speech in your Lordships' House on this very subject in 1947, said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 147, col. 708]:
"I have an uneasy suspicion that if only the University Grants Committee, or even that other great body … the Vice-Chancellors' Committee were asked to report on this matter"—
that is, to look at the whole university set-up with the idea, perhaps, of some revolutionary change—
"you would find how surprisingly satisfactory everything was."
But, my Lords, I think that the events of the last thirteen years have shown that the late Lord Lindsay of Birker was doing some injustice to the University Grants Committee in suggesting that it might be too easily disposed to be satisfied with things as they are. The policy of every Government, from the time of the noble Lord, Lord Dalton, when he was Chancellor in 1946, to the present time, has been, I think, that we should aim, first, at a general and rapid increase
650
in the total number of university places: trying to provide for the greater proportion of boys and girls leaving schools who are capable of going to universities; and, next, that we should give a greater weight to science in our universities. We do not want to achieve a greater number of science students by reducing the number of art students. What we contemplate is that, of the general increase, a larger proportion will be among the scientists; and that is what we are still aiming at.
My Lords, one thing which the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, said was that, although he thought the Government had been fairly generous in their annual grants for recurring expenditure they had been far from generous, until lately, with building grants. Of course, that is so. I often think that when difficulties disappear people are very soon apt to forget about them; and I think that quite a number of people are apt to forget that, for the first ten years after the war, we were obliged to have very severe building rationing and restriction, and that building restrictions were not lifted until 1956. Until 1956—that is, for the ten-year period, 1947 to 1956—the amount of the building grant given through the U.G.C. to the universities was at the rate of £4 million a year. In 1957, when building conditions had become easier, it went up to £10½ million; for 1958 and 1959 it went up to £12 million a year; and in the present four-year period, from 1960 to 1963, it was provisionally agreed at £15 million a year—and that is for the moment the accepted figure.
My Lords, in spite of the difficulties caused by the shortage of building labour and materials in the earlier years after the war, I think the noble Lord, Lord Dalton, would agree that, from the time when he introduced the wider terms of reference for the University Grants Committee, not only has it acted with foresight, looking a long way ahead, but frequently—indeed, usually—its performance has been better than its promise. It was in his time that the sub-committee of the U.G.C., the Barlow Committee, recommended the doubling of the university output of scientists and technologists in the following ten years. Together with a substantial increase in the arts, this target was in fact achieved in five years, when the number of full-time students in science and technology was increased

651
from 13,000 before the war to 27,000 in 1952–53.
Then in 1952 there was a further demand for more graduates in science and technology. The Government decided to double the size of the Imperial College in ten years, and major developments in higher technological education were put in hand at a number of universities outside London. In 1956, the Report of the Scientific Manpower Committee, which was accepted by the Government, gave the universities and technical colleges the target of doubling their 1955 output of scientists and technologists by the late 'sixties—that is to say, to about 20,000, compared with the then existing level of 10,000. The universities are responding fully to this demand, and it is likely to be met. The number of full-time students in both pure and applied sciences has increased from 28,000 in 1954–55 to 40,000 in 1959–60, which is an increase of 43 per cent. in five years.
Now I think that if we look at the present programme of general expansion put forward by the University Grants Committee, we shall find it is perhaps in many ways relevant to the suggestion that we should have an inquiry—or, at least, it possibly throws some light on the kind of thing which should or should not be considered at any new inquiry. I will not go back any further than 1957, the year in which Lord Pakenham made the estimate which has been referred to. In that year the University Grants Committee advised the Chancellor that, on the evidence available at that time, they considered that places in the universities should be made available for 124,000 students by the late 1960's, with the probability that this number would have to be increased by 10 per cent. to 135,000. They suggested that this expansion could be achieved in the existing universities, together with one new one—the new University College of East Sussex, to which the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, referred in his opening speech.
I know that the University Grants Committee would have agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, in setting the target much higher had it not been for two considerations, both of which would have to be taken into account by
652
anyone conducting an inquiry, whether it was the Committee itself or some other body. First, it seemed unlikely that at that time the universities could have carried the higher building programmes which this target would have entailed. One very important factor in planning is what the universities feel they are actually able to undertake from a physical point of view. The other consideration was this. It was evident then to the University Grants Committee that there was what is called a "tail" of students in some universities—that is, not enough people competing for places to make sure that those who were admitted were capable of taking advantage of a university education, as the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, put it. It was thought in some universities, though of course not in all, that an increase in competition for entry was desirable.
In the light of this advice at that time, the Chancellor authorised a building programme of the figure I have mentioned, £15 million a year for each of the four years 1960 to 1963. He was looking, on the Committee's advice, three years ahead. He did not exclude the possibility of an increase in these figures if the need were shown and if the economic situation allowed. It was recognised that this provision for building did not meet the universities full requirements for a student population of 135,000 by the late 'sixties, but that it would provide the most essential buildings. While we cannot go beyond the figure in any official statement at present, I think it is evident that it is the desire of everybody that more building should be done. Indeed, that is one of the many reasons for protecting our economy against the harmful results of inflationary pressure—one of the things which might upset all these plans, whether they are considered cautious or optimistic.
Last summer, when the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, was proved to have been right in his intelligent anticipatory estimate, the University Grants Committee reviewed the situation in the light of the fresh evidence supplied by the Ministry of Education and the Scottish Education Department, that more children than had been expected were staying on at school until seventeen years or over. It was clear then than the potential student population in the late

653
'sixties and early 'seventies would be much higher than their plans had provided for. The Committee also considered the position in the universities and concluded that their experience in handling the larger building programmes in the years following 1957 would now enable building programmes to be increased. It was also held in the universities that the quality of recent entries resulting from increasing competition for entry had risen to an extent that a deduction for "tail" was no longer justified—that is to say, it was no longer necessary to encourage increased competition in some universities.
On the other hand, in advising the Chancellor on a target, the University Grants Committee had to have regard to the likelihood of obtaining sufficient staff of adequate qualifications, a problem which, of course, will have to be kept continuously under review. Therefore, it was felt that whatever plans were made, they should be kept fairly flexible. The Committee sought and obtained from the Chancellor authority to enter into discussions with the universities in order to ascertain whether, as a first stage—and I would emphasise that phrase—the further expansion of 35,000 to 40,000 places beyond the present target of 135,000 would be practicable and what the capital cost would be. That gave us the figure, mentioned earlier in the debate, of 175,000, which vindicates what the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, said—though, of course, for all we know, we might find that his estimate was even too little. But it is on this basis that discussions are now proceeding.
It is clear from the discussions which the University Grants Committee have already had that the universities generally are now in a mood for expansion—they are feeling more buoyant than they were two years ago—provided, of course, that the necessary funds are made available. The response of the universities in general and their willingness to face the often considerable academic and physical difficulties of expansion have been most encouraging and the Committee are confident that the target increase can be achieved at the existing universities, together with some contribution from the establishment of new university institutions.
654
It was also last summer the University Grants Committee set up a subcommittee to examine applications from places which desire to be considered as possible sites for new institutions. When it became clear that there was an urgent need for at least some new ones, the University Grants Committee, on the advice of this sub-committee, got authority from the Chancellor to go ahead with plans for the development of the two new university colleges which are now projected at York and Norwich. Both York and Norwich have been considering the foundation of universities for a number of years and their plans had reached the stage where immediate action was possible. The noble Lord, Lord Dalton, asked if I could name any other possible places. I cannot name any others, but the University Grants Committee will continue to consider whether there is a need for further new foundations. That is being considered all the time.
LORD DALTON: My Lords, there is, is there not, truth in the rumours which circulate that Canterbury is very eager and has not been turned down?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, that is a rumour which I cannot either contradict or encourage. I cannot go beyond York and Norwich at the present moment. These are two which have been decided on. Of course, this further large expansion of the universities which is now contemplated must raise the question of whether staff can be recruited in adequate numbers and quality to cope with the additional number of students. That is a difficult question, although the present revision of academic salaries may help. Your Lordships will possibly have noted the statement made by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place on Tuesday last. He began by saying [OFFICIAL. REPORT, Commons, Vol. 622 (No. 105), col. 56]:
"I am satisfied that a revision of the salaries of academic staff at the universities is now necessary if regard is to be had both to salary increases in comparable professions and to the need to retain and recruit staff of adequate calibre during the forthcoming period of great expansion in the universities."
It is considered by the U.G.C. that we should attach particular importance in choosing sites for new universities to

655
those factors which will help in attracting good staff—that is, cultural amenities, proximity to other learned institutions, libraries, housing for staff and school facilities for their families. We think that in deciding where to put the new university you should look for a place which the dons will like, rather than a place near to the homes of large numbers of potential new students, because students are becoming more mobile while the dons are not becoming more easy to please.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Dalton, and other noble Lords have laid so much stress on halls of residence. In an Answer which I gave a few weeks ago to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, I mentioned that the University Grants Committee had now produced plans, and got them approved by the architects, which would result in halls of residence being built at a cost of only £1,300 for each student, compared with the previous figure of £2,000, without lowering reasonable standards of accommodation. I am crateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dalton, for giving me the figures in regard to Nottingham, which I think are most interesting. It is certainly the intention of the U.G.C. and of the Government that more students of more universities in all parts of the country should enjoy those advantages to which the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, referred, and which he and I both enjoyed at Balliol—although I hope that perhaps the external appearance of some of these buildings will be more endurable than ours.
One thing which the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, said was that the percentage of students in this country compared unfavourably with any other country in the civilised world. But I think that, if the noble Lord were to examine or analyse the figures upon which that conclusion was based, he would agree that they are not really comparable at all. In nearly all cases figures of students in foreign countries include part-time students, which ours do not. As for the comparison which he made with the United States, as any of your Lordships who have been to universities there will have noticed, the students at the age of 18 or 19 are learning the same kind of things as are learned here in the fifth form at public
656
or secondary schools. You see them sitting in a large class, with a blackboard, being taught what schoolboys two years younger, at the age of 16 or 17, are being taught in Great Britain. What is really comparable to an undergraduate course here is the post-graduate course in America. There is, in fact, a well-known saying in the United States that it does not do a young man any real harm to go to college provided he is willing to learn something after he has graduated.
There is another difference which is perhaps worth mentioning. In Great Britain the number of university students who either give up the attempt before trying to take a degree, or are unfortunate enough to be sent down or requested to go away, amounts to only 10 per cent., but in the United States I am informed that the number of students who take their departure without taking their degree is no less than 50 per cent. When you take all these considerations together, I think that, if the noble Lord went on one of the visits to American universities which he has recommended, he would perhaps not feel quite so much dismay and concern as he displayed in the course of his speech.
LORD SIMON OF WYTHENSHAWE: My Lords, I should like to ask a question. As I have intimated several times, I know a little about this matter. We always hear the kind of abuse of American universities to which we have just been treated by the noble Earl. I wonder whether he could induce the University Grants Committee to investigate the matter and let us have the correct figures.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The figures I have given are obtained from them. I do not accept the statement that I wish to indulge in any kind of abuse. My remarks were not intended to be abusive, but merely to correct false conclusions which might be drawn from figures which are not really comparable.
One of the greatest problems, I think, about modern government, which applies to many other aspects of policy besides education, is the problem of reconciling national planning with individual freedom. That has some bearing on the problem of entry from the schools, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe. So long

657
as you do not force people to go to a particular university but give them a choice of entry, which we do, I think the problem of entry is always bound to be a complex and difficult one; and it has an even greater bearing on the grants, the great subventions given by the State to all the universities. As the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, said, 70 per cent. of their incomes comes from the University Grants Committee and another 7 per cent. from research grants from various Government Departments, making three-quarters altogether, which is an enormous proportion of their income.
We want to ensure that, in spite of these great subventions from public funds, our universities do not become a kind of branch of the Civil Service, but retain their freedom and independence which has always been of such great value all through our history, both in England and in Scotland, to our culture and to our liberty. The universities themselves are always extremely anxious that these grants should be paid to them on the direct responsibility of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and not through the Ministry of Education, because they seem to think that Ministers of Education, whether it is Ellen Wilkinson or my right honourable friend, often have too many ideas of their own, whereas the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it is my right honourable friend or the noble Lord, Lord Dalton, is always a docile and amiable creature—
LORD BOOTHBY: Bereft of ideas.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: —who will give them all the money they want without imposing too vexatious conditions as to the manner in which it will be spent.
The University Grants Committee is appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with specific instructions to preserve the freedom of the universities; to see that their freedom to teach in the way they think right is not impaired, and that they are also left with the freedom to spend their block grant—that is, the recurring grant—as they think fit. The University Grants Committee has the task—and it is a great and delicate task—of trying to guide the universities so that they will spend these great and growing sums of public money in the way which is most consistent with the
658
national interest and yet, at the same time, retain their autonomy and their freedom. It would not be right, when we are talking about our programme of expansion over the next 10 or 15 years, to give any more optimistic figures than those of which we can be absolutely certain at this moment; and it may be that the figures I have given your Lordships this afternoon will be out of date before very long. It is the policy of the Government to expand our universities at the highest rate which is consistent with the highest standard of teaching.
I submit to your Lordships that both the University Grants Committee and the university authorities, with whom it is their duty to collaborate, have justified the confidence which has been placed in them by the Government.
5.0 p.m.
LORD BRIDGES: My Lords, I hope I may receive an especially generous draught of the tolerance which your Lordships are good enough to extend to those who address you for the first time. I was given two pieces of advice. One was to wait a good long time before I addressed your Lordships, and the second was to attend as many debates as I could before I addressed your Lordships. I have carried out the first piece of advice to excess and very largely, I fear, neglected the second. I am afraid it is one of the occasions where excess and neglect cannot be balanced one against the other.
I must start by declaring an interest, in that for the last few years I have had a small finger in the administrative pie of three universities—universities of very different ages and sizes. But, more important than that, I have for many years taken a wide interest in the affairs of universities; indeed, their well-being has seemed to me to be one of the things that matters most for the nation as a whole, and it is certainly one of the subjects which always move me most deeply. I want to start by saying a few things about the University Grants Committee although, thanks to what has already been said, I shall not have to say as much as I intended. To show my impartiality, I shall make two very mild criticisms as to how the system works. Notwithstanding that, I firmly believe that the system is far the best system in operation in any country of the world.

