Sitting of 7 November 1960

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  Esso PETROLEUM COMPANY BILL
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EMPLOYMENT

    Printing Industry
    Dr. D. Johnsonasked the Minister of Labour if he will take steps to initiate discussions between employers and trade unions with a view to overcoming restrictive practices in the printing industry.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. John Hare): The printing industry already has machinery for discussing these matters. During the last year, I am informed that a number of discussions have taken place.
    Dr. Johnson: Will the right hon. Gentleman help to expedite the discussions, as, quite apart from the question of the effect of restrictive practices on the national Press, an increasing number of book publishers are being compelled to gel printing done abroad because of competitive prices and the general competitive state of the book trade?
    Mr. Hare: On the other hand, my hon. Friend will, I think, agree that on the whole labour restrictive practices can best be tackled by both sides of industry acting jointly.

    Redundant Workers
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to ensure that men declared redundant in various industries are informed of the
    622
    vacancies in other industries and activities, and given every help in filling them.
    Mr. Hare: My local offices keep in touch with employers, and when redundancy occurs or is imminent they make special arrangements to help the workers affected to obtain other employment. Constant efforts are being made to encourage firms to make early contact with my local offices when redundancies are foreseen. As a general rule, employers are co-operating well with the exchanges and the arrangements for dealing with redundancies are working smoothly.
    Mr. Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a serious shortage of signalmen on the railways? What action does he propose to take to bring that sort of case to the notice of the employers?
    Mr. Hare: That hardly arises out of the Question. In answering the hon. Member's Question, I wished to make it clear that we encourage employers to warn us whenever there are redundancies so that we can fill vacancies where-ever they may be. Signalmen would be included.

    Industrial Disputes (Lost Time)
    Mr. John Hallasked the Minister of Labour if he will consider recording and publishing the total time lost throughout industry as a result of a strike in one industry or section of an industry.
    Mr. Hare: As my predecessor stated in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Woollam) on 11th May, it is not practicable to produce accurate figures of time lost at establishments affected by an industrial dispute elsewhere. However, as an experiment, we intend to try to obtain a rough estimate on an annual basis of time lost resulting from disputes in the motor car industry.
    Mr. Hall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we welcome that answer, because it is an undoubted fact that, although the time lost in industry directly affected by a strike may not in itself be very great, it may affect other industries very seriously indeed, and it would be of value to know the exact cost of a strike in any industrial dispute?
    Mr. Hare: I thank my hon. Friend. I think he would agree that it is impossible to obtain accurate figures of time lost in any dispute which had wide ramifications, such as a dock strike, which could affect factories from John o' Groats to Land's End. We should require a huge staff to acquire and sift information which could be obtained only by making frequent and widespread inquiries.
    Mr. Hall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many returns now called for by the Government from industry, and that it would be a comparatively simple matter to get industry to record on one of those returns the time which it was estimated was lost as a result of industrial disputes elsewhere?
    Mr. Hare: I hate to argue with my hon. Friend, but industry has said that it is already asked for too many returns.
    Mr. Prentice: Would the Minister agree that figures produced by the I.L.O. comparing time lost by strikes in the leading industrial countries throughout the world—worked out on the same basis for each country—show that the time lost in Britain was the lowest? Would he agree that perhaps too much publicity is given to strikes and not sufficient attention given to constructive efforts by both sides of industry to settle a number of complex problems peacefully throughout the year?
    Mr. Hare: What the hon. Member says is quite correct; settlements made through the normal negotiating machinery get very little advertisement, but a great deal is done in that way. However, I do not think we should underestimate the damage to the economy done by a strike such as the recent dock strike. Some of these figures may be misleading, but I think it is very difficult to get exact comparison. That is why I replied as I did to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall).

    London
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Labour what is the latest total of unemployed in the London area; and what three exchanges in the London area have the largest number of registered unemployed.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Peter Thomas): 36,339 on 10th October. The answer to the second part of the Question is: Brook Green, Brixton and Edgware Road Employment Exchanges.
    Mr. Lipton: Will the Parliamentary Secretary say what the figures are for each of the three exchanges to which he has referred and why they are so high, taken as a percentage of the working population, in each of the three districts covered by those exchanges?
    Mr. Thomas: I can give the hon. Member the figures: Brook Green, 2,015 registered unemployed; Brixton, 1,581; Edgware Road, 1,564. I regret that I cannot give him any percentages, but it should be interesting to note that in Brixton in October, 1959, the figure was 2,207 and in the Greater London area there are twice the number of notified vacancies as there are registered unemployed.

    Trade Union Membership
    Mr. Wattsasked the Minister of Labour if he will introduce legislation to safeguard from all forms of victimisation Her Majesty's subjects who have exercised freedom of choice to join or to remain outside trade unions.
    Mr. Hare: I do not think legislation can solve these problems.
    Mr. Watts: Does my right hon. Friend consider that Salford Corporation was wrong in dismissing my constituent, Miss Beryl Rogers, on 30th May, 1960, having given her no notice of the requirement that she should join a trade union—a copy of the notice she was given I have in my pocket, and it advises her of the terms of employment—because she refused to become a member of a trade union? If he does think this wrong, is he content to allow these matters to rest there?
    Mr. Hare: I have written to my hon. Friend about my view. I expressed my sympathy with his reaction to people being unreasonably penalised for unwillingness to join a union, but I do not see how this particular problem can be solved by legislation. That is why I have answered the Question as I have. I think that most of these problems of

    625
    victimisation arise because of the attitude of a minority of employers or workers. I still do not think this can be changed by legislation. I think it only fair to add that, in general, activities such as sending a fellow worker to Coventry are entirely against the official advice of the trade unions.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to the medical officer of health and the committee chairman, the lady in question was informed before she took the job that trade union membership was expected but she nevertheless accepted the job, she accepted the benefits which this union—N.A.L.G.O.—obtained for her, and Salford Council took this action only when her fellow workers protested? In view of the fact that she went into this with her eyes open, how could this be described as victimisation?
    Mr. Watts: May I ask—
    Mr. Speaker: The Minister was about to answer.
    Mr. Hare: I think I have explained my view fairly clearly on this subject.
    Mr. Watts: May I ask—
    Mr. Speaker: I think we must get on.

    School Leavers
    Mr. Spriggsasked the Minister of Labour how many St. Helen's children, due to leave school in the summer of 1960, found employment; how many took advantage of his Department's training scheme in the area; and how many children were unable to find employment in the St. Helen's Employment Exchange area.
    Mr. P. Thomas: In the county borough of St. Helen's, 855 boys and girls left school this summer. On 10th October, seven boys and two girls were seeking employment. None is receiving apprenticeship training in a Government training centre. Nineteen boys and forty-seven girls are known to have found work outside the borough.
    Mr. Spriggs: Will the Parliamentary Secretary say what financial assistance his Ministry is prepared to give children attending the Government training centre from as far afield as St. Helen's in Lancashire?
    Mr. Thomas: Government training centres do not offer facilities to boys unless they are apprenticed to some firm. Those who are apprenticed to firms can, if the firm wishes, have first-year training given in a G.T.C. free of charge.
    Mr. Spriggsasked the Minister of Labour how many children who left school this summer were placed in employment; what was the total number of children who returned to school until jobs could be found; and how many school leavers are receiving his Department's training to fit them for jobs.
    Mr. P. Thomas: Out of 291,000 school leavers this summer, 3,953, or 1·4 per cent., were still seeking employment on 10th October. Young persons return to school for various reasons and it is not possible to say how many went back while waiting for jobs. One hundred-and-six boys, already engaged as apprentices by employers, are being trained under the first year apprenticeship training scheme and more will be taken in shortly.
    Mr. Spriggs: Is the Minister prepared to extend this training scheme, in view of the large numbers of unskilled labourers on the labour market who cannot find work and in view of the shortage of skilled labour? Will the Minister consider more extensive training schemes to enable more young people to learn skilled trades?
    Mr. Thomas: These Government training schemes have only just started. It is hoped that many more will take advantage of this scheme. If there is a sufficient demand, my right hon. Friend will certainly consider an extension of the scheme.
    Mr. Prentice: In replying to the second Question try my hon. Friend, the hon. Gentleman referred to a figure of 106 boys throughout the country who, I understand, are now having first year apprentice training in G.T.Cs. Can he say whether it is the intention of the Government that these shall be extended next year to a much larger number?
    Mr. Thomas: Certainly it is expected that this will expand considerably in the next few months. Perhaps I should make it quite clear that the purpose of a Government training scheme is not to offer facilities of training for unemployed

    627
    boys. The boys concerned are already apprenticed to firms. The facilities offered are first-year training as an example to industry of how good training can be done during the first year.

    Apprentices
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Labour how many boys and how many girls recommended by youth employment officers for training as apprentices in 1959 had been accepted as apprentices by June, 1960; and how many had not been accepted by that time.
    Mr. P. Thomas: The information asked for by the hon. Member is not available.
    Mr. Boyden: Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that the Crowther Committee described the situation of apprentices from the point of view of the individual boy as alarming and, from the point of view of the State as disquieting? Is it not time that he had accurate statistics of the frustration caused and took more vigorous steps to remedy the serious situation?
    Mr. Thomas: I am well aware of many expressions which have been made about the situation. It is too early to give any figures, but I think it can be said that there is every hope that the figures this year will be an improvement over last year.

    Remploy Limited
    Mr. McLarenasked the Minister of Labour whether a decision has yet been reached on the financial provision to be made for Remploy Limited during the five years beginning in April, 1961.
    Mr. Hare: During the financial year 1961–62 a grant of £2,750,000 will be paid towards the Company's running expenses compared with an estimate of £2,694,000 for the current year. The 1961–62 figure will be increased by £50,000 in each subsequent year to £2,950,000 in 1965–66. In addition, £1,750,000 will be made available during the five-year period by way of loan to cover capital expenditure, subject to any over-riding need to reduce public investment generally. Both these figures represent a substantial increase over those provided for the current five-year period and over the next five years should enable the Company to effect a progressive
    628
    increase in the numbers of severely disabled persons employed.
    I am very glad that it has been possible to provide this additional financial support to Sir Alec Zealley, the Chairman of Remploy, and the directors and staff, who in the last few years have achieved a striking increase in production and sales, and I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House who are aware of the Company's splendid work for the disabled will welcome this chance of further expansion.
    Mr. McLaren: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply, may I ask him whether the success of Remploy does not largely depend on its increasing both its sales and its productivity? Could he say what progress has been made in both those directions?
    Mr. Hare: I think that my hon. Friend is right. May I give him these figures: sales increased from £2,999,000 in 1955 to an estimated £5,450,000 this year, and net output per man rose over the same period from £223 to an estimated £430.