659
It has two supreme merits. The first is that it protects the complete academic freedom of the universities, notwithstanding the fact that to-day the State, very rightly, suggests the university subjects in which expansion is most needed. It is no small thing that each of the universities should be left free to settle the ways in which the various subjects are studied, the different lines on which research should be pursued, and that there should be no bias in favour of conformity to one single monstrous pattern of academic status. In these days of large organisations and powerful interests, all of which tend to exercise quite legitimate pressures to secure their own ends, it is surely a very important thing that the universities should do their thinking, their teaching and their research in their own way. The second reason why the present system is so valuable is that it combines a large degree of self-government with a highly responsible and economical administration. Indeed, it may be that on occasions it is almost too economical. But I am sure that the trust which has been reposed in the University Grants Committee by successive Chancellors of the Exchequer has always been justified.
Now for my two rather mild criticisms. They are criticisms of tendencies and not of men, for no one has a greater respect than I have for the very able men and women who have run the University Grants Committee during the last thirty years, and for their vigorous administration and wise leadership. I believe that the expansion of our universities since the war has been one of our success stories, although there is a great deal more still to do. I admit that I have sometimes thought that it might have been carried out a little more quickly if not quite so much emphasis had always been spent on making sure the amount of money which was needed—and I am now thinking mainly of building programmes—or the precise amount which the university could or ought to spend.
I will not emphasise the point after the comforting words of the noble Earl, which promised that money for building programmes will be more readily available in the future, or so I understood him to say. I am not going to quote
660
figures. I should prefer to quote the Bible:
"Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over."
I know that "running over" is too much to ask for, given the traditional way in which we manage our national finances. Nobody knows that better than I do. But "good measure, pressed down" I think our universities are entitled to, and I am sure the country will get good value for it. Indeed, I think that if it was found possible to carry out the expansion programme with slightly less meticulous supervision of detail, the work would be done faster, and I do not believe that it would cost any more. The experience of big building programmes shows that you cannot both urge people on and hold them back at the same time. You have to make up your mind which you are going to do.
Now for my second criticism. Nearly fifty years ago Lord Haldane was Chairman of the Committee on Grants to University Colleges. This was the Committee which recommended what has since become the University Grants Committee. One of the cardinal features of Lord Haldane's recommendations was that the Committee should not be bound to adhere to a rigid formula in the allocation of funds. I am sure it was very wise, and I sometimes wonder whether in recent years the pressure of events—I think that is a nice, impersonal way of putting it—may have led the University Grants Committee to rely just a little too much on statistical comparisons—I think they are called norms; so much space per head in the lecture room and so much space per bed in a hostel. Of course, if you are faced with the problem of persuading all your clients that they have all had a perfectly fair deal, it is wise to have a formula to fall back upon.
I have heard it suggested—and this is only a marginal criticism—that on occasion the norms have been insisted upon in rather small matters. It is important that the University Grants Committee should be in a position and should be willing, good cause being shown, to depart from these statistical norms. The universities should not all develop on precisely the same lines. If some university wants to go a bit "high, wide and I handsome" on some particular feature,

661
I hope it will be able to do so, provided, of course, the overall cost remains reasonable. Notwithstanding these minor criticisms, I firmly believe that the present system is the right one and should not be changed. I confess that when one hears bright ideas being bruited about university reforms, one of the first things I look to see is whether any threat is intended to the present system. I was wondering if I should ask the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal whether he could give any assurance that Her Majesty's Government have no intention of impairing the system. But I am not quite sure that what has been said already does not really imply that there is no such intention.
I apologise for having spent so long on a subject which is not perhaps directly related to the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, but I hope I have said enough to persuade other noble Lords that I do not think that there is any need for an inquiry into details of organisation. I agree with many of the suggestions which have been made, that there are other matters which could usefully be looked into. But this raises two questions: first, what sort of inquiry should be held, and, secondly, what are the subjects which need inquiry.
On the nature of the inquiry, I admit that I am influenced by my history. I spent five years of my working life as Secretary to three Royal Commissions; and since then I have sat, I do not know how many times, in the witness chair, and have recently had the fun of questioning the witnesses. All this has given me a great deal of time to reflect on the equation which exists between, on the one hand, the labour of those who make these inquiries, the labour of those who are inquired into and the labour of those who prepare briefs for both of them, and, on the other, the actual results which follow from such inquiries.
I have no doubt myself that the equation is least unfavourable (your Lordships will see that I am unable to escape the double negative) when the inquiry is directed into a few quite broad and simple issues: What aims should some organisations seek to bring about? Is the policy now being pursued successful or should it be changed; and, if so, how should it be changed? These broad inquiries, to my mind, carry far more conviction, and
662
in the end are far more valuable to the nation, than those which end in a list of 275 recommendations designed not so much to suggest broad changes in the policy which are needed as to give a blueprint of how a particular reform should be carried out. I hope, therefore, that whatever inquiries are carried out will be broad inquiries; and, like the noble Lord Lord Dalton, in a matter of this kind I do not fancy a Royal Commission, with its rather long and laboured procedure. It seems to me that something at a higher level, directed to broader issues, is what is really wanted and what will give good help.
I turn to the matters to be inquired into. I believe that the main point which needs to be inquired into to-day is nothing less than what the nation is expecting, and what the nation ought to be expecting, to get from universities—not so much in numbers as in quality. Are we looking for people with well-trained minds or for those who have acquired knowledge in a particular speciality up to a high level? How should the two be combined? Or should the emphasis be placed on one thing rather than the other? I am sure that your Lordships will hear a great deal more about this question to-day from others who have much more knowledge and experience of this than I have. But there is one thing about this question of increasing speciality and the relationship between the arts and sciences which impresses me; that is that, while everybody agrees that the situation is not right, everybody also agrees that the blame lies with somebody else. The preparatory schools say that the grammar schools and the public schools ask too much of their entrants, those who go in for examinations and scholarships. The public schools and grammar schools put the blame on the universities. All the universities can do is put the blame on the professions and industry, who demand a certain type of man or woman at the end of a university career.
This seems to make it quite clear that we shall not find an answer to these questions in any purely educational inquiry. Of course schools and universities can contribute a great deal from their own experience. They know what kinds of study and what kinds of training are best calculated to produce the sort of grown-up citizen whom we want

663
to-day in a civilised community. They know, too, how big a part is played in the life of the university by sufficient leisure to enable the students (though I hate the word) to educate each other. But we have also to include in the inquiry what it is that the nation and the professions have come to expect and to look for from those who have finished a university education. Are they looking for the right thing or not? Or is it possible that some of their ideas on this matter may need thinking out afresh. It seems to me that a broad inquiry on these lines, including academic experience but not confined to it, is what is most needed to-day to tell us what it is that the universities ought to produce; and that seems to me to be pretty near the kernel of our problem.
Then an inquiry—whether it is the same or another one I do not know; and I express no view on this—could very properly cover the rate of expansion in the universities in the years ahead, and in particular the ways in which that expansion should be carried out. I am sure there is a good deal to be said for a fresh look at the processes by which new universities are set up. Have we abandoned, or should we abandon, the idea that regional universities should cater in any large degree for those who live in the surrounding areas? And if we have abandoned that idea, where should new universities be sited—in or near large industrial cities, at the seaside, in small cities including the cathedral cities, or where? And ought every new university to cover the whole range of university studies? What size should the new universities be; and, very important, at what size should they aim from the outset? I am sure there is much economy to be found in having clear thinking from the outset about these questions. Those, my Lords, seem to be the sort of questions which I believe could usefully be looked at at the present time in a broad way, though I express no views as to the precise body which should inquire into them.
5.17 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, we are all honoured by becoming Members of this House, but there are few of us, very few, who bring honour to the House itself, and I think we all regard Lord Bridges as belonging to that
664
extremely select body. He has spoken to us, as we should expect, with immense wisdom, and I only hope that he will be prevailed upon to speak to us again. Whether or not he can find the time to come and listen to others, I hope that he will come whenever he can find a moment, because there is certainly no one whose services to the nation equip him more completely to guide all of us in this place.
My Lords, we are this afternoon treading on very delicate ground. We are trespassing on the innermost shrine of the Establishment, as any Rector of a university, like the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, or any other of the great university pundits would be the first to agree. The noble Lord, Lord Dalton, was kind enough to pay tribute to some forecasts of mine, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, was also very generous. It would be pleasant to, as it were, souse your Lordships in a series of tributes, but that is hardly my rôle this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, who has I think left us, indicated that nearly all the subsequent speakers were men of vast experience in this field whose ideas would be absolutely sound. I think almost the only noble Lords he excepted were myself and the noble Viscount, Lord Esher.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): He did not say anything about me.
LORD PAKENHAM: He took it for granted that the noble Viscount was immensely sound. But he did mention me in rather a different tone of voice from the others, as someone who might have some ideas. That was rather a weak spot. I do not think the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, was even credited with ideas, but I am sure he will be capable of producing many. I have not come to inflict many ideas on the House, but I have one; one is more than none, and more than I sometimes produce, so I hope the House will bear with me while I develop it in a moment or two.
I must endorse what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Dalton, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, about the painful impression made by these figures comparing our provision of university facilities with the

665
facilities abroad. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, I thought, if I may say so, was a shade frivolous about the whole issue, considering it has been raised often in several journals, but we look for a more solemn handling of the matter from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, when he winds up, on this whole question of comparison. I would only echo what I think the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, who seems to have left the House, I hope not in dudgeon or in distress at the answer I have given, said, that if in fact there are better figures we should have them produced. But on the figures that have in fact been exhibited to the world by reputable academic people and others for some years we come badly out of it and are practically at the bottom of the league.
Therefore, if in this remarkable atmosphere we are glad to congratulate everyone who has laid a finger on the universities or seen them through a telescope since the war, then that result is extremely bad so far as these comparisons go. Therefore I cannot join in the view that the closer we look into it, the more satisfied we shall become. I am afraid that that is not the view which I hold. While I am not the only college tutor who speaks in the debate, I am one of the relatively few Members of this House who earns his living not on the high plane of a Rector or Reader, but as a poor, beastly college tutor.
I spoke last time at great length, for 46 minutes, but the noble Viscount clocked in for 55 minutes, so I will not get into a white sheet about that now. I am going to speak briefly this afternoon. I am going to say nothing more about specialisation, except that I endorse everything that can possibly be said about the evils of specialisation. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, will stress the horrors of our present failures in that respect later on. I should have liked to speak, because I have such a high regard for the National Union of Students, about grants to students, but we all know, I think, that the Anderson Committee is now considering the whole question of how to select and finance students. There is a rumour that the majority of this Committee are favouring the abolition of all means tests for students. If that is so, I can only
666
express my firm hope that the Government will accept the majority conclusions. But in order to press on with my single idea—the only idea with which I wish to detain the House this afternoon—I will not say more on that subject, either.
May I come to the university system—what is, so called, the University Grants Committee system, though, of course, in a sense that is only the actual body and is only one feature of it. In order not to be misunderstood, may I say that three years ago I paid tribute to the charm and sagacity of the Chairman of the Committee, and I should like to redouble that tribute to-day, if it is possible. I only hope that, where I am concerned, the charm will not be unduly strained, but I am sure that his sagacity will not be impaired by anything. No one who spoke in our last debate was unaware of what an odd system the present system is. We all know that the universities receive three-quarters of their money from the State, and yet the Government Departments concerned have no direct control. It is distinctly obscure as to whether the Government as a whole accept responsibility, and this is a general point that I should like to put to the noble Viscount. I apologise to him in advance by saying that I shall not be here to listen to his answer; the rival claims of the Bishop of Johannesburg carry me away from the House. I must apologise for that to the noble Viscount and to other noble Lords, but I should like to put this question to the noble Viscount—namely, do the Government accept responsibility for the general level of university provision in this country?
I should like to put to him that question, because I am not quite sure about the answer. I should think that the answer was probably "Yes," but the answer may be, "No." I do not know whether the noble Viscount feels that we ought to know the answer to that question: do the Government accept responsibility for the general rule of educational provision in the universities? The last time we were discussing this subject I and others were pressing the claims of the new University for Sussex, for which, when he was a free man, the noble Viscount laboured so hard. I join in the tributes paid to Dr. Fulton, who undoubtedly is going to make

667
a great success of that university. I had the honour to be a member of the Provisional Council, and I am glad to know that a lot of progress has been made.
But when I was pressing on the Government almost three years ago the question of what the attitude of the Government was to the new University of Sussex, the noble Viscount gave me a full answer. I then interrupted, and he then interrupted his answer. I would extract only this one sentence this afternoon, but if it is unfairly extracted the noble Viscount will no doubt ask me to read the whole passage, which may take me some time. The noble Viscount said, among other things [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 203, col. 1131] that the freedom of the University Grants Committee
"as to where any university expansion should take place must be regarded, at any rate on the present constitutional advice I have received, as absolute. I am told that I should be encroaching vilely on their functions were I to yield to the temptations of the noble Lord."
This was said in reply to an intervention, and perhaps one ought not to put too much weight some years afterwards on replies to interventions. But I should like to ask the noble Viscount whether he still stands by that kind of reply this afternoon.
I must assume for the moment that he does, and that that is the correct doctrine, because, if so, he was not saying and he would not be saying to-day, if he were repeating it, that the Government have simply to wait on these occasions for the views of their expert advisers, as the Home Secretary might wait for the views of the Prison Commissioners, or the Minister of Defence might wait for the views of the Chiefs of Staff. He was saying, and the Government would be saying to-day, that the final decision as to whether there shall or shall not be a University of Sussex, when it is called for by all these people, is outside the hands of the Government and rests with the University Grants Committee, which is from the public point of view irresponsible—that is, outside public criticism. I wonder whether he would confirm that doctrine again.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord has fallen into the error of not quoting the question in reply to which my answer was an answer. He asked me this question
668
"… to give us the decision of the Government on this matter".
That was the question he asked me, when obviously the decision was to be a decision of the University Grants Committee. That is the error into which he has fallen. He has read my answer without remembering his own question.
LORD PAKENHAM: The noble Viscount is quite wrong. I have my question and all the rest of it in my notes and I could read it out if need be, but I was trying to save time.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Lord will forgive me, but this is what he said, speaking to me: could I give the House,
"either to-day or on some future occasion the decision of the Government in this matter".
That was the question.
LORD PAKENHAM: It was, and as I said, the noble Viscount went on to say, as I quoted just now, that the freedom of the University Grants Committee must be regarded as absolute. I do not see any need to retract anything that I have said. I am simply interested in the question of whether, in a matter of this kind, the final decision does rest with the University Grants Committee or with the Government. On this doctrine it would appear to rest with an irresponsible body. That is as I understood it last time, and as appeared from the text. But the noble Viscount will be replying at the end of the debate. I quite appreciate that what the noble Viscount said then was that the decision whether these expansions should take place rests with the Government; he did not say the decision as to whether there should be any expansion anywhere. But for myself, I feel that if the decision as to where expansion is going to take place depends on the University Grants Committee, it would be almost impossible for the Government to take effective decisions about the total scale of expansions.
The noble and learned Viscount would be the first to point out (and I am conceding it) that in fact on the last occasion I endorsed the system. I endorsed the view expressed at that time by a leading article in The Times

669
newspaper entitled "Leave Well Alone", but I described it as a constitutional curiosity. My actual words were these:
"It can only be justified because it works and so long as it works."
And for the few moments that I want to take up the time of the House I should like to consider the question of whether or not the university grants system works. Here I am talking of whether the whole system, and not just that little group who form the Committee, able as they are, has worked well since 1957, judged by results—bearing in mind that we appear to be at the bottom of the league.
If we take the question of numbers, in 1957 the latest available figure of those at the universities was 89,000. We were told just before the debate that Her Majesty's Government were encouraging the universities to expand even more. We were actually told that there was to be a planned increase to 106,000, but that that was not the limit and that the Government were thinking in terms of higher than 106,000. We were told that the Government were quite ready to entertain a higher figure but we were not given any actual figure. I suggested, as noble Lords have been kind enough to recall, a figure of 176,000 by 1966, and therefore Her Majesty's Government, by stages, have reached the target of 176,000, although they have not promised it by 1966. Or, rather, to judge from what has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, they have not ruled out the possibility—
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord has mentioned 1966. I believe it is 1970. I think I am right on that.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, let me recall this. I said that we were to aim at a figure of 176,000 by 1966. The Government have accepted that target, but have not said that they will get there by 1966.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I thought the noble Lord had said the opposite.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I am always ready to believe that I have said the opposite of what I meant, but I would not mind betting the noble and learned Viscount half a crown that he will find that I was not mistaken. I am
670
simply concerned with the fact that the Government have now accepted the target but have not said that they will get there by the date I have mentioned, but by the late 1960s or early 1970s. It is, of course, a great improvement, but they have moved towards the target rather belatedly. It was not until 1958 that they announced an expansion to 124,000 by the middle 1960s, with a further possible expansion to 136,000 by the late 1960s—which may well prove permanent, according to my information.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said that this advice was given in 1957, and I have no doubt that it was; but, unless I am mistaken, it was not until early 1958 that they announced the revised figure. So that the public were presented with no official target higher than 106,000 until 1958. And it was not until this year, so far as the public know, that we were presented with what many of us are now inclined to think may be the correct figure—although we should like to see it achieved sooner rather than later. That cannot be regarded as showing great foresight on the part of the authorities. No one can come round to your Lordships' House and say, "What a marvellous system we have! They have been late all the time, but they are now somewhere near the right figure." I am afraid that is not the way that I view it.
It seems to me that the Government were wrong in 1957 in thinking in terms of more than 106,000, and wrong that we should find ourselves in 1960 before they begin to think of the figure of 176,000. It is extremely late in the day and I cannot feel that they have not helped the task of getting to any of these figures by the appropriate dates. Therefore I am bound to say that I do not feel inclined, ungenerous as it may seem to some, to pay any special tribute to anyone concerned; because as a story of planning it has been a rather dismal failure, and has made the task of getting teachers and all the other tasks much harder.
I may be asked what light this throws upon the system. I believe it throws some light on this much belauded, sacrosanct system of Treasury control plus the University Grants Committee. I am not criticising any individuals. One difficulty here is that we are being called upon, it seems, to express opinions on the merits of high officials, which is most

671
undesirable. Because I happen to know Sir Keith Murray I have a high regard for him, but in this House we should not get into the position where we have to say that a group of officials have done well or badly. We should find a Minister who should be the target of praise or blame.
Let us see whether we really have anything of which to be so proud. This universty grants system of ours has become a kind of Sacred Cow, but the trouble is that it is not giving much holy milk. We are not getting the results that we have a reasonable right to expect. At the present time the University Grants Committee are organised, on their own showing, as a buffer between the Government and the universities, and if our main interest is to see that we give priority to the defence of academic authority then I believe we shall be well satisfied with the system. But while we all stand for academic autonomy I feel that many of us consider that the main danger at present is that we shall not provide an adequate supply of university facilities. By that standard I cannot think that the system is proving very successful.
Let me here distinguish. I am not saying that the University Grants Committee should be abolished. What I am saying is that it seems very peculiar that the responsibility of this matter should rest with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The noble Lord, Lord Dalton, has expressed a very strong view in favour of the Chancellor of the Exchequer retaining that position, and he is well qualified to speak for he was an exceptionally able Chancellor of the Exchequer. But I hope he will not think me offensive, however, if I say that he is possibly biased by reason of his personal achievements as Chancellor—
LORD DALTON: My Lords, I would not say that at all. At the end of the war it fell to me to hit the ball first, but I believe that the universities have been very lucky in the series of Chancellors of the Exchequer we have had. I was followed by Sir Stafford Cripps, who was just as eager as I was, and as my noble friend is, for university expansion. He was followed by Mr. Gaitskell, though for only a relatively short period of
672
office; but he, too, was extremely eager. After him came Mr. Butler, often regarded by opponents of the Conservative Party as one of the most progressive members of it. He was followed by Mr. Macmillan. The universities have been lucky in that run of Chancellors of the Exchequer—but I will not bring the list up to date; I will halt there.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, if we have done only this much with all these wonderful Chancellors of the Exchequer I cannot imagine what it would have been like if we had had some "duds". I am going by the results, and it would certainly be cruelly unfair to fasten blame on any of these various Chancellors, or on the gentlemen who man the University Grants Committee, and very unfair, of course, to blame it on any Treasury officials. We know that the universities must not be touched; that one must not say a word against them, nor blame any of these gentlemen; but we are confronted with a very depressing set of facts.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I remind the noble Lord that some of us think each one of these Chancellors of the Exchequer that we have had in the past decade has made a series of absolutely disastrous mistakes in handling the economic policy of this country.
LORD DALTON: My Lords, the debate to-day is on university education.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, that puts a thoroughly different complexion on it. Had we been lucky I should not be arguing in quite the way that I am attempting to argue now. I will not keep the House very much longer but let us ask for a moment why we should leave this to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and why we should make him responsible for a constructive job of this kind in the university services. It would not occur to anybody to do it now. It happens to have grown up with the universities, which were once much less important in our national life. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is such a master hand at this kind of enterprise as the noble Lord, Lord Dalton, has, in his friendly way suggested, it is just as well to hand over to him health, housing or national insurance. But to pick on this particular section of education, is there any logical reason in choosing the Chancellor of the Exchequer

673
for this thing and this thing for the Chancellor of the Exchequer? None has been suggested so far.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, who always puts these things much better than I can, pointed out on the last occasion that all this was paradoxical, to use his own word. By Section 1 of the Education Act, 1944, as he pointed out, it is the business of the Minister of Education to promote education in this country. Yet for some extraordinary reason he has nothing to do with the universities, which play an ever more important part in education. In this, said the noble Viscount, this country is unique: if we are not right on this policy we get into difficulties. It reminds me of a story—and if I am not correct in this the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, will correct me; he is a Gladstonian scholar—somewhere in Morley's Life of Gladstone. It was said that in one of Gladstone's earlier elections he made a comparison between Britain and some foreign country, and a working man said, "God damn all foreign countries. Old England's good enough for me!" Morley said that that is not the first time that Gladstone learnt wisdom from a humble source, but I think he was speaking ironically. I should say to the noble Viscount that this extraordinary, irrational, paradoxical system is unique here and presumably we can judge it only by results.
The Times Educational Supplement says that this matter is being discussed in high quarters at the present time, and, this being so, they hope that the Government will on no account take over universities. I am not suggesting that they should take over the universities. But, as the noble Viscount said last time, the First Lord of the Admiralty does not take over shipbuilding: he is the sponsoring authority. In the same way, the Minister of Education could easily be the sponsoring authority for universities without taking them over or nationalising them or interfering with them, in that sense, any more than they are interfered with at the present time. We could transfer the responsibility from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Minister of Education, in theory, without interfering with the University Grants Committee, but if we wanted to alter that we could do so.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord a second time, but he surely realises that if this responsibility were, in fact, transferred from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Ministry of Education a gasp of horror would go up from every single university in this country; and I think a good many of them would collapse.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I know one Rector who would not, and I think he should give a lead to the others. I think there are only two arguments for leaving things as they are. They are that the Minister of Education would interfere unduly with universities, and that people would come and take you aside and tell you terrible stories of what happened in Germany, or of what might happen, or would happen, in South Africa. I do not think any one supposes in a democratic country like ours that any sort of totalitarian interference would be accepted for a moment, and so I do not take that argument seriously.
The other argument is the one mentioned by my noble friend, from whom I have had so much kindness over the years, Lord Dalton: that the universities get more out of the Government this way than they would if the Minister of Education were looking after them—a sort of informal access. If that is so—and it is rather hard to believe—it is not a particularly edifying feature of our democracy that the way to get some really big money from the Chancellor of the Exchequer is through the quiet lunch here, or possibly not through direct contact, by a raised eyebrow or a nod in some secret place, in the best of West End clubs, of which I have the honour to be a member. I am glad I am carrying with me at least one former Minister of Education, and I think that if this is really the way it is done then the sooner it is stopped the better. But I do not myself believe that there is that sort of potent influence at work, and I feel that to have it all done in an open and aboveboard way in the hands of the Minister of Education would satisfy us all much better.
LORD BEVERIDGE: My Lords, does the noble Lord assert that there would be no increased danger of interference by the Government in the decisions and

675
actions of the universities if the person giving them their funds was interested officially in general educational questions and liable to ask about them? Does he think that possibility does not exist?
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I would certainly say that there was no danger of pernicious interference. The Minister of Education is already responsible for the higher education of more students than are in the universities. I do not know whether my figures are quite up to date, but according to the latest figures available to me there are 146,000 students in higher educational institutes outside the universities for whom the Minister of Education is responsible. He does not interfere unduly with them. Why should he do so with university students?
LORD BEVERIDGE: Is it not the case that universities ought to be free and self-governing? I am not saying a word about the other ones, but I should have thought that that was clearly so.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I cannot believe that we are the only country in the world where there is any academic freedom in the universities; that that is solely a British prerogative. I say that with great deference, in the presence of my former master. But I am bound to repeat what I said a moment ago: that no one, so far as I am aware, argues that there is undue interference by the Minister of Education in all these higher colleges for which he has responsibility at the present time. That is about as far as we can take it between us. In other words—I am speaking only for myself—I come down strongly in favour of the view that this responsibility should be transferred from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Minister of Education. Clearly, that does not mean what is called aggrandising the Minister of Education at the expense of the universities. That presents a separate issue. I am putting the question of who is to be responsible for the U.G.C. and I say the responsibility should be transferred from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Minister of Education.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No!
LORD PAKENHAM: Well, it is a free country and I hope it is possible in the
676
House of Lords to state a view that has not been stated. I remember taking part in an election campaign when a question was put to the speaker and he said, "That question has not been asked before in this election and therefore I declare it void." I hope that no one is going to declare my speech void on such grounds.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: My Lords, if the noble Lord does not think the Minister will interfere, could he tell the House why he thinks the universities would be better off by getting money from the Minister of Education rather than from the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I think that the whole question of the University Grants Committee will be one that will need to be looked into by the Committee proposed by my noble friend Lord Simon of Wythenshawe. But I am asking who is to be the person responsible, and I think the answer is perfectly plain. The Minister and his staff are much more qualified professionally to deal with any educational topic than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, marvellous as he may be, knows absolutely nothing about this question.
LORD BOOTHBY: That is the point. Then they will interfere.
LORD DALTON: My noble friend was careful to say that he spoke only for himself and was not seeking to commit anybody, and certainly not the Labour party, to which we both belong. I will read him, in case he may not have read it, an extract from a document in Learning to Live, issued by the Labour Party just before the Election and setting out our policy and some admirable points on universities. It says the universities
"… must be free—not compelled by Governments or private interests to propagate particular doctrines, nor cajoled into giving their sole attention to immediate practical problems … To ensure their freedom and to meet their needs they are kept quite outside the control of the Ministry of Education. They owe their existence to Royal Charter and get their share of public money from the University Grants Committee, for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible."
This passage occurs in a eulogistic context where there is not a flicker or a hint of any change at all.
LORD PAKENHAM: I remember that. But of course the Election was fought in

677
October and, though the noble Lord has forgotten it, the Labour Party did not win that Election. The Labour Party has been doing a lot of thinking since that time. The Labour Party is still capable of thought. For example, I would quote Mr. Michael Stewart, who is undoubtedly the leading education expert in the Labour Party. He points out to me one particular argument in favour of the Ministry of Education taking over this responsibility. He points out that it would gather strength in the unification of all education, and in this way we should have a stronger Ministry of Education.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD PAKENHAM: I know there is a rectoral angle on these things, but I do not see why this should necessarily prevail over the interests of the students. I must look at it, I am afraid, from the point of view of the students, and not from the angle of some of these other interests. I can only assure the House that, in my opinion, which is shared by a lot of people (though the issue is still an open one, and, so far as I know, the matter has not been discussed by the Labour Party Executive), the Minister of Education and his staff, and not the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would know more about education. I do think you want a Ministry which knows something about the subject which it is trying to foster.
Secondly, they would have a greater interest in the subject. If you are trying to promote something, surely it is better to have an interest in it than to be somewhat detached and dispassionate. Thirdly—and this I have not time to dwell on now—a method of this kind would undoubtedly emphasise the ever greater need for unity and co-ordination between university education and the other forms of higher education which have been stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, in the technological colleges, the technical colleges, the arts schools and the teachers' training schools. If we are going to have co-ordinated policy for the 100,000 or so in the universities and the 140,000 outside in other colleges of higher education, it is fairly obvious that we should have one Minister rather than two; and if we are going to have only one person
678
responsible, nobody is going to suggest that it should be other than the Minister of Education. My noble friend Lord Dalton referred to our present system as a product of our characteristic British genius.
LORD DALTON: Of our administrative common sense.
LORD PAKENHAM: Of our administrative common sense. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, went a bit further last time. He described it as one of the inscrutable dispensations of Providence. Now I am always anxious to recognise the hand of Providence at work in the world, but I hope it will not be thought blasphemous if I suggest that the existing arrangements have perhaps a less exalted origin—and here I come nearer to the description of my noble friend Lord Dalton than to the attribution of Divine origin which lay in the mind of the noble Viscount. But my view is that it is high time that it was brought under organised human scrutiny; and for that and for other reasons I should like to say how strongly I support the admirable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe. I should like to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Dalton, for differing from him on this one point in public, when I have followed him on almost every other point for so many years.
5.54 p.m.
VISCOUNT ESHER: My Lords, I am not generally very diffident in your Lordships' House, but the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, has made me feel that I have no right whatever to make a speech on this subject: that he himself has only one idea, and that I have not got any at all. Nevertheless, I feel that the outsider has a right to his point of view this afternoon, but I would assure your Lordships that, in such distinguished academic society, I shall not venture for very long to represent the layman's point of view about university life.
Your Lordships have discussed since March 1 the three most urgent and difficult problems of the modern world: leisure, secondary education, and now, to-day, university education. All three of them require the attention of the modern eye. If we are to retain our present position as leaders of the world, I think we must look further into these important

679
questions. Germans and Japanese, Africans and Asians can sit with bowed heads in libraries and take a First at the University; but we must not lose, if we can help it, the peculiar superior qualities that have built up and adorned our glorious past.
On the same day that I received notice of the Motion set down by Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, I got an advertisement pamphlet saying:
"How long has it been since your mind was stretched by a new idea?"
That question would no doubt be embarrassing to many Members of your Lordships' House, and, I think, most embarrassing to most of the speakers this afternoon, who simply seem to have patted themselves on the back with satisfaction at the present system, and to have shown no sign that there is anything wrong with it at all.
My Lords, I believe that the university system should be widely extended on a voluntary basis. I should like everybody in this country who feels the desire to go to a university to be able to go there without an entrance examination and without cost. Everybody has been throwing bricks at the Minister of Education this afternoon, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been the pet of the debate. The Minister of Education is considered to be the most dangerous man to let into anything. I picked up Whitaker's Almanack and saw that three of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State have been, by our wonderful, elastic, unwritten Constitution, put below the salt. The Secretary of State for War, who can no longer fight a battle; the First Lord of the Admiralty, who cannot keep a fleet in being; the Secretary of State for Air, who can never again fight a Battle of Britain—none of them is in the Cabinet. It is true that the Minister of Defence is still there, although he has not got the foggiest idea of how to defend us. He will not remain there for very long, and you will find that he, too, will go below the salt.
Now it seems to me that, instead of running down the Minister of Education, which the noble Lord, Lord Dalton, has been engaged in during the afternoon, and boosting up the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we should try to make the
680
Minister of Education into a respectable man by making him into a Secretary of State, and by giving him a more superior office than the one which he now holds. The Admiralty is obviously so empty that the Prime Minister and the whole of his administrative staff can be moved into it overnight. Therefore, I cannot see why we should not move the unnecessary people from the War Office and put the Minister of Education into it, because there are two traditions there which I think are of great importance in the field of education. The first is the voluntary principle which produced such good soldiers and which will. I believe, provide equally good students.
Of course, many people will not want to go to the university; many will prefer to start their active careers: but surely everybody who feels the desire to do so should be allowed to go. This will bring change and give variety to the pattern of university life. At present, only boys and girls capable of getting a First or Second have a chance of getting in. If they cannot do that, they have no hope. The pattern is stereotyped. The specialists, of course, must walk along their chosen road. The Foreign Office official, the civil servant, the lawyer, the chartered accountant, the doctor and the scientist must learn their jobs. But place must be found surely for the freelance, the adventurous young people of enterprise, ready to take a risk—the sort of fellow who might become a Cabinet Minister, the head of a television company or climb Mount Everest. In my opinion, in no other way can the character of this eccentric and unusual nation emerge in future.
I was talking last week to the head of one of our great industries, a business on which the economic future of this country depends and which employs thousands of people. He told me that he had sent a recruiting committee down to one of the major universities, one of these perfect institutions, admirably governed, without a flaw we have been told to-day, to look for likely talent among these Firsts and Seconds, to recruit for this great business, and they came away without a single recruit. "Cut to a pattern," he said, "All the spirit knocked out of them". It seems to me that the second great tradition that a