    North-East of Scotland Development Association
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Labour if he will make a comprehensive statement of the work done and plans for further work by the North-East of Scotland Development Association, set up by him jointly with the President of the Board of Trade to promote trade, industry and employment in the city of Aberdeen and the counties of Aberdeen, Banff and Kincardine.
    Mr. Hare: A decision to set up the North-East of Scotland Development Committee was taken at a conference called by the Lord Provost of Aberdeen. The committee has not yet been formed. Neither my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade nor I are responsible for setting up such bodies, although, of course, we welcome local initiative in these matters in areas such as this where additional employment facilities are needed.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that this forms a very important aspect of his work? Does he not agree that although he now disclaims responsibility for this association, he should, in conjunction with the President of the Board

    629
    of Trade, take steps to reinforce the association and to see that it does the very important and urgent work which it was set up to do and solves the relevant problems?
    Mr. Hare: We do welcome the association but this question is one for local initiative. As the hon. and learned Member knows, Aberdeen is still a development district, and that is where the Government come in. I am glad to say that things have improved there. If he looks at the unemployment figures, he will see a rate of 2·7 per cent. in October of this year, compared with 3·6 per cent. in October, 1959.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the recent and sudden increase in redundancy in British industry which has created widespread unemployment among newspaper, motor and other workers; and if he will state his plans for securing their immediate reabsorption into employment.
    Mr. Hare: I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave to a similar Question by the hon. and learned Member on 27th October.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister satisfied that this sudden and unexpected redundancy in these two specific industries is not due to some secret plan on the part of the employers in these two industries to create a pool of unemployment for their own purposes? Will he make careful inquiries into that aspect of this problem?
    Mr. Hare: I think that the hon. and learned Member is trying to use his imagination far too indiscreetly and inaccurately. As I explained in my Answer, the numbers concerned are not large in relation to the numbers employed. I also explained in my Answer that everything possible is being done to find employment for these men.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is quite untrue to suggest, as is suggested in the Question, that there is widespread unemployment in the motor industry? Does he not agree that the small-scale redundancy which has taken place in one or two places has been very well taken care of by the employment exchanges?
    Mr. Hare: I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Prentice: While the numbers redundant may be small, is not the amount of short-time working very large and has not that, too, a catastrophic effect upon the family budgets of people who work in this industry? Does the Minister not agree that it is a most serious situation? Cannot the Government themselves produce some constructive ideas to try to help the motor industry instead of continuing credit restrictions and the rest, which make the industry's problems even worse?
    Mr. Hare: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down Questions to the Presisent of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the credit squeeze. I have tried to give a fair and factual answer to the Question put to me by the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes).

    Railway Workshops
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Labour what estimate he has made of the unemployment which will result in railway workshops from the cuts made in the British Transport Commission's modernisation programme; and what steps he is taking to find employment for those rendered redundant.
    Mr. Hare: It is too early to assess how far, if at all, production in particular railway workshops will be affected by the level of railway investment in 1961.
    Mr. Boyden: In view of the very alarming rumours circulating in Shildon and Darlington about the railway workshops, will the Minister give a categorical assurance that the promise that stability of employment in these shops will be maintained until 1963 still holds good?
    Will he give another assurance that if, after 1963, there has to be some decline in the amount of work, then, in consultation with the President of the Board of Trade, he will see that steps are taken to deal with the redundancy?
    Mr. Hare: It is impossible to assess how far particular railway shops will be affected by the level of railway investment. I can assure the hon. Member—and I have a direct responsibility for this—that there is the closest co-operation between the British Transport

    631
    Commission and my Ministry and that we are given advance notice if there are redundancies. We are given plenty of time to assist in placing those who are affected.

    Wednesbury, Darlaston and Willenhall
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Minister of Labour what estimate he has made of the effect of the motor industry recession on employment in Wednesbury, Darlaston and Willenhall, and on the increase of short-time working in the area.
    Mr. Hare: My information is that there has been no redundancy in this industry in these areas and that the only short-time working affects 115 workers in Darlaston.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Minister aware that I had a deputation only last week from Willenhall from a firm where 400 men are on short time? Is he aware that my constituents are very concerned because there are violent fluctuations in the economy which mean for them a lurching from a period of excessive overtime to a period of short time? Is he aware that it is not satisfactory to say that only a few people are involved and that it is no comfort to those concerned when their incomes are cut by one-third?
    Mr. Hare: It is also true that we have to keep these things in perspective and that the unemployment figures at 10th October were ·3 per cent. for Wednesbury, ·1 per cent. for Darlaston and ·2 per cent. for Willenhall.

    Plymouth and Devonport
    Miss Vickersasked the Minister of Labour whether he will give the number of men, women, boys and girls, respectively, who are unemployed in the city of Plymouth; and what percentage the total of unemployed is of the population of the city.
    Mr. Hare: The figures were 1,252, 727, 73 and 43, respectively, at 10th October. Owing to the volume of daily travel to work, a percentage rate of unemployment cannot be computed for Plymouth alone. For the wider area including Saltash and Torpoint, the rate is 2·6 per cent. of the insured population.
    Miss Vickers: In view of the fact that Plymouth was removed from the Local Employment Act during the Recess, that the Admiralty employs 30 per cent. of the male insured personnel and that the new factories are likely to take only 60 per cent. of the female employees, is my right hon. Friend prepared to support an application to replace Plymouth in the Local Employment Act should the situation get worse?
    Mr. Hare: As my hon. Friend knows, the Board of Trade estimate that the jobs in prospect in the area amount to at least 2,000. Together with the outstanding vacancies in Plymouth and Devonport, which total 873, these should reasonably meet the situation. No doubt my hon. Friend also agrees that in the last twelve months there has been a very great improvement in Plymouth, where the unemployment rate has fallen from 3·6 per cent. to 2·6 per cent., taking a comparison between this October and last October.
    Miss Vickersasked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement concerning the rebuilding of the employment exchanges in Plymouth and Devonport.
    Mr. P. Thomas: The construction of a new building to house the Plymouth Employment Exchange began last May. Negotiations are in progress for a site on which to erect a building to house certain Government offices in Devonport, including the employment exchange.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Small Farmer Scheme
    Mr. P. Browneasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if, as a result of his visit to the West Country, he is satisfied that no adjustment is necessary in the Small Farmer Scheme; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Christopher Soames): The Small Farmer Scheme is working well, and applications under it have been particularly heavy in the South West. Our advisory services are already fully extended, and I see no need for any adjustment at present.
    Mr. Browne: While I am delighted, as is the Minister, that the Devon farmers are making such use of the scheme, may I ask whether he does not think that it would be more equitable if the scheme were based on the type of land farmed rather than, as at present, on purely arbitrary acreage limits?
    Mr. Soames: It is not only on acreage limits. It is also on the basis of man-hours worked on the farm. The two are combined, and I think that that is the best arrangement which can be made.

    Charollais Cattle (Importation)
    Mr. P. Browneasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if it is his intention to implement the recommendations of the Terrington Committee; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Mackieasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the Terrington Report.
    Mr. Stodartasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he proposes to take following on the report of the Terrington Committee.
    Mr. du Cannasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has considered the views submitted to him by the Devon Cattle Breeders' Society upon the Terrington Committee's recommendations.
    Mr. Soames: I hope to be in a position to make a statement very shortly. All the views which have been put to me are being taken into account.
    Mr. Browne: When my right hon. Friend makes up his mind, will he bear in mind the fact that there is considerable opposition from both breeders' societies and the veterinary profession, who fear that there will be an influx into this country of disease, particularly blue tongue and foot-and-mouth?
    Mr. Soames: I am aware that there are some who oppose it and others who would welcome the importation.
    Mr. du Cann: Is the Minister aware that, not only are breeders' associations concerned about disease, as my hon. Friend said, but they are also concerned about the effect the decision to allow the importation of these cattle might have upon our export trade? Does he not
    634
    think that, having regard to the prizewinning successes of British breeders, there is nothing that a foreign bull can do that a British bull cannot do better?
    Mr. Soames: All these matters will be taken into account.
    Mr. Mackie: Is the Minister aware that the people who will get the best out of this will be the consumers, who will have fat-free beef when these experiments are started?
    Mr. Soames: That also will be taken into account.

    Beekeepers
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if a review of the scheme for compensating beekeepers for the voluntary destruction of contact colonies has yet been completed; and if arrangements will be made for commercial beekeepers to be included.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. W. M. F. Vane): My right hon. Friend is at present reviewing the Government's contribution towards the scheme operated by Bee Diseases Insurance Ltd. for encouraging the voluntary destruction of contact colonies in apiaries where European foul brood disease has been found. One of the questions is whether the Government contribution should be extended to cover commercial apiaries. The review will be completed before next year's season begins in April but I cannot, of course, anticipate the outcome.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: Is my hon. Friend aware that the disease known as European foul brood has spread to Dorset for the first time, probably from Kent, and has caused very serious and unexpected losses to breeders there? Will he give a very sympathetic answer when the report of the committee is received?
    Mr. Vane: I have told my hon. Friend that an exhaustive review is taking place, but he will appreciate that I cannot anticipate the result.

    F.A.O. Conference, Rome
    Sir J. Maitlandasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who attended on behalf of Her Majesty's

    635
    Government at the recent official conference on food and agriculture held in Rome; and if he will place records of the proceedings in the Library.
    Mr. Vane: The European Regional Conference of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations was held in Rome from 10th to 15th October. As is usual with F.A.O. meetings of this kind, Her Majesty's Government were represented by officials from the Ministry. I will certainly place in the Library the official report of the Conference as soon as it becomes available from F.A.O.

    Dried Foodstuffs
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the importance of the success achieved in the drying process evolved at the Government Research Establishment and experimental factory in dehydrating fruit, vegetables, cuts of meat and fish for easy storage and the quick preparation for the table in a palatable, nutritious and recognisable form, if he will arrange for the display of samples in some suitable place in the Palace of Westminster for inspection by Members.
    Mr. Vane: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend will be happy to fall in with the hon. Member's suggestion and an exhibition will be held in the Upper Waiting Hall on Tuesday, 22nd and Wednesday, 23rd November. One of the Department's scientific officers will be in attendance.
    Mr. Dodds: Whilst thanking the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend—I mean that quite sincerely—may I ask him if he will be good enough to take this matter up with the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee with a view to seeing whether some of these dried substances can be tried out in the Members' dining hall? We accept that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Hon. Members would then be able to see that public money has been well spent, and it might be some compensation for the disappointment about Blue Streak.
    Mr. Vane: I should not like to intrude on the responsibilities of the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has a look at our Exhibition when we arrange it and then perhaps takes the matter up himself.

    Plant Breeders' Rights (Report)
    Mr. Farrasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take early action to implement the recommendations of the Engholm Committee on Plant Breeders' Rights.
    Mr. Soames: The organisations representing interests affected by this Report have been invited to submit their views. These will need to be considered before decisions on the Committee's recommendations can be taken.
    Mr. Farr: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is already a tendency for some plant breeders and seed breeders to withhold new varieties from the market until they can avail themselves of the benefits of legislation when it is introduced?
    Mr. Soames: I have that possibility in mind and I am anxious to get on with it as soon as possible, but I think that it is right to take into account the views of all interests concerned.

    Forestry (Welfare Services)
    Mr. Speirasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements were made for Lord Radnor, the chairman of the Forestry Commission, to have discussions with members of local councils and representatives of other local bodies regarding the provision of better amenities and additional welfare services, when he paid his recent visit to the new Forestry Commission villages in Northumberland.
    Mr. Soames: The purpose of Lord Radnor's visit was to see for himself the conditions in these villages. It was not thought necessary to hold a formal meeting.
    Mr. Speir: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the visit paid by Lord Radnor was of a very casual and limited character? Does he realise that the result is that, instead of allaying anxiety, the reverse happened? I appreciate the difficulty the Minister has in intervening in a matter of this kind, but, as the Forestry Commission is a State organisation and the Minister is responsible, may I ask him whether he will discuss the matter further with Lord Radnor to see whether the conditions in these villages are satisfactory?
    Mr. Soames: I am sorry that my hon. Friend should feel that the visit has not done good. In an Adjournment debate just before the House rose in July, my hon. Friend suggested that a senior official of the Forestry Commission should pay a visit. The chairman himself went, and he will discuss his visit with me later.
    Mr. Willey: The Minister will remember that I supported the hon. Gentleman when he raised this subject on the Adjournment. The hon. Gentleman seems to have been treated in a very cavalier fashion. This matter is disturbing forestry workers in this locality. It seems clear that they have a legitimate grievance. Therefore, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will respond to the hon. Gentleman's invitation to discuss this with the chairman and see whether further discussions can be held.
    Mr. Soames: I differ from the hon. Gentleman in his view that this was dealt with in a cavalier fashion. The visit was made by the chairman himself, and he is coming to talk to me about it. The visit has already been arranged.

    Flooding, West Country
    Mr. Haymanasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what he proposes to do about the flooding in the West Country.
    Mr. Soames: I am in touch with the river boards of the areas concerned. All proposals from the river boards designed to alleviate flooding are receiving immediate consideration for grant-aid.
    Mr. Hayman: Is the Minister aware that the smallness of the grants provided for in the Land Drainage Bill has come as a shock to the West Country? As there is very serious flooding elsewhere, will he take steps to see that the financial provisions of the Bill are expanded before it comes up for Second Reading?
    Mr. Soames: I should not like to prejudge the Second Reading of the Bill. The grants are affected by the amount of money which is raised on precept rate locally. The Bill will add another section of the population to those already subscribing towards river board funds, and the degree to which grants are available is well known to local authorities and river boards.
    Mr. Wilkins: The Minister should think again about this. As recently as Thursday of last week there was water on either side of the railway line between Taunton and Bridgwater for as far as the eye could see. This state of affairs has persisted since long before the war. When will the Government do something to protect these people? The situation is absolutely shocking down in Somerset and Devon.
    Mr. Soames: I cannot answer without notice the hon. Gentleman's statement that the present situation between Taunton and Bridgwater is a common occurrence. Generally speaking, it is important to bear in mind that the rains we have experienced in the past few weeks have been three, and even four, times the normal rainfall in certain areas.

    Cornwall (Minister's Visit)
    Mr. Haymanasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on his recent visit to Cornwall.
    Mr. Soames: I have taken the opportunity provided by the Recess to visit various parts of England and Wales to meet people engaged in agriculture and to see their problems for myself. I was very glad to be able to include Cornwall and to see something of the high standard of farming in the county. I was impressed by the way farmers are making use of the grant schemes which are available to the industry, particularly the Small Farmer Scheme.
    Mr. Hayman: Is the Minister aware that we are very pleased that he visited Cornwall and thought the standard of farming so high, but will he remember that he told a constituent of mine that he was still learning a lot about the Agriculture (Small Farmers) Act? Will he try to expand the provisions of the Act or introduce fresh legislation applicable to viable farms under 20 acres in size, which are such a feature of the Cornish industry?
    Mr. Soames: It is certainly true that I am learning a lot. I do not dispute that. However, at the moment our advisory services are fully taken up with the existing Small Farmer Scheme, and I do not at present see scope for expanding it.

    Dee Estuary (Land Reclamation)
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will consider appointing a commission to look into the possibilities of reclaiming the large area of the Dee estuary lying between the coasts of Wirral and North Wales.
    Mr. Vane: I understand that the possibility of reclaiming parts of the Dee estuary has been considered in the past. Our investigations of the proposals put to us so far have shown that the results would not be economic on agricultural grounds. If my hon. Friend has any further suggestions, we will gladly look at them.
    Mr. Tilney: Has my hon. Friend considered discussing this matter with the Institute of Hydraulics? Would he agree that land for both urban and industrial development is in very short supply in the North-West of England? Would he not also consider the transport amelioration that might come from such a scheme both in North Wales and in the Wirral?
    Mr. Vane: The first thing would be to discuss it with my right hon. Friend.

    Barley (Deficiency Payments)
    Mr. Priorasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in view of the low prices for barley and the difficulties and expense of the 1960 harvest, he will take steps to expedite the advance deficiency payment for the crop.
    Mr. Soames: Yes, Sir. We hope to start sending out payable orders at least as early as we did in 1958, when the harvest was also difficult.
    Mr. Prior: Is the Minister aware that that reply will give considerable satisfaction to the farming community? This has been a very difficult season. Barley has been put on the wheat market at a depressed price, and anything that he can do to get the farmers their cash earlier might result in a stronger market and in less subsidy, and less to be paid out by the taxpayer.
    Mr. Soames: It has, indeed, been a very difficult market but, according to the corn returns, the market price for
    640
    barley in mid-October this year was about 5½d. per cwt. less than it was at the same time last year.

    Hares Preservation Act, 1892
    Mr. G. de Freitasasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will amend the Hares Preservation Act, 1892, to allow the sale of hares during the close season which could be shown to have ben legally taken during the open season.
    Mr. Vane: My right hon. Friend is considering this with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs.
    Mr. de Freitas: In considering this, will not the hon. Gentleman recognise that the provision is wholly out of date, not merely because of modern methods of freezing but because in many parts, especially the Eastern Counties, there are so many hares that they are a nuisance?
    Mr. Vane: Those are among the very things that we are considering.
    Mr. Mitchison: Will the Minister bear in mind that the man who found it a delight to go out on a shiny night only did so in the season of the year?

    River Boards
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in view of the recent flooding in the West Country, he will take steps to make river boards responsible for rivers up to their sources and not only for the lower reaches.
    Mr. Soames: It is open to river boards to take over rivers up to their sources, and some have already made themselves responsible for upper reaches of rivers. The Land Drainage Bill now before the House proposes to increase their resources for this purpose.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been a great deal of doubt about these upper reaches that are largely responsible for the recent flooding, and that the Bill really implements the recommendations of a report made ten years ago? Things have changed since then. Will my right hon. Friend take this into account and make Amendments to his new Bill?
    Mr. Soames: Doubtless, my hon. Friend will make such suggestions when the Bill is debated in the House.

    Apples
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to avoid wastage of this year's apple crop.
    Mr. Soames: This must be the responsibility of producers and the trade who, I hope, will do all they can to distribute the maximum quantity and make full use of the storage facilities available. There are also a number of alternative outlets for apples other than the fresh fruit market.
    Mr. Willey: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his exhortation, but he has a responsibility here. The Government took action when we were in difficulties over butter. Will not he assure the House that he will use his good offices to see that we get an orderly element in the apple market and do not suffer substantial physical losses?
    Mr. Soames: I believe that this has been a record year for dessert apples, with about 310,000 tons—more than has ever been produced before. That is bound to bring difficulties with it, but it is for the trade and the producers to distribute apples, and not for the Government.

    Agricultural Industry (Future)
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on his discussions with the National Farmers' Union on the future of the agricultural industry.
    Mr. Soames: As these discussions are still going on, I am not yet able to make a statement.
    Mr. Willey: Is the Minister aware that his appointment was warmly welcomed by the agricultural community because it was understood to denote a change of policy? Does he realise that if he wants to keep that welcome warm he had better make a satisfactory statement as soon as possible?
    Mr. Soames: I hope to be able to make a statement before Christmas on these talks.

  GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES

    Overseas Television Services (Films)
    Mr. Mayhewasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to set up a Government film unit to provide topical news and feature material for overseas television services.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. Charles Hill): This suggestion is under consideration.
    Mr. Mayhew: Is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster aware that there is an almost insatiable demand for television material in the world today and that this topical news and feature material can provide a first-class way of linking this country with certain other countries? There is a case here for special service.
    Dr. Hill: I am aware of the very large demand. We are, as the hon. Gentleman may know, issuing nine newsreels and a great deal of other material each week. But I agree with the general proposition that this represents a form of information for which there is a great and growing demand which we must seek to meet.

    Overseas Broadcasting Material
    Mr. Mayhewasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he has taken to prevent overlapping between the Central Office of Information, the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Overseas Departments in the production of sound broadcasting material for overseas.
    Dr. Hill: Machinery exists for this purpose. None the less, in the light of the Select Committee's recent Report, it is being reviewed yet again.
    Mr. Mayhew: I recall that the right hon. Gentleman expressed himself as satisfied with the previous machinery. Can we be quite certain that it will not prove to be the same machinery that he is now starting to reinstitute?
    Dr. Hill: No, we must seek from time to time to avoid any unnecessary overlapping. We are looking at the machinery again to see that overlapping does not exist.

    Low-Priced Book Scheme
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

    643
    what progress he is making with the scheme for the provision of low-priced British books overseas.
    Dr. Hill: I would invite the hon. Member's attention to the full Answer I am giving today to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison). In brief, twenty-three university textbooks are now being produced. They will be followed by others. Arrangements are being made to produce a group of books to help those in Asia and Africa who wish to develop their English or extend their practical skills. Preparatory work to implement others of the Advisory Committee's recommendations is going ahead.
    I am glad to be able to say that the Publishers' Association have recently informed me that they have recommended to their membership the establishment of a consortium of publishers familiar with the export fields concerned, or otherwise interested in the Low-Priced Book Scheme. This consortium will pool the relevant experience and resources of the trade here, co-operate with local trade interests oversea, and will be able to offer further help with the Government's programme.
    Mr. Thomson: While welcoming the steps the right hon. Gentleman has taken to fill in the disappointing delay in the original Low-Priced Book Scheme, and while also welcoming the progress made with the publishers, may I ask whether he can say when the first lot of titles of the original Low-Priced Book Scheme will be available in Africa and other under-developed countries?
    Dr. Hill: The first list of titles of textbooks is available in a Written Answer I have given today. I shall be informing the House in due course of other lists of titles, but I cannot give an exact indication of the time.
    Mr. McAdden: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will exercise due discretion in the type of low-priced books he allows to go overseas?

  PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

    Widows
    Mr. Wattsasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether, when initiating new pension
    644
    rates, he will amend the earnings rule in favour of widows with children at school who are 18 years of age or over.
    Mr. Farrasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will take early steps to raise or abolish the earnings limit on widows' pensions.
    The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): The earnings limits for widows were raised last March and I have no proposals for further changes in respect of these. The House will, however, be aware that proposals for improved provision for widows are contained in the Bill which I presented last week.
    Mr. Watts: Does the Minister consider that a grant, either through education committees or through his own Ministry, should be given so that people are not in a worse position if their children are 18 years of age and clever; and that if this is not given it will be in direct contradistinction to the recommendation in Chapter V of the Crowther Report?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am aware of the case that my hon. Friend has in mind, in respect of which I very much understand his feelings. However, the assistance given to a young man of 18 to continue with his education seems to me to be primarily a matter for the education authorities.
    Mr. Farr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Leicestershire and in the country generally there are a lot of widows working in hospitals who are asked to undertake longer hours by the hospital authorities but have to decline because they do not want to lose the benefit of their widow's pension under the earnings limit?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My hon. Friend will be aware that when the National Insurance Advisory Committee looked at the matter in its Report at the beginning of the year, it took the view that it was better to use any available money to increase rates of benefit rather than earnings limits, and, as he will be aware, that is what we are now doing.
    Mr. Houghton: Although the earnings limit for widows was lifted as recently as last March, would the right hon. Gentleman keep an open mind on the matter until we can consider widows' benefits and welfare as a whole when we

    645
    look at the Bill? The earnings rule has to be looked at in relation to benefits, and I ask the Minister to restrain himself from being too dogmatic about the present situation until we can look at the position more clearly and as a whole when we come to the Bill.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that there was a minimum of dogmatism in my original Answer, which, indeed, covered substantially the same ground as that covered by the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), inasmuch as I pointed out that what we were doing at the moment was to deal with rates.