681
Minister of Education established in the War Office could inherit is the Field Marshal's baton that may be in every private soldier's knapsack. Some of your Lordships may remember those old-fashioned lines:
"Vain mightiest fleets of iron framed,
Vain those all-shattering guns,
Unless proud England keep untamed
The strong heart of her sons."
The ironclads and the guns are as obsolete as the Blue Streak or the V-bomber, but we must surely not tame those strong hearts.
I said to an undergraduate the other day, "I suppose you read what I call the essential, civilised books, books which are everyone's foundation—Gibbon's Decline and Fall, Symond's History of the Italian Renaissance, Shakespeare, Boswell's Johnson, Balzac, Jane Austen, Trollope and Tolstoy?"He said, "Not unless they are in the curriculum. We have no time for anything that is outside the curriculum. You can't get a job without a good degree." Many employers, unfortunately, have got accustomed to take up this disastrous position. My intelligent industrialist, to whom I have referred, took exactly the opposite line. He would not look at people turned out by a curriculum merely to pass examinations, and I am glad to say that he does not stand alone. A woman friend of mine runs a small but growing business to which she cannot give all her time. She advertised for a bright girl ready to take responsibility, and, choosing what she thought was the best, she wrote to those who had educated her for a character. She was told that the girl was popular but could not be recommended as she had made no mark whatever during her educational career. My friend, being a woman of the world, engaged her at once, and with conspicuous success. But supposing my friend had not been a woman of the world, this girl would not have been given the job. That is why these boys work so hard and do not read the essential, civilised books: because they feel that they have got to get the degree which so many Cabinet Ministers have failed to take.
I suggest that when the Minister of Education reaches the War Office and enlists his army of volunteer university students who have passed no entrance examination, he should make a new degree at the other end of university life.
682
The entrance system of the modern girls' college at Cambridge called New Hall will give him the clue. It consists of only three essays on unprepared subjects and a personal interview, and it brings forward the best type of girl. We want, in fact, a new degree for intelligence, capability and enterprise—the I.C.E. degree. It will produce a rush for the services of those who pass it. I must apologise to those academic noble Lords who think that I have no ideas on education at all, but I feel that if we were to do the things that I suggest we should produce a generation in this competitive world which, in the words of that noble Viscount who never took a First, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, would "hit them for six".
6.8 p.m.
LORD JAMES OF RUSHOLME: My Lords, obviously at this time of day it would be wrong for me to waste your Lordships' time by re-emphasising the importance of the subject that has been introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, with all the authority of his experience and his devoted service to our education. So much of our prosperity, our security and our culture rests on the kind of education that we give to the ablest of our school leavers. That means that few subjects we could discuss can be of greater urgency or with wider complications.
I should like to emphasise the pressures under which all our institutions of higher education, and most clearly the universities, have been working during recent years. There is a relentless pressure of new knowledge which it is their function to extend and transmit. There is a social pressure demanding ever more highly trained graduates for industry, for the public service and for teaching, and for occupations that did not exist ten or twenty years ago. There is the pressure of increased numbers which educational and social policies have enabled to clamour at the doors of the universities. A rising birthrate and increased educational opportunity, a growing awareness that education is both an economic asset and a good in itself, have contributed to this three demographic entities, the bulge, the trend and the plateau, that create such problems for

683
those responsible for university policy. To these combined pressures I think the response has been good, in spite of the criticisms of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, with which from time to time I had a good deal of sympathy. We have seen in a few years a doubling of our university population; we have improved our university staffing ratio until it is probably the best in the world, with an average of about seven students to one teacher; and we have laid plans for increasing our university population very considerably by enlarging existing universities and creating new ones—although many of us, I think, may feel that we have not been bold enough or imaginative enough. All that has been accomplished under this unique system about which we have heard.
In the University Grants Committee we have evolved an instrument for reconciling academic freedom with great and growing support from public funds—an instrument that is at once the envy, the admiration and the riddle of the academic world outside Britain. I think it is true to say—it is not merely a manner of speech—that the U.G.C. is not the least of our national contributions to the eternal problem of reconciling liberty and authority in the State. I was glad that when the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, attacked Treasury control it was not necessarily the U.G.C. itself that he was attacking.
LORD PAKENHAM: That is true.
LORD JAMES OF RUSHOLME: Here may I say, in support of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, although I do not agree with him, perhaps, that control should move to the Ministry of Education, that I can no more agree with his critics who regard falling into the maw of the Minister of Education as a fate worse than death. I have been living in that maw myself for some years and have found the rule tolerant, enlightened and undictatorial. We must not be too ready to criticise the simple words "Minister of Education" when we hear them in an educational context.
LORD PAKENHAM: I was hoping that the noble Lord would explain why, on balance, at the moment, at any rate, he would prefer to leave the responsibility with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
LORD JAMES OF RUSHOLME: It is difficult for me to speak dispassionately about the U.G.C. and its relations with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because it is a body of which I was a member for ten years; but perhaps I might say this. I would say, first, that the privilege of learning from my colleagues on the U.G.C., and, in particular, from the three successive Chairmen under whom I sat, was the most educative and certainly the most enjoyable of the experiences I have had outside of my own job. I think I should say, on balance, that we should leave it with the Chancellor of the Exchequer simply because I want so many more things from the Minister of Education over the next few years. The Minister of Education has disappointed me in his reception of the Crowther Report, and at the moment I am not really prepared to say that I want to make this important radical change until he has digested the Crowther Report and has done something more of what I want about it. I do not know whether that is an answer to the noble Lord, but it is the best I can do on the spur of the moment.
LORD PAKENHAM: I am obliged to the noble Lord.
LORD JAMES OF RUSHOLME: It may be said: Is not the U.G.C., a permanent Committee, giving all, and more than, the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, wants; and what is the justification for a further inquiry? I will try to deal with that real and pertinent question in a moment. First, let me say a word or two about the reaction of the universities to the pressure of numbers and the problem of entrance which it raises.
We have all mentioned the autonomy of the universities. No principle in education is more important than that which asserts that a proper freedom for the academic institutions is a condition for their proper growth. But let us remember that that ought to apply to all academic institutions and not merely to universities. A too jealous defence of autonomy can create certain difficulties for one's neighbours. For not only does every university and nearly every college within those universities regard itself as in many ways an autonomous body, but as regards a vital question like entrance qualifications every faculty within every university

685
feels itself free to impose its own special requirements. And these bodies are not, in fact, genuinely independent entities in some academic vacuum. Whether they like it or not, they are part of a wider system. The young men and women who enter them are products of sixth forms, and the curricula of our schools are deeply affected, in content and depth, not merely by nominal university entrance qualifications but by the sometimes capricious demands of individual faculties. As regards the actual subjects demanded, something has been accomplished by consultations between the heads of universities and schools. But vice-chancellors are always quite frank in admitting that in those consultations they can never commit their universities. It is apparently one of the essential elements of university freedom that no one can speak for the universities. The result is that even now we find ourselves in a jungle of university and faculty entrance requirements that no one can remember and certainly no one can defend.
More important than this bewildering variety is the problem of standards. With the increasing pressure of numbers on our universities, entry to them has clearly become increasingly competitive; and this competition inevitably tends to increase the pressure of specialisation in the schools. Here there is a very real difficulty and, if I am frank, I must admit that many of us in the schools are inconsistent in our demands. If qualities and qualifications other than purely academic distinction are demanded, and if a close personal relationship between school and university is created, as at Oxford and Cambridge, we hear complaints that the public school is favoured at the expense of the grammar school and that the "good commoner type" is preferred to the abler, if socially immature, boy from the poorer home.
On the other hand, the system more common in civic universities of admitting almost entirely on "Advanced" level marks has clearly unfortunate results on the sixth-former. The boy who is told in February that he will be admitted to a given university if he secures 3 marks of 65 in physics, chemistry and mathematics in June, will be under a great temptation to devote his entire attention to those subjects. The fact is clear that university entrance is in danger of
686
becoming simply a chaos of conflicting qualifications, of a struggle for marks, of multiple entries to many universities, and, behind it all, the dangers of injustice, on the one hand, and unfilled places, on the other. This was the situation that overshadowed a good deal of our thought on sixth-form curricula in the Crowther Committee, but because education beyond the age of eighteen was outside our terms of reference we were unable to make very firm recommendation about it.
The long-term solution is to provide more places in institutions for higher education. But I myself believe that much of the pressure on sixth forms would be relieved by the simple creation of a clearing-house for university entries. But such an innovation is opposed as cutting across the independence of the individual university and the individual faculty. Be that as it may, we have in the problems of university entrance a clear example of the way in which autonomy can become irresponsible, when institutions forget that they do not stand alone but are part of a wider educational system.
That phrase, "wider educational system", leads us on to much more important questions than those of entrance. How are the universities to react to the sheer increase in knowledge that is clearly one of the dominant features of our age? It is becoming abundantly clear that this extraordinarily rapid growth of what there is to know in every field will produce grave educational evils if we assume that every undergraduate is to be brought to the frontiers of knowledge. There is a tendency to compromise the education of the sixth forms by pushing down to them what are properly university studies. There is the necessity to overcrowd the university course itself. Must we not, in fact, move towards a normal university course of four years instead of three? Cannot we prune our university syllabuses by transferring much that is in them to the post-graduate stage?
Behind those questions and those difficulties lies the most important question of all—the question approached by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, in that speech which, if it is not impertinent to say so, I found so delightful and which we shall so much look forward to reading. The fundamental question is: What in fact

687
are universities for? There are, broadly, two possible answers to that. There is first the answer of Jowett, which regards universities as a place where young men and women will be confronted with new and different ideas which they will assimilate and discuss under the constant guidance of men who regard themselves primarily as teachers.
The rival view, the view of Mark Pattison, expounded in the nineteenth century, the view of the great German universities, emphasises the duty of the university to extend knowledge, and envisages research as the only proper end of university work. Those two rival philosophies co-exist to-day in our universities and have profound effects on curricula, on methods of teaching and, indeed, on the whole climate of university life. Oxford and Cambridge are still committed to the idea of the educational university founded on a college system. It is that idea which leads their teachers to establish far closer relationships with their pupils than is usually the case elsewhere, and to adopt a tutorial system that puts a weight of teaching on the don three or four times as heavy as would be considered tolerable in many other universities. It is a system that earns the undying gratitude of those of us who have enjoyed it.
The two approaches to the task of university are not entirely incompatible, or even approximately so. Although, as I have said. Oxford and Cambridge are teaching universities, they have, as we all know, research schools that are second to none in the world. Although some of our civic universities are more concerned with research, many of those working in them enjoy the closest contact with students for whom they feel the greatest responsibility. Nevertheless, those two philosophies do exist and they produce quite different practical results. If the first aim of a university is to produce research, we shall appoint and promote our university teachers, not by any ability they may have as teachers, but by consideration of their published work. We shall regard the teaching of undergraduates, as I once heard a university teacher describe it on an official occasion, as a "distraction." Our methods of instruction will be such as to leave more
688
hours free for research. The Oxford and Cambridge tutorial system is not, in fact, made possible by a more favourable staffing ration; it is made possible by the belief that personal contact between teacher and taught is so important that it is worth accepting a load of 18 or 20 hours teaching a week to obtain it. If half the teaching staff of a civic university took two more hours a week from their research, it would be possible for every undergraduate in Britain to have a fortnightly tutorial in a group of four. Would it be worth it? That is the question one has to ask.
These are some of the practical problems that arise from the fundamental controversy as to whether universities are primarily places for education or research. My own view is quite definitely that in our newer universities the balance has moved too far towards research, and I believe this to be particularly true in arts subjects. With many of the average students who now find their way into universities, it is personal guidance that they need and a broadening education, rather than to be treated as future pure scholars, which very few indeed of them are. Whether that view is right or wrong, it is at any rate one which deserves examination.
We may be led by considerations such as these to ask whether we need to create new kinds of institutions. Two lines of thought lead one to make that suggestion tentatively. As we all know, few questions in higher education are more keenly discussed than that of broadening the background of specialists. We have hitherto assumed that general education is entirely a matter for the schools, and that at the university stage all formal general education has ceased. I would contend that the assumptions on which such a view has been possible are no longer true. Our undergraduates are drawn from wider social backgrounds than they were even a few years ago. Much of the literature, the political ideas and the philosophy are too difficult for any but the most able at the school stage We may well ask whether many of the present university courses designed to produce scholars in a narrow field, rather than for the education of those with no genuine pretentions to scholarship, are the most suitable we can devise. There is something to be said for continuing work in general education, one would

689
hope by the tutorial method. That is why I think the statistics I gave just now are important.
Here, of course, Keele has been a pioneer along one path, An alternative is to think in terms of a new kind of institution. I believe that we have been too eager to see the, admitted faults of American education, and too slow to see its merits. It is, if I may say so, too easy to make jokes about courses in air hostess-ship. On the one hand the general education given to scientists of the highest calibre at Cal.Tech or M.I.T. is something that an English observer simply cannot but envy. On the other hand, the really good liberal arts college is an institution that I think ought at any rate to be in our minds when we expand our university populations.
These, then, are some of the obvious problems on the education side of university education that spring to the mind of all of us as we contemplate the expansion that lies ahead. But why, your Lordships may ask, has the noble Lord asked for a Committee to consider it? Does not the University Grants Committee always have these questions before it? There is no doubt, of course, that it does. Some have been mentioned in its quinquennial reports. Nevertheless, I think myself, as an old boy of the U.G.C. if I may so call myself, that there is a case for another more detached view from time to time. The U.G.C. is concerned primarily with the detailed needs and aspirations of particular universities over a fairly short term. Further, its relationship with the universities is a particularly delicate one. If the vital principle of academic freedom is to be preserved, the U.G.C. may suggest, it may hint but concerned as it is with ultimate financial power, it must avoid the kind of controversial and even dogmatic statements in which a more detached Committee could indulge, and which would provide such valuable material and stimulus for discussion and experiment in the way which the Crowther Report is doing now for the schools.
Even more important, perhaps, is the fact that the field we are discussing is wider than that covered by the University Grants Committee. The pattern of the university scene, the complex itself, is made still more complex by the colleges of advanced technology, and teacher-training colleges
690
altogether outside the orbit of the University Grants Committee. And how far they are outside it is shown by the very slight references to them that we have had to-day. If I may say so, it shows how much we are in danger of getting a purely lop-sided picture of this problem, because most of us who have spoken to-day are familiar with the universities and we do not see these institutions, with their immense potentiality and great problems. New as they are, many of us are already beginning to wonder whether they can discharge their functions with their present constitutions and their present status.
One may ask whether they would not in fact be better under the direct control of the Ministry of Education. At present, as your Lordships know, they are partly under the control of local authorities. For them, I believe (although not all my friends would agree), direct grant from the Ministry of Education would be, as it has been for fortunate schools like my own, a liberalising and liberating influence. One may ask what proportion of the sixth-form leavers they should take; how those should be selected in comparison with university entrants; and there are many more questions which will increasingly demand clearer answers than we have now.
It is clear already that in thinking of full-time education above the age of 18 we are considering a field of immense complexity that will become more complex still, if, for example, some of the new universities that we are contemplating are founded on a somewhat different model and with somewhat different aims from those we now have, as I hope they will be. It is difficult to resist the conclusion that there is, in fact, a case for a comprehensive survey of the whole field so that we may have some clearer picture of the needs and functions and inter-relationships of the diverse elements in the pattern. It may be that the subject is already so complex that a number of related inquiries is called for; that, for example, the needs and problems of Oxford and Cambridge are so peculiar to themselves that they should be the objects of a separate study, as I myself believe.