    Disabled Ex-Service Men
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what requests have been made to him by the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association for improvements in payments to disabled ex-Service men; and what would be the cost of these concessions.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This Association has been good enough to put to me 28 resolutions adopted at their annual conference. These relate, inter alia, to rates of war disability pension. On this, I would refer the hon. Member to the statement which I made on 2nd November. Perhaps he will be good enough to let me know on which of the other items he would like further information.
    I am quite unable to state the cost of the Association's proposals as precise figures are not given, and they would in any event in large measure be subsumed in my recent proposals.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an important aspect of improvements in payments is that the disabled men should be paid at the correct rate? In view of that, will he arrange for a regular medical re-examination, say, every five years?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not share the view, which I think the hon. Gentleman has, that we should order an overall comprehensive medical review of the first war disabled. I am certain that some of them would resent it, and in other cases false hopes would be raised. But I fully share the hon. Gentleman's desire, for which we are working the
    646
    whole time, to secure that every man gets the full benefits to which he is entitled.
    Dr. King: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that B.L.E.S.M.A. is grateful to the Minister for his new award, for the breadth of detail in the application of the award and for the new features in it, but that B.L.E.S.M.A. still has a number of claims which it would wish to put to the Minister? Would he be willing to receive a deputation from an all-party committee and from B.L.E.S.M.A. on this matter?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, Sir.

    National Assistance Board (Increased Rates)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what is the estimated annual cost of the proposals submitted to him by the National Assistance Board for increases of scale rates of 3s. 6d. per week for the retired single householder and 5s. for the retired married couple; and what would be the additional cost if such amounts were increased to 7s. 6d. and 12s. 6d., respectively.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am informed by the National Assistance Board that, of the figure of £18½ million given in the Board's Explanatory Memorandum as the estimated cost in a full year of the increases in scale rates provided for in the draft National Assistance (Determination of Need) Amendment Regulations, 1960, approximately £9½ million is attributable to the particular increases mentioned and to retirement pensioners among those who will be affected; and that if the increases in those rates for retirement pensioners only were 7s. 6d. and 12s. 6d., respectively, without comparable increases in the rates for other people, the additional cost would be about £11½ million. These figures, of course, relate to the direct cost of increases of rates of Assistance, and do not take account of the effect on expenditure by the Board of other changes.
    Mr. Allaun: Since that sum would hardly bankrupt the country, why not give an increase of 7s. 6d. all round? Does the Minister think it fair that those suffering most will receive less, and that while the poorest woman in the back

    647
    streets will get only 3s. 6d., Lord Montgomery and others will draw 7s. 6d.?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that if we take the whole process since the last overall increase in rates in 1958, the increase in single rates for retirement pensioners is 7s. 6d. and for the recipient of National Assistance 8s. 6d. Further, the point that he has made does not, I think, really tie up and is not consistent with the criticism that I so often hear from the benches opposite about the proportion of retirement pensioners receiving supplementation.

  MINISTRY OF AVIATION

    Space Research (International Co-operation)
    Mr. Wyattasked the Minister of Aviation, whether he will make a statement on his recent talks in Australia, and with the French and Canadian Government, about a joint space research programme.
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the Minister of Aviation whether he will make a statement on a joint space research programme arising from his recent talks in Paris.
    The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): If a heavy rocket for satellite launching is to be developed outside the United States or Russia, there are substantial advantages for all concerned in doing it in co-operation with our friends in the Commonwealth and Europe. The Government have been and are exploring this possibility, but I would like to carry our consultations rather further before making any statement.
    Mr. Wyatt: Would the Minister let us know a little more about how far this has gone? This has been going on for over a year and it is about time we did something about it. Will he assure us that his previous dislike of an increase in Government expenditure has not been carried with him into his new office, because if it has we shall be in a very bad way technologically?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's interest in this matter,
    648
    which I welcome. I have had talks in Australia and Canada, and I have recently been in consultation with representatives of the French Government. As we both share a desire to bring this matter to a successful conclusion, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will co-operate and give me a little time in which to reach a satisfactory conclusion.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Were these talks with the French based on Black Knight and Blue Streak, and were the French asked to make a financial contribution?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The suggestion I made to the French was that we should have full collaboration with them both in finance and technology. It was to be based on the work which we have done on the Blue Streak and Black Knight projects.
    Mr. Nabarro: Would my right hon. Friend agree that far from being an uneconomical venture to join with our friends in a space enterprise of this kind, in the passage of years it will probably yield a substantial income, which is very close to the heart of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that in some of these large, important and necessarily expensive projects there is an argument to be made out in favour of friends co-operating together on them.
    Mr. Strauss: The Minister asked us not to press him as to when he will be able to conclude negotiations, and while we are willing to fall in with his wishes, could he give us any idea when these negotiations are likely to come to any finality—during the next few weeks or months, or is it indefinite? Is it to be a recurrence of the year's delay that we have already had?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I sincerely hope not.
    Mr. de Freitas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the last eighteen months I have twice raised this problem on the Adjournment and each time I have been given to understand that the decision was coming very soon?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not think I can add to what I have already said to the hon. Gentleman. I share his desire

    649
    to come to a conclusion, and I certainly think we ought to make up our minds before the end of the year what the answer should be. I hope the House will give me a little time to finish the talks on which I am engaged at present.

    London Gliding Club (Accident)
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Aviation if his attention has been called to the case of a young gliding instructor at the London Gliding Club who was recently killed, with his pupil, at Dunstable Downs, at whose inquest it was revealed that he had for some years suffered from epilepsy; and whether he will inform such clubs that all instructors must pass a rigid health test before taking up such employment.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): This tragic accident has been brought to my notice, and discussions on its implications are taking place with the British Gliding Association.
    Mr. Janner: In view of the very serious effect of ale illness that this unhappy man suffered, will the Parliamentary Secretary see to it that no person suffering from epilepsy shall be allowed to fly gliders? That should certainly have been one of the questions asked at the time the inquiry was made.
    Mr. Rippon: At the present time no powers exist to direct gliding clubs or individuals to impose these health tests. Naturally, this is one of the matters which we shall be discussing carefully with the British Gliding Association.

    Air Corporations (Aircraft and Spares)
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the Minister of Aviation what changes will be made in current orders for aircraft and spares arising from the proposed reductions in the investment expenditure of the Air Corporations for 1961–62.
    Mr. Rippon: None, Sir. The apparent reductions arise solely because payments for aircraft and other projects due in 1961–62 will be less than in the current financial year.
    Mr. Chetwynd: On the surface, is not this £27 million reduction in the capital
    650
    expenditure of the Air Corporations a serious interference with their planned programmes? Can we be assured that they receive all the aircraft they are supposed to receive in this period? Will there be any effect on the aircraft industry by this chopping and changing, now that it is regaining its confidence?
    Mr. Rippon: As the hon. Gentleman has indicated, it is oily a discrepancy on the surface. No cut is involved and there is no change in the contemplated programme. It simply relates to the incidence of payments in a particular year.

  HOSPITALS

    Tring Isolation Hospital
    Mr. Allasonasked the Minister of Health whether, despite the expiry of the agreement with the Association of Municipal Corporations, on the return of hospitals taken over from local authorities under the National Health Service Act, 1946, he will deal with the Tring Isolation Hospital in accordance with the terms of that agreement.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): No, Sir. The agreement was a once and for all arrangement, applying to properties which were not held for hospital purposes at the inception of the National Health Service. This was not the case with Tring Isolation Hospital.
    Mr. Allason: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my constituents feel very deeply about this matter? This is a hospital which was declared redundant in 1947. It was then taken over without compensation in 1948 and the local authority asked for it back in 1951. It has never been used, so far as I am aware, and now we are being asked to pay £5,000 to have it back. Will the Minister please think again whether he should not be a little generous in this matter?
    Mr. Powell: This hospital was duly vested in the Crown on the inception of the National Health Service. It has since then been used for the purposes of the Service by being held available for emergency use. It would be quite impossible to treat it differently from any other Crown property.

    Geriatric Beds, Gateshead
    Mr. Randallasked the Minister of Health if he will state the number of geriatric beds in the Gateshead and District Hospital Management Committee; and how this compares with the average for the region.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): One hundred and eighteen. This is 0·7 per 1,000 of the population, compared with 0·98 in the Region as a whole. Forty-one additional beds should be available by the end of the year, raising the ratio to 0·94.
    Mr. Randall: Will the hon. Lady agree that the number of beds referred to is lower than the average for the region? If it is, will she say why this should be so? Does it not, in effect, mean a greater cost put upon the ratepayers of the local authority, a burden which they ought not to bear and which ought to be set against the National Exchequer because it is a national service?
    Miss Pitt: The problem of caring for the old, is, of course, a joint problem for both the hospital authorities and the local authorities. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that, where old people can be kept in their own homes, that is certainly the best answer. It is true that there has been a shortage in the area in which the hon. Gentleman is interested. There will be an improvement when the 41 additional beds come into use. In the meantime, the waiting list has been reduced. It is now only six. For the same quarter of 1959 and 1958, respectively, it was 25 and 34. I should add that all the cases were women.