691
But whatever our view of the details, none will deny the importance of the subject. We are, after all, concerned here with the most important of our natural resources, the highest levels of ability in our population. It is related to the expansion of knowledge and hence to our economic prosperity. But it is concerned with something much more important than that. Coleridge used the word "clerisy" to mean the body of the most educated men, the men who, by reason of their high intelligence, their keenness of perception, their richness of imagination, would set standards of value for society. It is with the education of this clerisy that we are concerned to-day, and it is right that we should remind ourselves that from its members we demand not only technical skill, not only new knowledge but, in the last resort, those judgments of value which can illumine the life of the whole community.
6.35 p.m.
LORD ADRIAN: My Lords, I hope very much that the Government will agree to set up this Committee of Inquiry. There is a major decision which may have to be taken within the next few years and it ought not to be taken without the best advice we can muster. We may have to decide what proportion of the population should be trained in a university, whether we ought not now to plan for some really great expansion, to take, say, 20 per cent. instead of 5 per cent. There is obviously an interesting uncertainty in the comparison between the number of university places over here and the number in the U.S.A. or the U.S.S.R. But even if it is not as bad as it seems, I think we shall be urged to expand our numbers or, at any rate, we shall want to consider doing so, but there are all kinds of problems which are bound to come up in reaching a decision of such importance. Some of them are urgent, related to the particular university set-ups we have now, and some of them would have to be gone into very thoroughly before we could decide that a really large expansion was desirable and possible. Many of the pressing problems have come up already this afternoon. Some of them are so important that they would justify an inquiry in any case.
692
But the basic problem, I think, is that of future numbers, or perhaps I should say numbers multiplied by ability. It is really the percentage of university-trained people that we ought to aim at 20 years hence, and it is a major decision because it will affect the whole social policy of the future. It will raise a great many questions exceedingly difficult to answer: whether we ought to have a very large increase if it means lowering the standard much; whether training ought to be more specialised or less; whether research ought to be done in the universities or concentrated in special research institutes, as they do in the U.S.S.R. and the countries that follow its lead. Many of us have very decided views on many questions of this kind, though they are mostly in the category of "hunches". I doubt if the best committee that the Government could appoint would be able to get very much further than that, but at least they could collect evidence about it and see how the "hunches" add up.
There is another reason, though, why I think this is the time for a special inquiry into our policy in higher education. It has come up to some extent this afternoon. We are already planning considerable extensions in the technological field and in the field of education as well as in the universities. They have been carefully planned and are highly desirable, and we ought to do very much more on those lines. But whatever we do, we must be rather careful that we are not setting up machinery which would threaten the independence of the universities. Learning financed by the State is always in danger of being geared to State policy, and university people in every country are bound to be concerned about the way they are governed. Most of them are paid by the State now and it is natural for some States to insist on calling the tune.
They may call for patriotic exercises or compulsory instruction in the creed of the ruling Party. No great harm would be done by that over here, I expect, because our students, fortunately, do not always believe what we tell them. Or it may be only that the professors are nominally appointed by the Minister of Education. But even that degree of control can be, and in fact it has been recently, a threat to independence. Government aid for universities could always

693
be used to support a particular system of ideas. So, of course, could Government aid for education, but I think the ideas that are put in at the school stage probably do not matter quite so much as the ideas that we put in in universities. Our University Grants Committee administers the Treasury grant and it is bound to exercise some control. For instance, it exercises control over university salaries, and has always managed to act as an effective buffer to prevent too much Government regulation and, the other thing, too much standardisation of university policy.
Like the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, I am biased by being an old boy, but in the last few years I have seen a good deal of universities in other countries and it is remarkable to find how much they know about our University Grants Committee and how much they seem to envy us for having it. It would not be easy to transplant, particularly in countries where there is a Federal Government or semi-independent States that are rather jealous of their own autonomy, but all of them seem to be aware of the help that we get from it here. And it does allow our universities to develop, without really threatening their independence to develop on the lines that they want. I should be very sorry if the setting up of any Committee of Inquiry meant much interruption in the normal work of the U.G.C., and, of course, sorrier still if it led to any curtailment of its powers or any transference of control of the kind that has been suggested this afternoon.
But if we go on with the present kind of development of other forms of higher education without a general review of the machinery that we are using, I think we may be in some danger of weakening the effectiveness of our machinery for the universities—losing some of the independence that it gives us. I may be exaggerating the danger. The U.G.C. is one of those British institutions which works so well because we have all learned to trust it, and to trust that successive Governments will never allow their politics to dictate its membership. But nowadays, when the universities are not the only bodies concerned—there are the technical colleges., the teacher training colleges and so on, under the
694
Minister of Education—it would certainly, I think, be a much tidier system to put the whole system under the Minister of Education, to make the Ministry responsible for our universities as well, as the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, suggested.
No one supposes that the Ministry of Education has not a profound respect for higher learning, but I think we must be careful that we do not drift into the position in which the Ministry might have to take over, whether they liked it or not, some of the functions of the U.G.C., because I am quite sure that higher learning would be the worse for it. The mere suggestion of direct ministerial control would have a bad effect on university morale, not only here but in other parts of the Commonwealth. People concerned with education are never really happy about the way that they have to run it. University people are no exception, and they would find much more to grumble about if they had to take their grievances to a Government Department instead of to an independent committee. University independence is so vital a matter that any suggestion of interfering with it would amply justify an inquiry, even without the need for one to consider university expansion.
Clearly, the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, is right in thinking that the inquiry cannot be left to the bodies that have all the current problems to deal with. Of course, the University Grants Committee and the Vice-Chancellors would give valuable advice on what could be done in the distant future; but everybody knows how hard it is for bodies that are in constant session to detach themselves from the agenda. In my time, at all events, the University Grants Committee had no quiet week-ends or meetings devoted to the discussion of these wider issues. They were sometimes broached on the long train journeys that we had to make to visit distant universities. The members are all busy people with their own jobs to attend to—that is part of the virtue of the system—so they cannot be expected to decide the whole social policy of the future. Although they may not do so, it would be a great mistake to think that the members of the U.G.C. and of the Vice-Chancellors Committee are not constantly aware of

695
all these problems, and in fact constantly attending meetings to discuss them.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the Report of the Committee on Australian Universities which was published in 1957. The Chairman of that Committee was Sir Keith Murray, Chairman of our U.G.C., and the introduction to the Report is an admirable summary of many of the problems that have been raised to-day. It might well have been issued as a guide to our debate, and it certainly would be a most valuable guide to any Committee of Inquiry on university policy. I am exercising great restraint in not quoting whole sections of that Report to your Lordships, but I am going to end by quoting one sentence. It is in the introduction, and it says:
"Every boy or girl with the necessary brain-power must, in the national interest, be encouraged to come forward for a university education, and there must be a suitable place in a good university for everyone who does come forward."
I think we need the best advice that we can get if we are to provide those places.
6.47 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, late as it is, I cannot resist the temptation to make my speech, and particularly I cannot resist the temptation to point out that this afternoon has been largely a London School of Economics party. As one who has been privileged to teach in that remarkable institution for some 30 years, I point out that the opener of this discussion is an ex-Governor of the School; that Lord Beveridge who spoke second was Director of the School for many years; that Lord Dalton held a Chair there; that Lord Bridges is now the Chairman of the Governors, and that Lord James of Rusholme has, at any rate, delivered to us one of the most remarkable orations that we have had. I think that almost everyone has had some connection or another with it, so that—
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, may I just add my name to the list?
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I had Lord Pakenham on my list. He was one of the first persons I met at the School. He was on the staff and a colleague of my own.
I entirely endorse everything that has been said about our indebtedness
696
to Lord Simon of Wythenshawe—a point that Lord Dalton made—who not only gives us an opportunity about once a year of discussing matters of really fundamental importance, but who so organises the team, so to speak, that most of the people of real eminence on these subjects who are Members of your Lord-ships' House can be relied upon to come and give us the benefit of their views. In this sort of company, I, as a comparatively humble teacher, feel rather diffident, and might well have forborne accepting the invitation, but for the fact that for some thirty years I have been much mixed up in the affairs of the Association of University Teachers and therefore am, I think, much in touch with the views and opinions of the average teacher in the universities of this country. From that point of view, I hope to bring a certain amount of relevant information to bear in this discussion.
Now the main proposition which the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, has put before the House this afternoon is that we ought to have a kind of Crowther Committee for the universities as well as in connection with the general educational system of the country, and I would endorse that as emphatically as I possibly can. It has been very interesting and encouraging to see how much of the eminent opinion which has been expressed this afternoon takes the same view. I should like to remind the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, that in drawing up their own plans for postwar expansion and development in the universities, the Association of University Teachers strongly advocated the establishment of a Universities Council as a planning body. It was intended to do very much the kind of work that Lord Simon of Wythenshawe has asked should be entrusted to this new Committee that he has proposed this afternoon.
This was a serious proposal on the part of the Association which was put up to the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals who considered the matter and replied that they did not really feel that there was the need for such a body. They suggested, as an alternative, the holding of an annual conference to discuss topics of salient importance in the universities. They thought that that should be sufficient. It was all that we could get and in fact was the origin of

697
the Home Universities Conference which has held useful discussions, some of them fruitful I believe, on some of these problems. But that, of course, is no substitute for the continuous work and thinking of a body which is in more or less permanent session.
The University Grants Committee is in permanent session and it may be—in fact it has rather been suggested this afternoon—that that Committee should do this work, at any rate to some extent. I should like to endorse what was said by the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme. I do not feel that the University Grants Committee can quite do this job, for to a considerable extent that would destroy their own position in the universities. University people are distinctly suspicious. They are suspicious even of the U.G.C. and are always looking to see whether there is not some hidden motive governing that Committee's actions. The Committee have to be very careful to maintain the astonishing position which they have in the university world.
I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, cannot really be as closely in touch with the university world as he once was or he could hardly have put forward his proposal. The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, was quite right when he said that it would be received with groans throughout the university world. I do not think there can be any doubt at all about that, and I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, so strongly endorsed that view. I do not know that the university world is particularly interested in the fact that it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer who provides the Ministerial direction of the University Grants Committee—though he does not provide much; very sensibly he refrains from doing so. It might be possible for some other Minister, such as the Lord President of the Council or somebody else, to do that, but I am sure that the Minister of Education should be the last person to be given the job, however logical may be the argument in favour; and there was a great deal of logic in the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham. It would be almost an outrage to university opinion, and on that basis alone I feel that it is really a completely impracticable proposition.
698
The University Grants Committee, while they are primarily a grants committee, have, as the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, has said, from time to time gone a little beyond their functions as such; and their reports are valuable surveys of the whole situation. Very sensibly, they never attempt to provide the long-term thinking and planning which is really so essential and which the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, has advocated this afternoon. I would add my tributes, very heartfelt and sincere, to the work of the three men, all of whom I have known, who have been Chairmen. There cannot be any question that the present Chairman is a man of great ability. He succeeds in giving an impression of effortless ease in the work he does, but the detailed administrative knowledge which he has and his capacity for putting his hand on every point shows that his energies must be entirely taken up with the day-to-day, week-to-week and month-to-month work of the Committee. I feel that he is in no position, as Lord Simon of Wythenshawe has clearly pointed out, to embark upon the kind of research, consideration and planning which is urgently called for.
The other existing body is the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals, who have undoubtedly increased their stature very much since the end of the war; but they are a Committee of very busy men, and without arguing the matter, it is pretty clear that they are not cut out for a task of this particular kind. The Committee we need would be of a rather different type, possibly with a Chairman like the Chairman of the Crowther Committee, a man connected with but not in the university world, like the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, himself, who has maintained a connection with the university world without ever having actually been a teacher or administrator in a university. With such a body in operation we might begin to get the answers to the questions, most of which are really fundamental, which have been posed by several noble Lords, beginning with the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, himself, and particularly by the noble Lords, Lord Jarnes of Rusholme and Lord Adrian. They are questions fundamental to the whole business and ought to be looked at by an authoritative body who are in a position

699
to prepare the ground and do the necessary research work, and have a real basis on which to form their "hunches", rather than do the kind of guess work which is at the bottom of so many calculations that are now made.
Probably the best thinking that has been done over these last fifteen years or so has been done in the pages of the Universities Quarterly, for which we are again indebted to my noble friend Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, who thought of it, provided the organisation and, I believe, the finance for it for many years, and who maintains a very close interest in it—typical of the work which he has done for our community in many ways, and which is not always realised by the people of this country as a whole or even in the universities where he has had so much influence in this benign and effective way. Such a Committee, among other things, could answer the questions which have been put by my noble friend Lord Simon of Wythenshawe.
A matter which comes to my mind on which I should like to say a word or two is the problem of differential salaries for university teachers. Nothing during the last ten or twelve years has caused more discussion and given rise to more bitterness of feeling in universities than the introduction of differential salaries in connection with the medical schools: and, unfortunately, in the statement which was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and which was referred to by the noble Lord on the Government Benches in his speech, that differential has in a rather covert sort of way been extended. It seems to me that it is fundamentally wrong that a revolutionary move of this kind should be made without the possibility of the workers in the universities being given the proper opportunity to make their representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If we had a Commission of this kind it is just the sort of matter which could be referred to them and which could be properly debated and pondered upon before a decision is made. This decision, in my view, is a most unfortunate one. It has already done a great deal to destroy the value of the salaries increases which were announced, and the last has certainly not been heard of it.
Again, a Commission or Committee of this kind could, with great advantage,
700
consider how far we could benefit by introducing methods which are used in foreign universities. I agree entirely with the criticism that was made about the noble Earl who spoke for the Government, that he was too complacent in regard to that. That is a very common failing, if I may say so. A noble Lord quoted from a heckler of Gladstone, who said that we do not want to be bothered with what goes on abroad. Really, at this time of day that is a very shortsighted attitude to take.
My noble friend Lord Simon of Wythenshawe referred to the great American law schools and asked me to say something about them. It is quite true that I have had the privilege and interesting experience of spending some time in some of them. They are a unique part of the American educational system in the universities. Our own law schools in this country, curiously enough, really developed rather later than the American ones, and although we have made good progress, in some ways remarkable progress, during the present century, we have no law schools in this country which are of the same standing as the law schools at Harvard and Yale and Columbia and others of the great American universities. The influence which the Harvard Law School has played on the recent development, not only in American law (which is a very important side of their national life, of course) but in industry and commerce, would, I think, repay most careful investigation. Anybody who has had the advantage of travelling about much in the United States must have been surprised at the number of key positions in that country which are filled by graduates of the Harvard Law School or of the Yale Law School; and I think that a Commission of this kind could investigate this type of institutional development, which is so important in that country, and could very well report upon it.
Incidentally, I should like to add a word in support of what was said as to the danger of looking down on the American university system as a whole. There are, I think, something like 1,700 universities in the United States. It is quite obvious that among those 1,700 there are a number of not very serious institutions. But, after all, we have only 29, and we could multiply that number by several

701
integers and still be within the limits of the good universities in the United States.
My Lords, a number of important questions have been raised which I should very much like just to say a word or two about, although, as the hour is so late, I will compress my remarks as much as possible. I think that the present Government target of 170,000 or so students in the universities by 1970 is an attainable target, and I do not altogether agree with the criticism of my noble friend Lord Pakenham of that, because it has only recently become evident from the extraordinary increase in the sixth forms in schools, and particularly from the increase in the birth rate again, that the trend has, so to speak, become accentuated. The A.U.T., working independently, arrived at the same figure as the Government figure two or three years ago, a figure of 130,000 to 140,000; and, again working independently, we came to the conclusion towards the end of last year, not very long before the Government's own figure was announced, that we had under-estimated by 30,000 or 40,000, for the very reasons I mentioned.
There are various factors involved which I should like to go into but have not time to do so. I am sure that by the time secondary education has been developed in the way envisaged by the Crowther Report the sixth forms will have expanded still more and we shall have some 200,000 young people, maybe up to a quarter of a million young people, who are quite capable of benefiting by a university education. But these figures are all guesswork, and one of the reasons why it is so important that we should have the Commission that my noble friend Lord Simon of Wythenshawe asks for is that they will be able to do the necessary research and will be able, I think, to provide authoritative reasons why we should go ahead. It is a great pity that these fundamental decisions should have to be taken on what the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, referred to as "hunches" without very much in the way of scientific research or investigation to work upon.
The problem of the size of the universities is, of course, one of very great importance. I content myself with pointing out that my Association very much favour a largish number of small universities rather than a few large ones. It is obviously much easier to expand
702
existing universities than to found new ones, but it is only by founding new ones that we can get the necessary experimental work done, that we can get new ideas, and that we can discover the best lines of development. We have, so far as we have gone, I think done very well. The experiment in North Staffordshire, for which the late Lord Lindsay of Birker was responsible, is undoubtedly the most interesting experiment which has been carried through in the university world within the British Commonwealth of Nations for a very long time. Also, I think that Brighton, although perhaps in a way a little more orthodox, is pointing in an interesting direction.
There is room, quite obviously, to have eight or ten new smallish universities, if not a larger number, and I hope that the Grants Committee, which has been reasonably open-minded in this matter, will tend to go along those lines rather than to pursue the policy of stepping up numbers in universities like Manchester. My noble friend Lord Simon of Wythenshawe referred to the possibility of 10,000 there. I think he was a little doubtful as to the wisdom of it. I know that at Birmingham, where they have been Pressed by the Grants Committee to expand in a similar sort of way, although they have accepted the advice, they are doubtful as to its wisdom. I was glad to hear that Bristol had "dug in their heels" and said that they were not going to expand themselves in that way because they felt it would destroy a great deal of the value of their work. But here, again, it is a matter of guesswork very largely; our guess in the A.U.T. is 4,000 to 5,000. There is no scientific study that has been made of the subject, and it is just the sort of thing that ought to be properly studied and on which an authoritative statement should be made.
The problem of getting the staff required for this expansion is an exceptionally difficult aspect of this matter which has not been very much touched on this afternoon. It is the one which worries me most. The competition with the schools, which must not be deprived of their best teachers in order that they may go into university teaching, which is a very real danger—and it is interesting to note how many of the recent recruits on to university staffs have come

703
from the schools—with the Civil Service, with the professions, and with the new colleges of advanced technology, is all very serious. We obviously cannot afford to have too large a proportion of our intellectual élite working in our universities. Conversely, we cannot afford to have men working there who are not first-class. This is undoubtedly a problem which requires the closest attention and which merits the authoritative investigation of a Commission of the kind which the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, is advocating. These obviously are problems of the first importance, which I should very much like to discuss at much greater length; but, as I have already remarked more than once, time is very short, and I will therefore bring my speech to a close.
7.11 p.m.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, for his very timely initiation of this debate. It is difficult for me, following so many distinguished speakers, but before starting on my speech I should like to take up one point which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, made when he referred to the use of differential payments for the salaries of university teachers. There is no doubt that in certain faculties in universities it is very much more difficult to recruit teachers than in others, and I can see no possible reason for the university teachers asking to be let out of the operation of the laws of supply and demand. It happens everywhere else in life, that if the skill which you have is in short supply then you can command a higher salary.
LORD CHORLEY: May I point out to the noble Viscount that the Association of University Teachers, which represents a very substantial majority of university teachers, has, at two Council meetings, passed resolutions flatly contradictory to the point of view which he is putting forward.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: I am not quite clear what point of view they contradict: whether it is that some university teachers command a higher salary than others, or the need to have differential salaries. But whether or not the university teachers pass resolutions on these points does not seem to me to affect the
704
issue, which is that if you want to get the best university teachers without unduly swelling the bill for salaries then you must apply differential salaries—and I very much hope that the authorities will not avoid doing that, as they have proposed
There are two main points that I should like, as briefly as possible, to put before your Lordships. First of all, there is the need for a closer integration of education after school for those over 18 years old. This matter has been referred to by many other speakers, and I am afraid that the remarks I am going to make will be at complete variance with what the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, has said—and I am only sorry that he is not here to interrupt me. My second point is the danger of the too early specialisation which is now resulting in schools from university policy. Again, that has already been touched on by other speakers: in fact, more than touched on; it has been dealt with already, perhaps adequately, by such speakers as Lord James of Rusholme, whose speech I so much enjoyed.
The present set-up, as your Lordships will know, is that the universities are administered, so far as their finances are concerned, by the University Grants Committee, whereas all the other bodies or institutions of higher education—technical colleges, colleges for advanced technology, and the like—are administered by other bodies, either through the Ministry of Education or through local education authorities. I believe that there would be a very great benefit indeed if all suitable institutes which are carrying out full-time adult or higher education were to come under the University Grants Committee. I have had some experience of the University Grants Committee from the receiving end, and when I was at Cambridge I was always impressed by the speed at which they operated; by their great experience; by their concentration on the needs of the universities, and by their great understanding and skill. And I should be terribly sorry to seethe universities, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, removed from the sphere of the U.G.C. and so direct to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
There is no doubt at all in my mind that the present system for selecting university students is far too efficient. It is a very efficient selective system. The

705
academic competition is far too severe; and the pressure on all universities, particularly Oxford and Cambridge, is getting greater and greater every year. In the past, there was a very satisfactory random selection of students for universities by means of money. I do not mean that it was satisfactory in the sense that it was good to select on the basis of whether or not a boy's parents could pay for his education: I mean that it was satisfactory in the sense that it brought to the universities people of widely varying academic standards, which was of great benefit to the nation. There is now an increasing tendency at all levels to "cream off" the best brains, and that leads to premature specialisation in the schools, which is a subject I should like to return to in a few minutes.
My Lords, I do not believe that, in our society as it is organised to-day, we could have such people as the late Ernest Bevin. Such great leaders as he in the trade union movement and in industry would now have gone to university, and would have gone to quite other professions, quite other vocations. That, in my view, is a very great loss which society is suffering because of this over-efficient selective system. We seem to me to be in grave danger of moving from a position where graduates were selected from far too narrow a social strata to one in which they are selected from far too narrow an academic strata. In industry to-day there are many leaders and managers of all kinds who, if our present system had been in operation in their young days, would have gone quite a different way. They would perhaps have gone into research, into the Civil Service or into one of the professions, and their great talents would have been lost to industry, to the detriment of the country.
It seems to me that there is far too wide a gulf at the moment between those who go to university and those who do not, and that gulf is being made wider by this efficient selective system. If we compare that with the system in the United States, to which several noble Lords have already referred, we see there a vastly greater university population. At all levels in industry there are graduates: on the shop floor, in production, in research and in development—and not nearly so narrowly selected as they are in this country.
706
My Lords, the standard of university education in this country is very high indeed, and I have no complaints to make about that. It seems to me that where we should look very carefully is at the methods of selection. The end product is, I believe, not nearly widely enough diffused. Now, what is the remedy? Is it a new selection policy? Is it propaganda? Is it examination changes, broader curricula; or more places? All those have their part to play. But surely most important of all, is the provision of more places. Now any expansion that is proposed will be limited by the resources that can be made available—resources in money and, perhaps most of all, resources in teachers. New universities will take time to mature and to take their place in the educational scene; but, meantime, we have these very excellent colleges of advanced technology, which are making great strides, and I believe that if we could liberalise those full-time colleges, give them perhaps some arts faculties, as well as their technological faculties, we could then recognise them as embryo universities which in due time could award their degrees like new universities. This would be of immense benefit to our educational system.
In the past, many noble Lords, and I myself have been with them, have been frightened of degrading the standard of a degree, but already there are different standards throughout the universities of this country. Times are changing and the universities must change with them. What must always come first is surely the needs of the country. It is a balance of advantage whether we should keep a degree a relatively narrow award to a comparatively few people or broaden it so that maybe for a time it will become of a slightly lower standard. I believe that for the broad good of this country the latter course is the right one to follow now, if we believe in the value of university education, in the broadening of the minds of men, in the enriching of our society and meeting the nations needs. There are three ways of increasing the number who can benefit from university education: by expanding existing universities, by bringing in existing colleges, as I have suggested, and by creating new universities. If we are really to make an effective advance in this direction, I believe that

707
all these three are necessary and that they should all come under the University Grants Committee.
My second point is to draw attention to the damaging results which recent university policy is having in premature specialisation in schools. I believe that this applies particularly to Oxford and Cambridge, where the pressure of entry is so great, but I may well be wrong and that it is of equal application to all universities. The universities are now demanding a minimum of two "A's", and I believe there has been a suggestion that not only will they demand two "A" levels but that boys and girls shall have them one year before entry. At the same time, scholarship standards are rising and pressure on places is rising. In grammar schools and public schools this is leading to a most unhealthy pressure. Parents are demanding that their children must have these qualifications to get to the universities and sometimes headmasters feel that they must maintain the number of "A" levels they get every year and the number of scholarships they get to the universities. Far too great attention is being paid to examination passing, to the great detriment of broad education; and if a boy does not get a broad education at school, he is not likely to get it later on. Let us take this example. A boy of medium ability will take two to two-and-a-half years to get two or three "A" levels. He will have a much better chance if he does a bit of specialisation at "A" level, with the result that if he is to get the best chance of getting anywhere in the "A" level scholarships, he must make some decision about subjects of specialisation at the age of about 13.
No one is keener than I to have more technical education, to have the greater proportion of our school leavers properly educated in the arts and in science, but I do not want to see that done by over-early specialisation. As science becomes more and more important in our everyday life, so does the importance of a broad education increase, if we are not to find that science is becoming our master and not our servant. A very great teacher at Cambridge, Sir Charles Inglis, always said that the one subject you could afford to pay little attention to
708
during your time in his engineering department at Cambridge was the subject in which you were going to spend the rest of your life. That is as true to-day as it was before the war. You have the rest of your life in which to specialise, but you have only the time at school and, it may be, a little time at university to get a broad education. So I believe that this effect on the schools of the present university entry policy is a serious one.
I have drawn your Lordships' attention to two points. There are many others. On principle, I am opposed to Inquiries, Commissions and the like because they take up a lot of time of distinguished and important people. But in the case of adult education, clearly a great expansion has started, and when expansion comes, it would be a good plan to have a look at the way it is going, at how to control it and at how to maintain standards while spreading the benefits; and some changes are inevitable. Above all, I think that at the present moment we want to look at how univerity policy is affecting education at our schools. So I am glad to support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, for the appointment of some Commission or Committee to investigate all these important points, not in any spirit of criticism of the education that is provided in our universities, certainly not in any criticism of the way the University Grants Committee administer the financing of the universities, but to ensure that the scarce and precious educational resources of this country are used to the best advantage.
7.27 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, in view of the observation made by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, I think that I ought to say at the outset that my only connection with the London School of Economics is that at one time I applied for employment there and was not successful. It would indeed be disastrous if the idea were to get abroad that the London School of Economics had made a successful "take-over bid" for your Lordships' House. Therefore I wish to put before your Lordships this small piece of evidence that this is not the case. If we are declaring interests, as we seem to be, perhaps I ought also to say that for

709
a short time, a very short time, I was a member of the University Grants Committee until (if I may so put it) I was seduced by a more powerful organ of education in the form of the B.B.C. I am very proud of that connection and could wish that it had been longer. I think that the University Grants Committee is the only part of our university structure which has not received any criticism in the course of this debate.
Surely the question to which we have primarily to address ourselves is simply: what are, the grounds for asking that some other Committee or Commission of Inquiry should cover what on the face of it might appear to be the same ground as the University Grants Committee? This Committee does in a most remarkable degree consider, and comment in its periodical reports upon, questions of broad policy, as well as upon the day-to-day problems of administration and finance with which it is primarily concerned. Perhaps the first and basic reason for some other Inquiry is the one which was inherent in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme. He made the point that, after all, the universities provide only for a relatively modest proportion of the whole population over the age of 18 which is enjoying some kind of higher education. And all experience shows that the more non-university education develops in the years from 18 to 21 or 22, the greater will be the pressure to bring non-university institutions within the ambit of the universities.
It is true that our modern institutions can give qualifications such as that which describes itself as "Dip. Tech."—and there are no doubt many who are proud to have the right to put "Dip. Tech." after their names. But so long as the universities have the prestige which they enjoy, pride will always be a little damaged, and there will always be a preference for some such qualification as B.Sc., even if modified by some technical suffix. So the main problem that I think will face the Commission for which the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, has asked (and we are all grateful to him for this Motion) is to draw the line between education within and education outside the universities.
There I must say a word of appreciation for the kind things that the noble
710
Viscount, Lord Caldecote, said about the efficiency of the selection for university entrance. As one who has from time to time had to take part in selection procedures, I must say that I was as much astonished as I was flattered by his observations. We sometimes thought that, try as we may, what we ended up with was a great deal nearer the random selection of which the noble Viscount spoke than the highly efficient selection that he was good enough to assume we in fact achieved; and one year, in deep despair, before we started on our remission procedures, we did discuss, although not seriously, whether it would not save a great deal of time and make little difference to the result if we admitted all those who took a particular size in shoes, which would give us about the right number.
Other reasons why we may need a wider range of inquiry are, I think, to be found in some of the changes that have happened in our universities over the past 20 or 30 years. I hope your Lordships will bear with me if for a moment I speak of a few of those changes, particularly as many of them have come within my own personal experience as a university teacher. First, I would say that in this period the universities have become much more vocational. They always were more vocational than they would admit, but many of their professedly non-vocational subjects, particularly in the arts, were in fact vocational training for certain professions, notably teaching and, perhaps, the Church. But I think the students have become much more vocational in outlook. If you ask the contemporary student when he enters the university what he is hoping to get from his experience there, you find that he commonly answers in terms of the profession that he proposes to pursue when he leaves. And I have always felt it a little unfortunate that the intervening years, which are perhaps three of the best years of his life, are regarded merely as a passage leading to some qualification in a profession he will pursue for the rest of his life. I do not know whether the pious hope of the University Grants Committee that during those years he will come to see that intellectual pursuits are enjoyable for their own sakes is at all certain to be fulfilled.
Secondly, we have seen a great process of democratisation. If there is no longer