MEMBER'S QUESTION
Mr. Driberg: On a point of order. I am much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me this opportunity of drawing your attention to a Question which has been put down, for answer by the Attorney-General tomorrow, by the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. D. Smith), whom I have, of course, notified of my intention to raise the matter with you. The Question is No. 90 on page 107 of the Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day.
652
[MR. DUDLEY SMITH: TO ask the Attorney-General if he will bring to the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions the obscene libel published in the eighth paragraph of the article by Mr. Wayland Young in the issue of The Guardian newspaper of 4th November.]
This Question alleges an obscene libel in an article in The Guardian newspaper by Mr. Wayland Young. I am not concerned with the merits of the Question, but only to seek your guidance on whether it is or is not in order—for this reason: I have always understood, and have in the past been advised by the Table, that Questions reflecting adversely on Members of Parliament are out of order. If this is so, it presumably applies to Members of both Houses.
The gentleman referred to in this Question is a Member of another place, having succeeded a few months ago to the peerage of his father, Lord Kennet—although, as a professional writer, he naturally continues to use the name by which he is known to readers of his articles in such reputable periodicals as The Guardian and Encounter. I think that I have said enough, Mr. Speaker, to explain the point I am raising, and I should be grateful for your Ruling.
Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice that he wanted to raise this matter so that I could look at the authorities. It is, of course, quite true that Questions about, or reflections upon, Members of Parliament as such are not out of order in relation only to Members of this House; they would be out of order in respect of Members of the other House, also. There is, however, this distinction. There must be hon. Members present who remember some slightly critical observations being made about newspaper owners at one time who happened to be peers of the realm. I find that on that occasion, which was 28th July, 1949, my then predecessor said—I am reading not all the passage, but the gist of it—
"It depends upon the capacity in which the name is mentioned. For instance, I have ruled before in connection with some of these newspaper proprietors that as newspaper proprietors their names can be mentioned. They must not be attacked as Members of another place or in reference to their duties there. It is hard to lay down an exact Ruling. I think the rule is that one must not attack Members in their capacity as Members of

653
another place. If they have another capacity, then they can be mentioned in connection with that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 28th July, 1949: Vol. 467, c. 2668.]
In this instance, the noble Lord was so much in another capacity as to be making use of his professional pseudonym. I cannot rule the question out of order.
Mr. Driberg: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that your last words, if I may say so, were unconsidered. It is not a pseudonym, of course it is his own name. It is his family name, and it is still his own name. Secondly, the precedent which you have cited arose, presumably, in the debate on the Royal Commission on the Press. I would submit that in that debate there was no reflection on any noble Lord mentioned in the debate at all comparable with the allegation of obscene libel contained in this Question, which is a very serious allegation indeed to make against a Member of another place. I submit, therefore, Sir, that that is not precisely a precedent for what is being raised here.
Mr. Speaker: I am obliged. I regret using the word "pseudonym". All I mean is that it is his ordinary writing name as a professional journalist for this purpose, and that in no sense makes him writing as a Member of another place. That is the point there.
The nature of the allegation, I agree, is serious, but that is not for me. That is for the hon. Member who tables the Question. I cannot think that there is a
654
rule of the House which, in courtesy to the other place, debars criticism here of the activity of a Member of the other place not in that capacity. I do not believe that that is the practice of this House, and I cannot rule the Question out of order.
Mr. Driberg: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to pursue it, but it is a very important point of principle relating to the order of the Houses of Parliament. From what you yourself said in your original reply, Sir, I take it that you will agree that the same rules apply to each House, whether the Member is a Member of this House or of another place. It might, I think, be argued that, a fortiori, a Member of another place must all the more not, as it were, be slandered in a Question since he cannot be here to reply or to challenge a Question when it is asked.
I respectfully put to you, Sir, that I have myself on one occasion, when I was a very new Member of the House, sought to put down a Question drawing attention to a speech made in the country by a noble Lady, at that time a Member of this House, which seemed to me to be an instance of seditious libel. That Question was, no doubt quite properly, refused by the Table.
Mr. Speaker: I should want to look at that. I only desire to give the hon. Member and the House the kind of principle I desire to go on. Applying it to this case, clearly I cannot say that the Question is out of order.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  QUEEN'S SPEECH

    DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS
    [FIFTH DAY]
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [1st November]:
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
    Most Gracious Sovereign,
    We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
    Question again proposed.

  EDUCATION
  3.38 p.m.
  Mrs. Eirene White: I beg to move, at the end of the Question to add:
  "but humbly regret that the policies of your Majesty's present advisers are inadequate to reduce the size of classes in schools, to plan for educational advance on the lines recently recommended by the Central Advisory Council of the Ministry of Education, or to ensure that all young people leaving school shall have full opportunities for further education whether at a university or other educational institution."
  At the recent Conservative Party conference at Scarborough, the Minister of Education, replying to the debate on education, was in a mood of excessive and, in our view, completely unwarranted self-satisfaction. He congratulated himself. There is nothing new in that. He expressed gratitude to his Ministerial colleagues for their generosity to his Department. Had anyone from foreign parts listened to that debate, he would have had the impression that all the children and young people of this country, perhaps with the exception of a negligible minority, were having the best education that money could buy.
  This afternoon, we shall, I think, take a little of the shine off the faces of the Minister and some of his ministerial colleagues—possibly, I might say, a little of the shine off his boots. Our Amendment is fairly widely drawn, deliberately so, because this is, after all, the debate on the Queen's Speech and it is only right that we should allow hon. Members on
  656
  both sides who may, perhaps, wish to raise constituency points to do so. The main subject of the debate is the crisis in further education, the crisis which faces children and young people leaving school within the next five or ten years.
  Only recently, we had a debate on primary education and we have also had a debate on certain aspects of the Crowther Report. Now we wish forcefully to draw the attention of the House and the country, and particularly of parents, to the crisis which faces children if they are leaving school at any time within the next five to ten years, whether they leave at 15 or 16 or later at 18 or 19.
  The competition for trade and apprentice training, for university places and, to a lesser extent, for technical training, will be more serious in those years than it has ever been before. The peak year for the 15-year-olds is 1962, for 18-year-olds, 1965. More of those children are staying on at school. More can afford to stay longer. More are seeking further education and the places are just not there.
  We are entering what has been called an academic inflationary spiral, with too many candidates chasing too few places. I give one illustration: it is estimated that in 1965 the number of 17- and 18-year-olds who will have taken the A-level certificate in two or more subjects will be more than double what it was in 1958, while the number of university places for new entrants will have increased by only about a half—and that will be with luck. Whereas, in 1958, there were roughly three candidates to every two places, in 1965 there will be two candidates for rather less than one place.
  It does not take much imagination to see what strain will be placed on school pupils, on the staff of schools and on the curriculum in what will be a desperate quinquennium. The young people concerned, the young people who are hammering on the door and who will be doing so especially between 1962 and 1965, are those born in 1946 and 1947. This is not like the new crisis in the primary schools which is coming up on the horizon where at least it could be said with justification that there was only five years' warning. In this case, Her Majesty's advisers have had fifteen to eighteen years' warning.

  657
  The truth is that the Conservative Party has not believed that the children of the common man had the capacity or desire for further education to anything like the extent which they have proved to have had since the war. It has been indubitably shown that, with the easing of economic conditions, children are staying on at school and that their parents are encouraging them to do so to a far greater extent than has been believed possible. They are reaching higher levels of qualifications and are, therefore, quite properly asking that provision should be made for them.
  The Conservative Party has preferred to wait and not to hasten unduly, to attend on advice rather than to seek it. Now that the crisis is almost upon them, the Government are putting on a spurt. There is no doubt that they are trying to catch up, but it is equally clear from their public statements that they will not catch up for the next decade and that, with luck, by 1960 to 1970 they may get somewhere near, but only somewhere near, an adequate educational system.
  I have no doubt that the Minister has come here this afternoon armed with figures about extra expenditure, additional places, new buildings, and so on and so forth. He probably has an impressive catalogue, and I shall not be at all surprised, because, although every now and again he drops some fairly resounding "clangers", in between he is a very smooth operator. Unless hon. Members are quick at mental arithmetic, I have no doubt that they will be impressed by the figures which he will probably deploy, because they will not be able rapidly to correlate them with the increase in the school population, with the rise in the national income, with increased building costs, and with all the other factors which ought to be taken into account. I am sure that the Minister will try to repeat his Scarborough performance of pulling out the plums and singing, "What a good boy am I".
  However, we on this side of the House believe, as I am sure the informed public believes, that the partly opposite is being pushed ahead by events and that the Government have no real plans in mind for the development of further education in the next ten years. It is only now, when we are nearly in 1961, that we are told that there is to be an inquiry
  658
  into the pattern of further education. I shall return to that later, but, after all the hints which have been dropped in so many quarters, we must clearly expect a statement from the Minister today about what that inquiry is intended to cover and when it is to start.
  Before I go further into the matter of the necessity for an inquiry into further education, I want to take some specific points about which the Opposition have every right to be extremely critical of Her Majesty's Ministers—and I use "Ministers" in the plural because it is not only the Minister of Education who is concerned. At one end of the scale, where apprenticeships and trade training are concerned, he shares responsibility with the Minister of Labour, and at the other end of the scale, where universities are concerned, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is involved, as he is the Minister responsible for the University Grants Committee through which public finance is channelled.
  There is also the Secretary of State for Scotland, with whom my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), who is to wind up this debate for the Opposition, will be especially concerned. We have a galaxy of Ministers, but we convict all of them, without exception, and their predecessors, as guilty of failing the school-leavers and the teen-agers of the 1960s through having made inadequate preparation.
  I do not wish today to discuss apprenticeships and trade training in detail, for we had a debate on that subject not long ago and there will no doubt be others, but, nevertheless, that subject is part of the general problem of further education and it would be wrong in this debate not to mention the extreme difficulties which face youngsters leaving school at 15 or 16 and going into industry. I will content myself with quoting just a few sentences from the report of the recent conference of people who should know what they are talking about in this connection—the National Association of Youth Employment Officers. At its recent conference, the association put it on record that the chance of getting training for a skilled occupation declined as time went on. That is part of our charge against Her Majesty's Government.

  659
  In his presidential address to the association, Mr. Heginbotham of Birmingham said:
  "The proportion of the age group who become apprentices or the like declined from nearly 18 per cent. in 1956 to only 15·4 per cent. in 1959. Even if the British Employers' Federation recommendation to increase training places by 20 per cent. is carried out, we shall be short of 10,000 places in 1961 and 22,000 places in 1962. If the intake remains as at present"—
  in other words, if there is not the extra 20 per cent. of places in industry, and it is doubtful whether those places will be made available—
  "we may be 26,000 short in 1961 and 39,000 short in 1962. Can we really afford nationally to lose these potential craftsmen and crafts-women?"
  Can we be surprised that some young people, feeling themselves defrauded, become anti-social in their behaviour?
  Yet at Cambridge, in September, the Minister of Labour had nothing whatever to suggest except to say that if industry did not meet its obligations, the Government
  "will have to review the position".
  What a bromide! When will the Government review the position? Will it be after 1962? What a dusty answer to give the young people of this country, to whom he referred as
  "a precious resource which must not be squandered."
  I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman leaves his platitudes and returns to pig breeding, in which, I believe, he was a great success.
  Mr. George Brown: He always got the pigs the wrong way round, too.
  Mrs. White: There was a fine picture of him once with two piglings, which I recall.
  Mr. Brown: But they were the wrong way up.
  Mrs. White: Now, I come back to the Minister of Education, because he, too, has a responsibility for these courses for young people going into industry. He knows perfectly well that the programme for the day-release students is far from satisfactory. It is simply not expanding as it ought to be. These facts are based not on our calculations, but on those of
  660
  the Minister. If things had gone according to plan, there should now have been well over ½ million day-release students. Last year, there were 440,000. There was a big discrepancy between what the Minister was planning in the matter of day release education and the number of day-release pupils who actually went to the local technical colleges.
  Is it any wonder that Technology, which is a highly respectable paper, published by The Times, last month commented that
  "in this whole field of training"—
  of young technicians and craftsmen—
  "there is a desperate need for leaders. Only the Government can give it and until they intervene more forcibly, the job will not be done."
  The truth is that ever since the Can-Report, the Government have adopted a laissez faire attitude and not even for our young people in this real crisis of their lives will they intervene with private industry or do something to stiffen the Industrial Training Council.
  All I can say is that in this situation, in which thousands of young people want training but are not able to get it, if we had still had the late Ernest Bevin at the Ministry of Labour, things would have been different. I was in the Department when he was Minister and I should know. He just did not sit around and say, "Please," when, for example, he had to find employment for disabled persons. He got into it and did something about it. We have every right to say that we find that the policy of Her Majesty's Government in this respect is completely inadequate and unsatisfactory.
  The Minister of Education thought, apparently, that he was making one slight contribution to this problem by issuing a circular last June in which he said that if employers could be persuaded, if they had no room for apprentices themselves, to pay a full year's wages as well as fees for a young man who never came into their works during all that time, the local education authority might be permitted to arrange courses for him. It is clear—one has only to look at paragraph 509 of the Crowther Report to see why—that this sort of policy simply will not beat the "bulge". As the Crowther Report says, from the point of view of the individual boy the situation is alarming.

  661
  Incidentally, while we are on that point, the Minister might, perhaps, tell us what is being done concerning the excessive wastage of those who do get to training colleges, because there have been some reports about this. As the House will recall, in the Crowther Report we were given some shocking, startling figures. That Report put the number of total failures of those who started part-time education after leaving school at 25 per cent. and partial failures at between one-half and three-quarters of all those who originally started. Those figures shocked the country. They are extremely discouraging, both for the youngsters themselves, for their teachers, for their parents and, incidentally, for the taxpayers and ratepayers, too. I hope, therefore, that we shall have some news from the Minister about what progress is being made in dealing more intelligently with these young people who are taking part-time education for industry.
  I want now to turn to three other major fields of further education about which also we feel extremely uneasy: the teacher training colleges, the colleges of advanced technology and the universities. I take the teacher training colleges first. The Minister has dropped a bombshell on the teaching profession in his latest circular. The directive to concentrate on training primary teachers and leaving the secondary teachers to the universities has created a profound shock in the teaching world. The great majority of teachers see in this a return to pre-1944 conditions and fear a damaging effect upon the solidarity of the profession. But they also fear the effect on quality of training and community life in the training colleges. This is a matter of great importance to which the House should address itself. It is particularly discouraging for those colleges who, quite rightly, in my view, have been concentrating in recent years on preparing teachers to teach in the secondary modern schools, where, as the House well knows, there are serious social problems as well as purely educational problems.
  The Minister himself has put forward the difficulty of teaching the rather older secondary modern school children as one of the reasons why he cannot make up his mind about the Crowther Report. It is, however, very discouraging for the staffs
  662
  in these training colleges, who have peen specialising in this work and preparing themselves, especially with the new three-year course coming along, now to be told that they must switch all their energies to training the junior and infant school teachers, with a very small proportion indeed of specialist and graduate teachers.
  Sir Ronald Gould, the general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, and others have recognised that in the immediate crisis over the primary school staffs, it is possible that the Minister may have no option, but two considerations arise here. Had the Minister's predecessor, who was present with us until a moment ago, accepted the advice of his Committee, we might in this crisis period have had 4,000 more teachers than we are to have. How valuable and how useful those teachers would have been and how they would have helped to mitigate the situation as it affects the training colleges.
  Had the Minister himself, as well as his predecessor, been quicker off the mark concerning the day training colleges in the larger cities, we might have had another admittedly small but very welcome relief. The Ministry was sceptical when Leeds wanted to start a day training college. The grant policy has been extremely ungenerous and we were told at the time that six colleges were to start next January. I see from the latest circular that they will not be open until next September—that is, in addition to the two which are already open—which means that they will be too late for the crisis year of intermission, as it is called—1962–63—when, owing to the three-year course, there will be no teachers coming out of the training colleges. We are well justified in saying that this policy, which should have commended itself to any sensible person much earlier, has been hold up by the dilatoriness of the Ministry.
  The lack of generosity concerning grants for mature students has been incomprehensible. Only last week, we had a reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Bourne-Afton) concerning the mature students, a matter which both sides of the House have been raising for months past, probably for at least a year. We are now told that these students are to have these

  663
  grants, but not until September of next year. Why cannot they have them now? If they are in need, they should have them. This, again, is an instance of meanness and lack of generosity towards people whom the Minister is trying to persuade to come into the teaching profession.
  There is another consideration in the situation of the training colleges which is part of the wider question of the pattern of further education in general. Is it true that the training colleges are not being squeezed now because of a temporary emergency, but may be permanently altered in their character because of the pattern of expansion in the universities? Or is it true, as it may well be, that training colleges and the universities are such worlds apart that the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing? There is much to be said, I think, far training for all teachers, whether graduates or not, and one would suppose that the inquiry which is so much needed should certainly be into the whole position of the teacher training colleges and their relationship with the universities.
  Meanwhile, in his frantic search for teachers, for the moment just to keep pace, by 1970, perhaps, to bring down classes to a still quite inadequate size, the Minister is, of course, turning, as other and better men have turned before him, for salvation to women. He is, I understand, about to launch a campaign for recruitment. The courtship is timed to start, appropriately enough, in the spring, but the preliminary advances are now being made. The right hon. Gentleman saw a body of representatives of some important women's organisations ten days ago.
  The Minister wants qualified teachers who are now married and have families to come back into teaching, and he wants some teachers who might otherwise retire to stay on. There is no doubt, of course, about the extreme need of teachers in both infants' and junior schools, and highly qualified teachers are needed in the secondary schools and in the universities, especially of science and mathematics.
  We had the Headmistresses' Association meeting not so long ago, at which its president drew attention to one
  664
  school which had been for seven years without a senior mathematics mistress, another which had been four years without a physics mistress, and another which had not had a chemistry mistress since it was opened two years ago.
  As a result of the increase in the universities, of course, the staffing problem in the universities in the next decade may become as severe a problem as it is in the schools, and, therefore, to make full use of qualified women is a very proper matter. In the changing pattern of society the number of qualified women will be very much diminished, and we shall have to use married women or none at all.
  So that is a very reasonable objective, and I hope very much that now that this problem is coming up into the universities it may have some effect on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is responsible for the universities in a matter which we have raised in this House on many previous occasions, and that is the question of taxation as it affects married women. The Minister knows very well indeed that this is one of the problems which the Government will have to face. At the moment they are simply not doing so, but they will have to face it if they are to have highly qualified women remaining at work.
  I will give the House just one example which was sent to me just this weekend, apropos of this debate. It is of a married woman. I am not allowed to give her name, but it is one very well known in academic circles and the Minister would know it very well if I were to give it to him. She tells me this. She is married to a man who is also in the academic world. She is doing a full-time job at the university. She is paid £1,250 for that work a year. Because of the aggregation of tax £564 of that goes in taxation. Domestic help to replace her in the home costs £286. In other words, out of her total salary she has £400 left. Out of that she is trying to buy a car which is essential for the job, but for which there is no allowance other than petrol allowance.
  Of course, she has other expenses, as anyone has who is doing work out of her home. She says:
  "Even an enthusiast who did not undertake the work for financial reasons begins to feel rather bitter."

  665
  Think of what is left for doing work of that kind, to a woman of extremely high academic qualifications. Her husband happens to be obliged to do a lot of entertaining at home—academic, not business—and they have four children. She says that it is not worth her while.
  At the other end of the income scale the Surtax problem does not arise, but I would say to the Minister that if he wants more married women to come back he should consider that even their part-time service should count for some degree of pension, contributory pension, not just as qualifying service. I know perfectly well that the professional associations are not in favour of this, but if we want the services of these women we must look at the matter from their point of view, from the point of view of the women who are needed to do this essential work.
  I would ask the Minister how often he or the Chancellor of the Exchequer cook the family dinner, not to mention breakfast every day, luncheon on Saturdays and Sundays, and so on. They must allow something for housekeeping allowance, or make some alteration in the tax laws, because, otherwise, they just will not get the women to come back. Why should they? Why should they be expected to do a professional job as well as doing a job at home which no man would be willing to do? This shortage of teachers, of course, is not just a temporary emergency. It will continue for many years. Married women have come to stay, and we must alter our way of thinking in dealing with them.
  Now I want to turn to another set of problem children—the colleges of advanced technology. Here again, we know that there are considerable difficulties. Everybody knows that these institutions are very far from satisfied with their position. In recent weeks I have talked with principals and members of the staffs, and I can say that they are considerably disgruntled with their position.
  Although their finances are now pooled, they come under the local education authorities and their salaries are fixed by the Burnham Committee, and yet their work is of university calibre. The Dip Tech. and the new M.C.T. are regarded as equivalent to university honours and higher degrees, and they very understandably ask, this being so,
  666
  why continue to deny them the autonomy, status and salaries, including, incidentally, family allowances, of their university brethren? I know the history of resistance to this, and I know the difficulty with the rest of the pyramid of local authority technical colleges. The colleges of advanced technology are at the apex of the pyramid, and to remove them could, it is true, confuse and depress the regional, area and local colleges.
  However, this dilemma is partly of the Minister's own creation. He was Minister of Education in 1956, when these policies were established. I will make one more quotation from Technology, from a very powerful article in the September issue, which pointed out:
  "It was one of Sir David's most remarkable achievements to present his Circular 305"—
  establishing the colleges—
  "as carrying out the White Paper on Technical Education when, in fact, it contradicted it. The House of Commons, which has never shown much grasp of technical education, gave no sign of tumbling to the switch."
  In defence of the House I should point out that Circular 305 was issued on the very day of the debate, and so there had not been much opportunity to study it. Be that as it may, the situation now is extremely confused, and it seems to me that this, again, is something for which the inquiry for which we are asking should be instituted. Lord Hailsham, the Minister for Science, discussed this in a debate in another place on 11th May, and admitted that the administrative position of these colleges is very much open to question.
  I should like to say a good deal more about this whole question of technical training and also about the essential provision in the schools, but I will not do so for lack of time, but I hope very much that some at least of my hon. Friends will draw attention to another extremely disturbing document which has just been published, and that is the survey of the provision of scientific laboratories and equipment in the grammar and public schools. It was issued by the Association of Teachers of Science.
  I think that this report illustrates a most scandalous state of affairs in the disparity of opportunity for the young people who are going to those colleges of technology, and to study science at the university, between the public