711
random selection of brains, there is at least a much wider social selection, and our universities now admit a far higher proportion of all social classes than would have been the case 30 or 40 years ago. But here again the process is not complete. There is evidence that there is still a great waste of ability. The early leaving reports of the Ministry of Education found only a few years ago that two-thirds of the boys who enter our maintained grammar schools at the age of 11-plus, two-thirds of those who are in top class for ability, are the sons of manual workers, but only one-quarter of the university entrants are the sons of manual workers, and in between economic pressures have led to the melting away from the field of education of these able boys and their able sisters. Moreover, this democratisation is very unevenly spread—it reaches a much higher figure in the universities of Scotland and the University of Wales—and it is, I regret to say, particularly low in my own original University of Cambridge, where the Kelsall inquiry showed that only 9 per cent. of the men entrants, and only 5 per cent. of the women, came from the manual working class. Correspondingly, in the universities of both Oxford and Cambridge there is a much higher proportion of young men and women who have gained their school education in boarding establishments. This means that the democratisation is unevenly spread and that the opportunity for the students in these universities to gain a wider social experience, as well as intellectual stimulus, is correspondingly restricted.
Thirdly, there is one recurring complaint that one hears from students, and that is the complaint of disappointment that they do not get the kind of contact with their teachers which they had hoped for and expected. I fear that this complaint is heard in Oxford and Cambridge, with their tutorial systems, as well as, if not perhaps as much, in London or the regional universities. This complaint is not entirely met by the proposal, admirable though it is, of the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, which we cordially endorse, for a greater development of halls of residence. You can be neglected in a hall of residence just as much as you can be neglected in lodgings; and I regret to say that sometimes you are. Sometimes I think that none of us has very
712
much idea of what goes on in universities, even those of us who teach there or those who hand out the millions.
The noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, remarked that if every teacher in the regional universities sacrificed two hours of his research this would make possible a great development of the tutorial system. It would, provided that he had two hours to sacrifice; but any proportion of zero, as the noble Lord will be the first to recognise, is also zero; and it is by no means certain that it is the conflicting claims of research which in all cases are responsible for the lack of student-teacher contact. I should like to see some attempt to inquire into the distribution of the burden of teaching and research among the staffs and faculties in different universities. Some remarkable divergencies would, I think, emerge.
Now, if I do not detain your Lordships for too long, I should like to say a word or two about the development of scientific studies and the scientific outlook. That has been responsible, among other things, for a certain corruption, in my view, of those studies which are not ordinarily thought of as scientific; that is to say, a corruption of the arts. It is, I think, a most remarkable thing, almost a confession of failure, when the University Grants Committee boldly say that many arts students find their honours course "unsatisfying". The Committee do not wholly associate themselves with that opinion, but they do describe it as a danger signal, and leave it at that.
The arts have tried, in a sense of inferiority, slavishly to imitate the sciences. For that reason they have often allowed themselves to be entangled in what the University Grants Committe have called the "and minutiæ of scholarship." Misplaced admiration of the sciences has led also to an over-emphasis on certain kinds of research in the arts. One of the differences between students of my own time and contemporary students in the arts, particularly in the subjects with which I have been myself concerned, is that if you ask them what they hope to do on the termination of their course they now tend to say, "Research." If you say "It is fine that you should wish to advance the frontiers of knowledge. What are the burning questions to which you want to find answers?", there will

713
be an uneasy pause, followed by the observation, "My professor will suggest a subject". That again is due surely to a slavish imitation in inappropriate fields of kinds of research which have their place no doubt in some of the more highly specialised sciences.
Again, the development of the scientific outlook has always given rise to what Sir Charles Snow has so admirably described as the two cultures in the university which exist side by side, and which are unable to communicate one with the other. Between these cultures there has grown up in the last 20 or 25 years a middle group, the one of which I would particularly speak, the group of the social sciences whose raw material lies in matters of human concern, but whose methods become increasingly scientific. This new culture might possibly form a bridge between the other two. At present, I think it is more likely to be equally despised by both.
I am profoundly grateful for some encouraging words that the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, said when he was President of the British Association about the future possibilities of the social sciences. The existence of this new group of studies, and the invasion of all studies by scientific techniques, surely calls for some very profound thinking. Perhaps it calls even for a new division between the arts and the sciences. It may be that if we redraw the line between these two groups we may find that the difference between them is more profound than we have ever yet appreciated. On the one side of the line there would stand subjects which are concerned with the understanding and the mastery of our environment, both human and social, and which raise questions to which positive answers can eventually be found. On the other side of the line, there would be those studies which are concerned with the fundamental and insoluble problems of human existence—questions of judgment, judgments of value, questions of morals and questions of taste. We may need some complete reassessment of the relationship of these two groups of studies, and of the value which the second has for the first and the first for the second.
There is one last change of which I would speak. Might it not be possible that a Commission such as the noble
714
Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, has asked for, would review university education in a better perspective in relation to our educational system as a whole? Here, with the noble Lord, Lord Dalton, on my left, I would not dare in any way to associate myself with the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, and I must in the interests of my personal safety maintain a strictly neutral line. I will only remind your Lordships that at one conference of academic persons some time ago, where this subject was raised, one of the professors present, referring first to the University Grants Committee and then to the Ministry of Education, said, despairingly that he thought it would be dignified, though unpleasant, to be gored to death by a bull, but intolerable to be gnawed to death by rats. That, I am afraid, is the reaction which will be obtained in our universities to the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, for having rescued the Ministry of Education from the very unfortunate position into which it appears to be falling. The words which the noble Lord, Lord Dalton, read from a pamphlet issued by our Party, he read with an emphasis which I think they were not intended to carry. They were words referring to the need to preserve the universities from all danger of propaganda. Surely it is not suggested that the great educational system over which the noble Viscount who is presently to reply formerly presided is steeped in propaganda such as raised the alarm, if not the voice, of the noble Lord, Lord Dalton? I must confess that for myself I was discouraged and disappointed by the contrast in Her Majesty's Government to the proposals that we have recently had for the development of education at the school stage, and the enthusiasm with which they are welcoming the development of the universities. All praise to the latter! But, surely, if we are going to concentrate on the superstructure, we ought to give rather more attention to its relation to the foundation below.
Here I thought it was astonishing that nothing—or almost nothing—has been said in this debate about the function of the universities in producing teachers who, after all, are the mainstay of the

715
educational system on which ultimately even the universities rest. It is still true that about five times as many non-graduates enter teacher-training colleges as take up graduate teacher training courses. If we cannot have the proposals of the Crowther Report implemented, surely through a development of our universities we might at least do something to raise both the quantity and still more the quality of our teaching profession. Therefore, a Commission or Committee of Inquiry, or several Committees of Inquiry, might well give their attention not purely to the location, the size, the educational curriculum of the universities themselves, but, as I said at the outset, first to their relationship with other institutions of higher education, and, secondly, to their own relationship to the schools, by which they are themselves fed.
Few of the changes that I have mentioned have been deliberately caused. They have been recognised, welcomed or deplored, as the case may be, in nearly every case after the event. But we surely do not need, and we certainly do not wish to allow ourselves, to be the purely passive creatures of events in so important a matter as the development of our higher education. What has been said in this debate has surely given us ground for hope that the conditions which the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, indicated as essential for fruitful inquiry could in fact be fulfilled in the case of an inquiry into the whole structure and purpose of university education and of education outside universities for young men and women over the age of eighteen. Such an inquiry surely would be valuable, not only for the answers that it would give, but also because, in its characteristically British way, it would create wider and wider circles of educated interest in these topics, first among those who took part in these investigations, then among those who had to give evidence before such committees, and then still more widely among the public who are in contact with those whose primary duty it is to take their share in such investigations. For those reasons I would very warmly associate myself with the proposal which the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, has put before us to-day.
7.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, after what has been a very interesting and satisfying debate which has yielded a great number of distinguished speeches, including one memorable maiden speech and at least one remarkable clash of opinion showing divisions of an apparently irreconcilable nature in the Party opposite in a totally new sphere of policy—after such a feast of interest and instruction—I expect the last thing that anyone wants at this hour is a reply from the Government. I suppose, however, that I should not be doing my duty if I did not attempt some rational answer to what is, at any rate in form, although I fear not altogether in substance, the purpose of this debate: that is, the demand for a Committee of Inquiry to report on the extent and nature of the provision of full time education for those over the age of eighteen, whether in universities or in other educational institutions. I must do that, I think, conscientiously, and I also must admit somewhat diffidently, to those of your Lordships who have survived the experience of this afternoon and are still here, that I should myself, in any case, apart from my Governmental duties, have desired to participate in this debate. In how many other debates in which I wind up this would be the case it would perhaps be unwise to speculate at this hour.
This is a subject which interests us all, and it interests me particularly. I was for seven years a Fellow of an Oxford College, and I am President of the Classical Association, somewhat to my surprise. As Minister for Science, I have contact with some of the most distinguished scientific minds in the country. Moreover, for the last 20 years I have been closely associated with a technical institute in London which is largely concerned with the education of those of the age of 18 and over. I should say last, but by no means least, like the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, I am Rector of a Scottish University. So that I cannot disclaim an interest in various departments of the subject.
I would begin with a somewhat coarse political proposition. Democracy, as we know, has many failures to its discredit, perhaps more failures than successes to record. Transplanted, it has proved all too often as half-hardy as dahlias in April and as fragile as Dresden china in

717
a Corner House. Yet there would be no one of your Lordships who would doubt that the success of our Western philosophy of freedom under the law is the only way in which our industrial and scientific civilisation can be brought to peace and made to work. What has been the cause of failures in the past? What are the conditions of success in the future? This is indeed a grand theme, and reflection upon it led the philosophers of Greece, or particularly Plato, to propound a system of education and philosophy which differed hardly at all from Fascism and Communism in our present day and which has been rendered respectable solely, in my opinion, by the passage of time, and made gentle by the adhesion of numbers of academic minds of the utmost distinction and learning.
What is the answer to this conundrum? I would not seek to give an answer at this hour of the day. But part, at least, of the answer, I am convinced, is that neither democracy, nor Parliament, nor freedom, will work unless a nation has an adequate supply of graduates. In that, I would accept the praise of the worth whileness of education lavished on it by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, in the enjoyable maiden spech which he gave us; and I would also put this perhaps unduly practical consideration side by side on the other balance of the scale to the noble Lady's reference to the growing vocational balance in our universities.
By graduates I would not limit myself to university graduates, nor, under the English system, could I hope to do so without doing injustice to several other institutions of almost, if not quite equal, importance. And by the expression "adequate", I mean adequate in point of quantity, in point of numbers, to provide an instructed public opinion and to man also the thousands of qualified posts in administration, in industry, in the professions and in Government, which can be competently filled only by graduates. I would mean adequate in point of academic independence, so that Government never obtains control over the patronage of the academic world or seeks to impose Party tests of loyalty or orthodoxy. I would mean adequate in point of quality, so that the academic world of this country is still truly enfranchised in the true international of letters where the frontiers of learning are enlarged, where there
718
are no secrets but the important truths which can only be known to the people with the discipline and the intelligence to find them—the only democracy where there is no nonsense about equality, and the only aristocracy in which wealth and privilege count for nothing.
It is not too much to say that a free country must have an adequate supply of graduates in this sense or it will cease to be free. A democracy must be ruled, or at least guided, by the provision of those graduates not merely in government but in general administration, or it will be dominated by its charlatans and its crooks. And although both systems may have their disadvantages, like Disraeli I would express myself on the side of the angels—that is, of the graduates.
But have we an adequate supply of graduates, in the sense that I have tried to describe? The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, asked me to define the responsibilities of Government, and he put to me a number of questions, some of which I thought posed false dilemmas. For my part I know of no better definition than that which was in July, 1946, recognised by the universities themselves when they assured the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, if I am not mistaken, was the noble Lord sitting opposite, that the universities entirely accept the view that the Government has not only the right but the duty to satisfy itself that every field of study which in the national interest ought to be cultivated in Great Britain is, in fact, being cultivated in the university system, and that the resources which are placed at the disposal of the universities are being used with full regard both to efficiency and economy. Of course, the Government accept that responsibility.
But I should have thought it was a wholly false analogy and extension of that doctrine to suggest, as in one passage of his speech the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, attempted to do, that there really was no distinction in principle between a great administrative social service like the Ministry of Health, or the system of schools of this country, ruled over by an executive Department, and the relationship which exists between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the University Grants Committee, where the Chancellor of the Exchequer's

719
duty is, no doubt, to see that all is well, but is also to ensure that one factor in all's being well is that the actual work should be done by those whom it is his duty to protect from Government interference as well as to ensure that they are adequately supplied with funds.
Although I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, and the noble Baroness who summed up for the Opposition, say that it really is quite wild to suggest that the Minister of Education, or the Ministry of Education, or their officials, are guilty of interference in a political sense with the system for which they are responsible, in my judgment at least it is equally false to draw an analogy between the executive Departments and say: because it is true that you have a Ministry of Health, and because other countries undoubtedly place their university systems under their Ministry of Education (if they have one, which the United States certainly have not) then it must necessarily follow here that the Minister of Education is the most suitable person to sponsor the universities.
I have a much more detached point of view about this controversy. I think, on the whole, that it was stated perhaps with too much emotion and heat on both sides this afternoon. I would seriously say to the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, that his experience this afternoon ought to have taught him, if nothing else, that if he is going to raise that issue he is going to raise a hornets' nest about the ears of anyone who wishes to expand the universities, at precisely the moment at which the universities ought to be preoccupied with the problems of expansion and not with profound constitutional issues of the kind which the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, sought to raise. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, who at that time, though unnecessarily but, as it turned out, very desirably, sought an assurance from the Government, that it certainly has not crossed our mind at the present juncture of affairs to interfere with the present system, which in our judgment is working extremely well and is preserving those essential interests which I attempted to define when I said that it was important that we should have an adequate supply of graduates.
But this leads me to ask again, have we such an adequate supply? In point
720
of the quality of the best of them, and in point of independence, I would give, I think, to your Lordships' House an unqualified "Yes" by way of answer. Our graduates, in point of quality, are, at any rate as to the best of them, equal to the best in the world; and in point of independence our system has a degree of integrity which I believe is possessed by no other country in the world. To a large extent, I think that perhaps we owe this quality to the system which gave rise to such a heated controversy. But that leaves unanswered the question of quantity. Speaking of quantity, I have, equally, absolutely no doubt about the answer there. Britain has never had an adequate core of graduates in point of numbers. So far as I can see into the future, we should wish to expand, without sacrificing either quality or independence, at the best rate the universities, as institutions, are capable of expanding without losing their identity or their standards. But, of course, as a general proposition, that does not necessarily help the Government in the task of judging whether its own responsibility is adequately discharged. By what standards should we judge whether the number of graduates is adequate or not? By the efforts of other countries? No, I think not.
Here I must say that I was a little disappointed that two or three noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, lent added weight to the figures which were referred to in the quarterly magazine which I think was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dalton. I have nothing but respect for the author of that article; he is one of the most distinguished and greatest driving forces, certainly in technological education. But he does, I think, have a reputation for somewhat enjoying "putting the cat among the pigeons", and I would say that those figures are grossly misleading and are really a gross libel on English education. The truth, as I shall endeavour to show—among a number of reasons which my noble friend has given and which I will not go over again—is that the English figures ignore the students in a large number of institions which in this country, owing to the peculiar pattern of our university system, do not qualify for the name of university, and thereby do not come to be quoted in the statistics. A great number of students