  667
  schools, which are being financed by industry, and the maintained grammar schools, which are under the local education authorities.
  I know that the Minister can produce some figures of extra buildings which are now being built but, not withstanding that, we are told quite emphatically that the gap between the public schools which are being financed by industry and the maintained schools has widened appreciably in the last two years. There is one law for the rich and another for the poor. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is all very well, but I would ask hon. Members whether they have read the report.
  If they have read the Report, hon. Members will have seen that of the schools that were surveyed only 0·7 per cent. came up to the standard which is worked to by the Industrial Fund for the Advancement of Scientific Education, that is the Fund contributed by the big industrial firms to finance scientific provisions in the public schools, and only 45 per cent. of local education authority schools came up to the Ministry's standards Which are very much lower than the standards of the Industrial Fund. Incidentally, though I have no wish to be feminist in this matter, the Minister has two standards—one for girls and one for boys. It is only right, in this debate on education, that we should draw attention to this matter which I know has deeply shocked many of the Minister's hon. Friends as well as myself.
  Finally, I come to the vital question of university expansion because, as I have said, the number of young people who are now qualifying and will be qualifying in the next decade for some kind of higher education is increasing by leaps and bounds. As we all know, the Government have been behind-hand in their estimates. I will not blame them entirely for that, because they have been depending upon the University Grants Committee which itself has been somewhat lacking in its estimates of the provisions that ought to be made.
  We were told in 1956 that 106,000 places were required. In 1957, we were told that 124,000 places were required. Almost immediately afterwards we were told that 135,000 were required. Twelve months ago we were told that an extra
  668
  35,000 to 40,000 places over and above those already mentioned would be required. This estimate had been made three years previously by Lord Pakenham, speaking for the Labour Party in another place. It took the powers that be three years to catch up with that estimate. Now the University Grants Committee is looking to the early 1970s and it puts this extra 35,000 to 40,000, and I quote from paragraph 7 of its latest Report:
  "… as a minimum first instalment."
  It would bring the total number of places up to 175,000, but unofficial estimates of 200,000 are already being mooted. If these estimates prove correct we shall almost double our university population in the next ten years. This is a truly challenging situation which demands stout hearts, clear heads and a generous purse. It is an academic revolution of a kind which has never faced this country before.
  For a number of years we on this side of the House have been asking for a Royal Commission on the universities. It has been part of our official programme for years. We may fairly claim to have been far better aware than the Government that this was a field in which much thought and foresight were needed.
  I might accept now at this late hour the argument put forward recently in another place that the time for a Royal Commission is passed. The time is too short. The crisis is getting upon us and Royal Commissions are apt to be a little slaw and ponderous in their operations. Therefore, it may be that a more informal inquiry is now needed which can get to work more quickly without holding up developments which are beginning to go ahead. We are absolutely right to make the point. It was becoming clear in 1954 that such an inquiry was needed. It was abundantly evident at least by 1957 that it was required, but because the Government have been so dilatory in their action we are now entering this decade without any real idea of the pattern that we ought to be following.
  Apart from these matters of policy and the relationships between different types of institution of higher education, there is a tremendous physical problem of building, of providing land and equipment, and so on. It is a tremendous task.

  669
  I have been talking within the last few days with some of the most distinguished architects in the country who are responsible for designing university colleges and teacher training colleges. They all tell me that they are deeply concerned lest, with the spurt of building coming upon us, the Government will loose their nerve and lower standards.
  Standards at present are barely adequate for the kind of life which is needed both in the universities and the training colleges. It is extremely important, for instance, that really adequate provision should be made for the staffs as well as the students. I have been shocked at some universities that I have visited to see how difficult it is for the staff to mingle informally with the students because the physical provision is not there to enable them to do so.
  I have a letter from a well-known college principal, who says:
  "Some means of relating senior members to the Residential Hall community has to be found and here we need imaginative planning. Spinsters and bachelors are rapidly vanishing species and the possibility of flats or houses for married members of staff associated in some way with residencies remain to be worked out. One wants Scholars and not just Wardens and Bursars sharing the undergraduate life in some way."
  That is exceedingly important. It is important, also, in the training colleges.
  I have taken up with the Minister before the question of accommodation for staff in teacher training colleges. In March, the Minister told me in the House that the accommodation allowance for married staff in training colleges was 1,200 square feet. I now find that his Department is passing plans for flats for married staff at 750 square feet. It would be quite impossible to get senior staff and their families to live in these boxes, for that is what they are. The staff will not stay there, or at least their wives will not stay even if the staff will. In a college where this is being done I spoke to the architect and he told me on Friday that the Ministry's standard study for staff of 10 feet by 10 feet is to be repeated 32 times. There is no variation, and no provision for the larger studies which some members on the staff will certainly need, because the schedule does not allow for them. I find that, although The Minister has not many academic distinctions, he is an honorary Fellow of the Royal Institute of British
  670
  Architects. I suggest that he should look seriously at the standard of physical provision.
  Another point made to me by the architects is that the finishes allowed and the installations are not good enough. This is a penny wise and pound foolish policy. The Government are saving on capital costs, but will have to pay later on maintenance. I am not at all satisfied with the provision that is being made. The Minister, of course, congratulates himself on the amount of money that he is spending on the building of training colleges. I remember that at a Conservative Party meeting recently he said that he obtained £36 million for training colleges over six years. But that is not much more than the cost of one trans-Atlantic liner and it is considerably less than the cost of one atomic power station which may be obsolete in about twelve years' time.
  We must get this into proportion. As we all know, whatever we say about expenditure it is relatively quickly forgotten, even in peace time as well as in war time, whereas the buildings remain for generations. I hope very much indeed that we shall have a real care in this great expansion in the next decade in the physical standards which condition so much of the work which has to be done.
  There are a number of other questions, including particularly the Anderson Report, which affect further education, and I hope that we shall hear today something much more specific from the Minister as to why he needs so many more inquiries before making up his mind on the Report. The two principles in that Report are, first, uniformity and the other the fact that at present neither the student nor the State has any sanction if the parents do not pay the amount which they are assessed as being able to pay. I have here some very useful information, if any hon. Member would like to see it, on the actual position of a number of students whose parents do not pay what they are assessed to pay.
  I hope that we shall know whether the Minister is to carry out the major recommendations of the Anderson Report. His attitude to the Anderson Report, the Crowther Report, to the technical colleges and to the recent

  671
  Beloe Report, and so on, all leave us with the impression that the Minister has very few clear lines of thought at all. He is a very active Minister. He is always making speeches and going around the country, and that is a very good thing, but activity is no substitute for policy. There is one really bold decision which we know has been taken on Conservative education policy since 1951, and that was to go ahead with the three-year course in training colleges, but that decision was taken by Lord Hailsham, though I give the Minister credit for having kept to it.
  We are not at all happy on this side of the House that the Minister clearly recognises where he is going in this matter of education. Not long ago, a leading article in The Times Educational Supplement, referring to certain remarks of the Minister, said:
  "They reveal him to be in a pre-Crowther state, almost pre-1944 Act. He has no clear picture of the future."
  Those are not my words; they were from a very reputable educational journal, and I think that testimony of that kind, together with the arguments and the facts which I have put before the House this afternoon, fully justify my hon. Friends and myself in the Amendment which I have moved.
  4.23 p.m.
  The Minister of Education (Sir David Eccles): On this side of the House, we should like to thank very much the official Opposition for choosing education for a full day's debate during the debate on the Address. I cannot find that that has ever been done before. It is also unique, I believe, that the Opposition case should be opened by an hon. Lady and is to be closed by an hon. Lady. That satisfies me very much, because I have always thought that girls did not have their fair share in our education, and now that is to be remedied.
  I should like to say straight away to the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) that there is no one in the House, either on that side or on this, who thinks that we are doing all that we ought to do for our children and young people. We are very impatient to do better, but we do know that one cannot do everything at once; and
  672
  it is for that reason that any Minister of Education would welcome more frequent debates on this service, because the strategy and tactics of the service are always a matter for some discussion, if not controversy, and it is very important for the Minister to get the views of the House.
  Before I answer the points raised by the hon. Lady, many of which, I think, were quite fair, though some were not quite so fair, I should like to refer rather briefly to one or two other matters which I think are of interest to hon. Members. First, I feel that I ought to say a word or two about the public library service. I had hoped that a Bill would be ready to be introduced this Session, following some very useful conversations which I have had with the interested parties, on the general shape of such a measure, but further study has been found necessary before we can draft the Bill. This is very disappointing, but, in any event, there is bound to be some delay, because I found, when talking to people in this service, that they were generally agreed that a new Act could not come into full operation until the reviews of local authority boundaries have been completed.
  One matter here that needs further study is how to settle the qualifications of a library authority. The Roberts Committee gave very useful guidance, though not the whole answer. I agree that parish councils should be excluded, and that apart from counties, county and metropolitan boroughs and the City of London, which automatically qualify, a lower limit of population should be fixed. I propose 40,000 as against the Committee's figure of 50,000; this means that all those non-county boroughs and urban districts with populations of less than 40,000 which have library powers today should be allowed to justify their claims to continue as library authorities.
  The real problem is how to deal with these claims. I have come to the conclusion that the Roberts Committee's recommendations, which are based mainly on a single figure of expenditure on books, would not do justice to some of the good work that is being done today. These matters, therefore, will have to be examined further from a technical point of view, and that should help us to find a greater measure of agreement, which is lacking at the moment,

  673
  among those who have expert knowledge of the service. I am quite confident that this study will act as a spur not only to the smaller authorities, but also to some of the larger authorities whose library service today is inadequate. I hope that in that way, although we cannot bring forward legislation in the near future, the momentum started very usefully by the Roberts Committee will be continued.
  Next, I want to tell the House that we are considering our policy in relation to sport, and we shall, of course, take note of the very interesting recommendations made by Sir John Wolfenden's latest Committee. That Committee was appointed by the Central Council of Physical Recreation, and the Council has said that it will require a little time to formulate its own views on the report, because it has upwards of 200 sporting and other bodies in membership which have to be consulted.
  Much is being done under our present policies to increase facilities for sport. In my own Department, we are spending quite large sums of money—about £8 million a year—on playing fields, swimming baths, and so on, for the schools and technical colleges being built under our regular education programme. Then there is the Youth Service, and for that service extra resources will be available for investment in 1962–63. This ought to stimulate the local authorities and the voluntary organisations to consider the part which physical recreation and outdoor activities can play in the general expansion of the service.
  In the meantime, there is one question that we ought to ask: are we making the best use of the opportunities that we already have? I believe that every hon. Member must know of some playing fields which are not now being used to the fullest advantage. In general, that does not apply to schools and educational institutions, where the sizes of the playing fields have been very carefully calculated to match the needs of their pupils. But I am sure that there is much scope for more co-operation in all areas between all those who control footfall pitches, tennis courts, netball courts, running tracks, swimming baths, and so on, and if they would get together, I think that the facilities for young and old could be a good deal better than they are today.
  674
  There is just one other small point. The House may like to know that for some time my Ministry has been studying how the history, geography and current events of the Commonwealth can be more widely and imaginatively taught in the schools. A handbook on Commonwealth studies is now with the printers. It has been written by a group of Her Majesty's inspectors, and I shall commend it as strongly as I can, because it is a very good book, to all teachers as a guide to a subject which I believe this House wishes to see widely taught to our children.
  Having said those few words about libraries, sport and Commonwealth studies, I turn to the Amendment and to the hon. Lady's speech. The Amendment puts first the reduction in the size of classes as the duty which we ought to carry out before all else. We welcome that very much, and we recognise that teacher supply comes before everything. I should certainly be vulnerable to criticism if it could be shown that by setting a target, such as a date for raising the school-leaving age, I could and would obtain more resources and use them to train and recruit teachers faster than we are doing now.
  I have looked carefully at this possibility, and it is my firm belief—I will try in a moment to explain why—that we are now doing all that it is possible to do to get more teachers. If this is so then it really would be irresponsible for me to name a date, because no one knows what the birthrate will be over the next decade, no one knows how many married women will retire from the profession, and no one knows how successful we shall be in persuading them to come back into service.
  The first, and the obvious, way to get more teachers is to provide training places for all suitable candidates. We must, of course, take care not to lower our standards. As the House knows, we have accepted the advice of my National Council, and we are now increasing the number of places in the general teacher training colleges from 23,000 to 47,000. Could we have done this much earlier? That is a fair question to ask. The answer is that I do not think so, for the reason that more candidates of the right quality were not to be found out of the small age groups