721
in the Regent Street Polytechnic, in fact, qualify for a London degree. The whole of our teacher-training colleges will from this year onwards have a three-year course, with an increasing number of entrants with two "Advanced" level passes. Our colleges of advanced technology have presently, I think, about 9,000, but shortly many more students who will work a three-year course, admittedly of university standard, which in America would qualify for a university degree, and indeed which are all themselves modelled on the American university, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
One could go on enumerating the institutions. In this country there is a vast number of evening classes which yield a high degree of professional attainments; there are the great professional institutions; there are the Royal College of Music, the Royal College of Art, and other institutions. In other countries these would swell the statistics, and to describe, as the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham did, the present system as a dismal record of failure, and to talk about being "bottom of the league", is really to talk educational rubbish. This country is very high in the educational world. Although I should be the first to agree that we have a long way to go before we have achieved the optimum for our own needs, I would not state that there is a perfectly good case for introducing really misleading statistics from other countries.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, would the noble Viscount regard Wales as another country, because the proportion of students in the universities of Wales per thousand of the population is much higher than it is in England? That is true of Scotland, too.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I was trying to say that we have a long way to go before we achieve the optimum for our needs. I do not wish to be drawn aside into a disquisition on the particular educational pattern of Wales and Scotland. It is statistically true that Scotland has, I think double the number of undergraduates per thousand of the population to England. But it is also true, as we saw clearly when we discussed adult education just before the last Recess, that the pattern of English further education is such that that in it-
722
self is not a significant statistic. I would say to the noble Lord that the real course is to use the efforts of other countries as a spur to measure our own needs in the light of our own circumstances, and to make our plans to meet these. This, as I shall try to show later, we have been trying with some success to do.
LORD BEVERIDGE: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Viscount would allow me to put to him this question: is it not also true that, from the point of view of doing for a student what the University Grants Committee urge and urge again—the establishing of more contacts with teachers in residences—both Scotland and Wales are far behind this country?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I have heard what the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, has said, and I am far from denying it; but I believe that if I were to make any positive assertions of that kind I should get into grievous trouble. The noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, has put his question, and he carries behind him the weight of great experience and knowledge of this subject.
Can we judge the adequacy of our graduate numbers by reference to the talent in our schools? Yes, I believe we can, but I would now say that the talent in our schools is something which we have consistently under-estimated. One of the most striking features of British education since the last war, touched on by several speakers and particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, has been the increase in sixth forms. Between 1958 and the mid-1960s the sixth forms in this country, so far as I can tell, are going to double in size; and, in my view at any rate, there is no reason to believe that the increase will stop there. These sixth forms will yield a reservoir of talent which at the moment undoubtedly exists and is going to waste. I would also say of the sixth forms that, judging by our experience of those who now wish to go to a university, and try to do so, at least an equal proportion, when they pass out of the sixth form, will be clamouring at the gates of the universities, trying to get in.
In making our plans for higher education, fortunately, we do not have to look to the universities alone—and this is another great change which has come

723
about during the last twenty years—for we now have, alongside the universities, as the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, has said, three other highly important kinds of institutions which can provide further education, not yielding a university degree but still equal in standard to foreign universities, upon which we can draw.
First, there are the colleges of advanced technology—eight at present, but a ninth, Bristol, to be added this year. These are new colleges, created in 1956 and, as I have said, being built in the image of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and, of course, the great Technicahochschulen on the Continent. Their undergraduate courses are pitched at honours degree level, and I believe that this has been generously acknowledged by the Vice-Chancellors' Committee; and they now have a post-graduate award—the M.C.T. (Member of the College of Technologists) to match the Ph.D. at universities. Already they are providing for over 9,000 students on full-time or sandwich courses, and a further 10,000 part-time students all of whom are at university level.
Then there are the other technical colleges many of which, like the Polytechnic, Regent Street, have for years been preparing students for university external degrees and other qualifications leading to professional status. These colleges contain a further 16,000 students on advanced full-time or sandwich courses, and as many as 40,000 taking advanced courses by part-time day study. It is not generally realised that one scientist in every seven, and three engineers out of every four, in this country have received their education in a college of advanced technology or a technical college. And having said that three engineers in every four in this country have received the qualification in that way, I have also said that three engineers out of every four in this country do not come within the statistics which the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, quoted in denigration of this country's educational system. Thirdly, in addition to the colleges of advanced technology and the technical colleges, we must add the teacher-training colleges, because they are now to offer a three-year course, and more and more of their students will enter the college with two or more passes
724
at G.C.E. Advanced level. There there are already over 31,000 places.
Noble Lords have asked on what basis we have laid our plans for the future and what evidence we have taken into account; what criteria have been adopted, and what arrangements there are for co-ordinating development between universities and non-university institutions. First of all, I will say that we have looked at the prospective growth of sixth forms and I would say there, for the reason I have given, that at least up to 1970 our difficulties will lie in finding enough places for the talent that will be available from the schools, rather than the other way round. This, of course, is the core of the problem of over-specialisation mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, and the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, to which I will return shortly in a slightly different context.
Next, the universities have discussed with the University Grants Committee, in the light of this knowledge, what should be their rate of expansion and how far they can increase. Listening to what the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, described as a dismal record of failure, I could not help being reminded that a university is not something like a factory which can be put up to double its capacity by the mere expenditure of money and the aggregation of bricks and mortar. Quality is a necessary part of it—quality and tradition and the human staff—a corps of teachers with a tradition of academic excellence. These are not things which can be made to order like a railway bridge. The rate of expansion must to some extent, at any rate, be of the biological rather than the engineering order.
Several noble Lords have said that no attempt has been made to arrive at an optimum size for a university. The question asked in the present context is: how fast and how far can each in dividual university expand? Earlier this evening my noble friend explained the grounds for the decision, first, to increase the university provision to 135,000, and now to explore the possibility of a further expansion to 175,000. I was very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, for endorsing the view held by the University Grants Committee, and by Her Majesty's Government,

725
that this represented both an attainable kind of target and more or less the limit of what could reasonably be done without unduly sacrificing quality. The University Grants Committee believe that that can be achieved by the existing universities together with a contribution from new universities; and, of course, one has to look further into the future and to ask whether, as the demand will be there, still further expansion may not be possible.
Thirdly, we have examined separately the problem of how to meet the national need for scientists and technologists. On this matter we have had the benefit of useful reports from the Scientific Manpower Committee. As your Lordships will remember, this Committee recommended that the annual output of scientists and technologists, which was 10,000 in 1956, should be at least doubled by 1970. The 10,000 were shared almost equally between the universities, on the one hand, and the colleges of advanced technology and technical colleges, on the other. The plan of Her Majesty's Government was that by 1970 the universities should be producing rather more than half the total of 20,000. These plans are really going well. We can now foresee by the middle 1960s an annual output of about 12,000 from the universities and, if all goes well, 10,000 from the colleges of advanced technology and the technical colleges.
Next, we studied the probable demand for school teachers during the next fifteen years. I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, for reminding us that in many ways the best source of school teachers are the universities themselves; but in practice, as for many years past, the teacher force will continue to have to be recruited in the main from the teacher training colleges; and we have decided to increase the training colleges by 25,500 places in all.
These, then, are the bases upon which the plans have been laid. Of course, this does not dispose of all the questions that can legitimately be asked—and many of them have been asked in this debate. But whatever questions may be posed, I should like to make it clear that we do not wish to undermine either the academic independence of the universi-
726
ties themselves or the constitutional machinery through which this independence is preserved, despite their increasing dependence on Government finance—namely, the University Grants Committee. Perhaps in parenthesis, though I think not without some value, I should here say that the mere fact that three-quarters of the funds of the universities are channelled through the U.G.C. from the Government, and that a proportion of the remainder comes from the various research councils, makes it more, and not less, important that private benefactors should give, in one way or another, generous sums to the universities; because in this, as in all else, there is danger in monopoly, even if a well-run one. A court of appeal in the shape of a separate source of funds is not a bad thing for a university to have.
It was partly for this reason—here I am coming nearer to the specific requirement of the Motion—that when, with my colleagues, I was discussing before the last Election the contents of our Election Manifesto, we did not duplicate in that Manifesto the demands Which appeared in at least one comparable document, for a Royal Commission an the Universities. I was glad to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Dalton, on the whole agreed with our judgment in this respect.
LORD DALTON: Yes.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I should regard a Royal Commission as an instrument of last resort. I would myself agree that it is still available, but it has never been used since, in its modern form, the University Grants Committee got going. I should personally like the University Grants Committee and the Vice-Chancellors' Committee to regard themselves as, between them, responsible for providing us with, as it were, a kind of running commentary on university problems. If they have a fault it is that they are perhaps too conservative. That is a fault which by many, including myself, is considered to fall on the right side, and I am personally not convinced that any probable Royal Commission can be relied on to share it.
But there was another, and I think more conclusive, reason why I thought that a Royal Commission was inappropriate to the present situation. This was

727
that many of the problems facing us are extremely urgent, as many noble Lords have stressed this afternoon—particularly among these I would mention problems of size, scale and balance, such as the noble Lords, Lord Beveridge and Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, and many others, have referred to—whereas, whatever other virtues a Royal Commission may possess, it certainly has one defect: in the nature of things it is an infallible recipe for holding things up for four or five years while its terms of reference are considered to be sub judice.
I hope that, by contrast, the various organs of the Establishment, including the University Grants Committee and the Vice-Chancellors' Committee, will work de die in diem, if need be, in these years of crisis in the world of further education. I should like to say that, whilst I reject the idea of a general inquiry by a Royal Commission. I have always been very much more friendly to other, and perhaps more limited, forms of investigation. For instance, your Lordships will remember that when we last debated the subject of education I told the House that I thought the closely related questions of school curricula, university entrance requirements, and over-specialisation, to which several noble Lords referred, are fully, and even urgently, ripe for discussion, and, I would say, action. Of course to some extent the whole question is a function of the pressure of numbers clamouring to enter the universities. As my noble friend Lord Caldecote reminded us in another connection, even the universities cannot be wholly exempt from the law of supply and demand. But I would think that there are probably a good many things which can be done to mitigate the evil; and, because it is such a serious evil, they should be done relatively quickly.
Clearly, I would say, the form of such discussion is almost dictated by the subject matter. It must be by its nature an inquiry on which the universities, the schools and the Ministry of Education are represented. Here I would hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dalton, in his strong-minded warning to the Minister of Education to keep out of university politics, would not be too much of a sea-green incorruptible. It is impossible to pretend that questions of curriculum
728
are not common to both bodies, and that the university requirement does not in fact distort and sometimes preoccupy the minds of the schools. I should think there was a good case for investigation here. I should personally like to see account taken, in any such inquiry, of the views of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy. Your Lordships will know that discussion in this field is already in train, and a great deal of action has already been initiated, and I hope that it will proceed with expedition over a wide area.
There are other subjects for inquiry, or at least discussion, on which decision in the next few years may well be crucial. One such, as again has been mentioned in several quarters, is the whole question of the future of the colleges of advanced technology. They have, as I have said, made a most encouraging start. But will the administrative framework which has served them well in their early years suit the next stage of their evolution? This question must be answered, and we have heard two suggestions about it already this afternoon, one involving a transfer to the University Grants Committee and another involving a transfer to direct grant from the Ministry of Education. We shall have to answer the question, and we shall have to decide whether it can best be answered by those most directly concerned or by some independent body of inquiry. Ought the local education authorities or the Ministry to be responsible? Or, if the latter, ought some intermediate body to advise the Ministry on the position?
As to the University Grants Committee, my own feeling is that the University Grants Committee would be an inappropriate body if only for the same, but in a sense identically opposite, reason that was in the mind of my noble friend Lord Caldecote, who saw in it, I think rightly, if it were adopted, a means of introducing university degree status of a direct kind to the colleges of advanced technology. It would cause, I am informed, a great deal of ill-feeling, and it was the battle fought, and I thought decided, a certain number of years ago. Similar questions can also be asked about the teacher-training colleges. Is their place in the educational structure satisfactory, or are any changes desirable?

729
Then I would touch on the question which has been raised, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Dalton (I say this although I think no one can be a more loyal son of Oxford than I am), of bringing to an end the dominance and superiority of what one might call "Oxbridge"; not by reducing the quality—as the noble Lord, Lord Dalton, has said, it is approaching its optimum, perhaps maximum, size—because to reduce its quality would be a national calamity, perhaps an international calamity; but rather by improving the amenities and, wherever necessary, the other standards and facilities, of other universities. Here I was particularly glad to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, and others, who referred to the value of the close contact between the teachers and the undergraduates. I sometimes think that the conditions in which undergraduates work are less favourable than those in which industrial workers work. This is a national question almost equal in importance and in urgency to others we may be trying to consider. But I should think the necessity is for universities to solve their own problems, very largely, in this field.
My Lords, another subject, and by no means least important, is: ought we to be satisfied with our present arrangements for co-ordination between the universities and other places of higher education? I have already said that I regard the question of the status of the diploma of technology as a closed question. But neither the colleges of advanced technology nor the universities can afford a policy of academic separateness: their relations must be warmer than that between the Jews and the Samaritans. The same must surely be true of the teacher-training colleges, with the improved status and higher standards inevitably consequent on their greater size and longer courses. For instance, the kind of question which may arise is where a cyclotron is to be placed. There are arguments for both universities and colleges of advanced technology having expensive equipment of this kind, but it is quite clear that not all of them can have one in every given place. Have we machinery between the University Grants Committee and the Ministry for answering a question of this kind, which may arise? I should myself think that such machinery
730
and closer liaison and co-ordination ought to exist.
Then there is the question of the use of central facilities by universities, and the use by universities of research facilities available in Government (and perhaps in industrial) research institutes. The University Grants Committee raised this matter in their last Report. Sir Keith Murray, I know, is examining it; and I have asked the Research Council secretaries to look at it, too. It is good to know that the Vice-Chancellors, also, are having the matter in mind.
I had always supposed that Parkinson's Law was largely one which related to civil servants, but are there no applications of Parkinson's Law to the academic field? Scientifically, we are moving into a period when research facilities cannot be indefinitely reduplicated. We cannot build a Jodrell Bank, a Nimrod, or a C.E.R.N., at every university. It follows that we must work out methods of co-operation—consortia of universities, as at the Nuclear Institute; consortia of countries, as at C.E.R.N.; inter-university relationships to make use of radio telescopes; methods by which studies can be dependent, not on the facilities naturally available at mediæval sites, but on the really objective requirements of the case.
On the Motion itself, as I have made clear, a very considerable degree of planning a full-time education for those of 18-plus is already being undertaken. But the Government are sympathetic to the objective of the Motion and will ponder very carefully the various suggestions made in the debate. However, we want to make sure that, before any inquiries are launched, the problems have been correctly identified and that the particular inquiry in each case is carried out by those most likely to bring the matters at issue to a constructive and reasonably speedy conclusion. We are faced with a number of dilemmas, which I think we must ponder, as the result of the discussion this afternoon. We do not wish to undermine the University Grants Committee; but if we had a separate body to inquire into all the matters which have been canvassed, we should certainly do so. We do not wish to hold matters up by our inquiries; but if we are to inquire into all the matters which we have been invited to investigate, we certainly should

731
do so. We have been invited to consider a longer-term investigation, and the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, would appear to advocate this course. But there can be no doubt that, as in politics and in administration, decisions of to-day prejudice radically the long-term future of institutions such as universities and technical colleges. The decisions which are going to be taken one way or another in the next four or five years are going to determine to some extent the pattern of these institutions for a very long time to come, and these decisions cannot reasonably be delayed until an inquiry at a high level has reported what the optimum shape may be.
My Lords, it is this consideration which makes any decision as to an inquiry difficult, and I would therefore ask that I should be allowed this evening to say that the Government will deeply reflect upon the various points of view which have been put forward in your Lordships' House, and will seek to give effect to them in the best possible way that we think practicable in the circumstances. My Lords, I hope that this is not the last debate that we shall be holding on this subject; and, speaking for myself, at any rate, I can tell your
732
Lordships that I have very greatly enjoyed it.
8.34 p.m.
LORD SIMON OF WYTHENSHAWE: My Lords, I should first like to thank the numerous noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and who have, I think, presented the case with a wealth of information, knowledge and authority which I certainly did not expect. Secondly, I should like to thank the Lord Privy Seal for the amount of information which he has collected and for his very stimulating speech. It seems to me that the promise which he has made, that the Government will consider the debate and all the various possibilities, is all that we could expect. I, too, have thoroughly enjoyed the debate. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

INDECENCY WITH CHILDREN BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before nine o'clock.