  675
  which were born before the end of the war. Things are better now in this respect, and with the larger number of school leavers, which the hon. Lady mentioned, we can look forward to more applications for training. Our present programme of 24,000 new places comes on top of the building programme for schools and technical colleges, and that programme itself is stretching the resources of a good many authorities.
  I have all along felt that the plan of this teacher training programme was something of the very greatest importance. We shall be settling the pattern for very many years to some. Fortunately, the expansion coincides with the introduction of the three-year course. This gives us the chance to make life in a training college much more like university life. So we are planning bigger training colleges and siting them, wherever we can, near the universities.
  I have already authorised colleges of 500 places and over in London, Loughborough, Coventry, Leeds, Sheffield, Exeter, the Liverpool area and in North Wales. Entirely new colleges will be built at Cardiff, Canterbury, Brighton and in the Nottingham, Oxford, West Midlands and several other areas. I give the House that catalogue to show what an enormous piece of planning this training college expansion is.
  Of all the places that we have so far approved, 60 per cent. will be provided by the local education authorities and 40 per cent. by the churches and voluntary bodies. The churches have shown great faith and vigour in taking on this very large new commitment, and I should like to pay a tribute to the courage which they have shown and their determination to get their part of the programme going as fast as the local authorities.
  It is not only the building plans that call for time and careful thought; we have also to ask the colleges to produce the kind of teachers that the schools need. More specialist teachers are wanted for housecraft, handicraft and physical education, and, of course, very many more teachers are wanted in mathematics and science. We think it right to incorporate most of these new places for specialist training inside the larger training colleges, so that the
  676
  students will work alongside the others taking the general subjects. Also, our plans have to be adjusted to a number of important new factors, on which the hon. Lady touched. One is the coming expansion of the universities which the University Grants Committee now has in hand.
  In the Ministry of Education we warmly welcome the prospect of a greater number of graduate teachers, but, of course, it is only realistic to assume that the bulk of these graduates will wish to teach in secondary schools. For the training colleges, this means that they will have to concentrate more—not by any means entirely—on the primary schools, especially as we know that in these schools the number of children will rise, and it is from these schools also that the wastage of women teachers is greatest.
  Mr. George Thomas: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that graduates will not be wanted for primary schools?
  Sir D. Eccles: I am just coming to that. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the subject.
  I have had to tell the training colleges that this change in emphasis is necessary in the interests of the schools, and I am sorry that some of them are apprehensive that one result might be that primary school teachers would be depreciated in the estimation of the public. But, surely, that would be a very old-fashioned reaction. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Itchen, Southampton (Dr. King), who spoke in the House last week, that the idea that a primary school teacher is in some way inferior to a secondary school teacher is really quite wrong. It is as much out of date as the old elementary schools themselves. The primary school today is every bit as important as a secondary school.
  I very much hope and expect that, as the universities expand—the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) has just asked about this—more graduates will want to teach in the primary schools. Women, we are always being told, do well to take a degree whatever career they may take up afterwards, and I am certain that women with a degree would find the primary schools intensely interesting.
  Mr. G. Thomas: And some men.
  Sir D. Eccles: And some men, too. But it is in the primary schools where we must have the women for the younger children. We cannot do without them.
  The real question to ask ourselves is: how are we to allay the apprehensions in some of the training colleges about the possible division of the profession? I am sure that our aim here must be to establish a two-way link between the training colleges and the universities. I want to see some training college students going on to take a degree and, in the reverse direction, many more graduates taking their year's training in teaching in some of the colleges. A week or two ago I read a very good article on this subject by Dr. Alexander in Education, which I commend to hon. Members.
  So, we can look forward to more teachers coming out of training colleges and more coming out of the universities. That is one good prospect, but if we are to reduce the size of classes as fast as I am sure we all want to do, we must do something about the wastage of women teachers. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Flint, East that the educational world would be quite wrong to regard this as a temporary problem. It is something which has come to stay; more marriages and earlier marriages.
  At present, we know that there are 50,000 or more qualified women teachers who have left the schools and who have not yet reached the age of retirement. We do not know where these women are living, nor whether they are in a position to respond to a call to return to the schools. We must, therefore, try to find this out. We believe that the best way is to start a campaign on a national scale—it is no good doing it local authority by local authority—and this campaign will come to its peak early in the new year.
  I have had many talks, in preparation for the campaign, with the teachers organisations, local education authorities, and with the women's organisations mentioned by the hon. Lady. Out of these talks come two clear facts. The first is that the teachers now in service, and especially the head teachers, will be, if I may use the word, the best agents for getting married women to return. It is likely that any woman who has
  678
  retired from teaching keeps up with some of her old friends in the profession, and it is the kind of welcome which they tell her she would get on returning that is likely to make all the difference. We must, therefore, get the full co-operation of the teaching profession.
  The other point is also related to the teachers themselves, and concerns the organisation of part-time teaching in schools. We are told that a large number of married women would like to come back to teaching, but cannot come back to full-time teaching. The schools are quite familiar with the music and the dancing teacher who comes in once or twice a week, takes a class and then moves on. There has never been much of a problem about that kind of part-time teaching. Indeed, it is a good thing to notice that part-time teachers have doubled in numbers since 1957.
  When the part-time teacher takes the ordinary subjects in the timetable, however, difficulties can arise. Naturally, head mistresses prefer full-time staff, and sometimes some of the full-time teachers may object to the extra load of out of school activities and of day to day chores which may, they feel, fall upon them if there are a good number of part-timers on the staff. The pattern of part-time teaching, therefore, needs careful working out, so that there is give and take on both sides. It will be very necessary that the hours worked should be fitted in to the married woman's home responsibilities.
  It would help me very much if one or two local authorities would do some thorough research into this vital matter of part-time teaching in their schools. We have quite a lot to learn, perhaps from other countries besides our own.
  When I was speaking of teacher supply I referred to our hopes of more graduates—
  Mrs, Harriet Slater: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider whether a local authority such as my own need not have to include in its quota married women teachers coming back into the schools? I have seen it suggested that by 1962 it is hoped that they will be excluded from the quota. The point is that, although these teachers are employed by the local authority where they are living, they are not likely to be employed anywhere else

  679
  because they are tied to their husbands' employment. It would help local authorities to get teachers back if they could be excluded from the quota.
  Sir D. Eccles: That is a very good point. We have already given a bonus to the "lush" areas, as they are called, by allowing them to exclude from their quotas part-time teachers. We shall have to think about whether we shall need to hold out any other carrot. Many local authorities find it easy to get all the full-time teachers they want.
  The supply of graduates is part of the wider problem. As is fairly well known, the Government have been giving a good deal of thought to the question of how full-time higher education in the country as a whole—England, Wales and Scotland—should develop over the years to come. The problems are complex and raise long-term issues which are fundamental to our national life. We need a positive study of the size and nature of the provision which we ought to be making. How are the different types of institution—universities, college of advanced technology, teacher training colleges, and so on—to develop? Is there a need even for institutions of a new type?
  We have considered how best this inquiry should be carried out. A Royal Commission hardly seems the best instrument. Something more flexible and informal is wanted which could work more quickly. We propose at once to consult those primarily concerned about the arrangements and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister hopes to make an announcement very shortly.
  Meanwhile, in addition to the fundamental issues of which I have been speaking, there are, in higher education, quite a number of short-term problems on which early action will be necessary. Among these, for example, are the expansion plans already under consideration, and the future of the colleges of advanced technology.
  Miss Margaret Herbison: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of an announcement which the Prime Minister is to make. Having listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), who spoke so
  680
  admirably, and now the right hon. Gentleman, it strikes me forcibly that many of our problems in Scotland are different. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister will consider that perhaps not one inquiry, but two—one for Scotland—would serve the needs of the whole nation much better.
  Sir D. Eccles: I will leave my right hon. Friend to answer the hon. Lady when he comes to wind up the debate.
  The inquiry we have in mind should not and will not hold up work on these short-term problems. One of the questions that is intimately bound up with the future provision of full-time higher education is students' awards. Here, we have had the advice of the Anderson Committee. We have announced that a student will be eligible for an award if he gets a place at university and has two A-level passes in the G.C.E. We propose to abolish State scholarships after the selection to be made in the summer of 1962, and we shall permit the winners of open scholarships and other university prizes to keep up to £100 a year.
  We want something to happen as a result of that last decision. We very much hope that we shall quickly see the foundation of scholarships at provincial universities. Such scholarships have hitherto been of little interest to benefactors, since the prize money would have led to a reduction in the award from the Ministry. In future, if a scholarship is founded the money will be kept by the scholar.
  On the parental means test for students' awards, it is clear, given the further expansion plans now to be studied, that we shall not be able to say for a little time how much it would cost to abolish the means test. There is also the need to define comparable courses to university courses. I recently discussed this latter point with the local authority associations, and we foresaw considerable but not insurmountable difficulty in drawing the line. In the meantime, I will shortly announce a radical revision of the means test which, for a variety of reasons, has turned out to be a more complicated matter than we had anticipated.
  I now turn to the other main part of the hon. Lady's speech, which dealt with the field of further education, for which my

  681
  Ministry is responsible. This is so wide that it is not always easy to appreciate how much progress has been made since the White Paper on Technical Education was published in 1956. There is time only to give the House a few highlights. Let us take, first, the colleges of advanced technology. The number of their students taking full-time and sandwich courses at university level has doubled, from 4,000 in 1955–56 to nearly 8,000 in 1959–60—that is all in four years—and we expect an increase to 14,000 in a few years' time. We shall now have to consider what further contribution they can make beyond the 14,000.
  Two developments hon. Members may think particularly interesting. First, there has been a steady growth of postgraduate work. We shall encourage this as much as we can. I am very keen that these colleges should vigorously develop applied research. This they are excellently placed to do because of their close links with industry.
  Secondly, it is most satisfactory to see how these colleges are drawing their students from all types of school. Let us take the Northampton College of Advanced Technology: about 650 students there are working for the Diploma in Technology—that is, at university level. Of these, 480 came from grammar schools, and—an entirely new feature since 1956—100 from public schools, 40 from secondary technical, and 35 from secondary modern schools. But what gives me most pleasure is the fact that 230 of these students left school at 16 or before, and gained their places at Northampton by part-time study at a technical college.
  That seems to be an answer to the hon. Lady, who mentioned that question of opportunities. The fact is that in our system of further education a boy is now beginning to get a good chance of getting to the top, never mind what happened to him in the 11 plus examination, or whether he left school early. Our aim is greatly to improve the opportunities for passing from one ladder to another. It must be the glory of British education that we always give a second chance.
  Mr. Austen Albu: I welcome the figures given by the Minister, and hope that he will look to the future to see whether they can be maintained, but does not he agree that the chance
  682
  of obtaining this type of higher education through part-time education depends on what type of employer a young man happens to have?
  Sir D. Eccles: To some extent it does.
  I now come to our biggest problem—the students between the ages of 15 and 18, and the question of how many of them are not getting the education we should wish. There has been a great deal of progress since 1956, but, as the hon. Lady has said, it has not been fast enough or wide enough.
  We have to recognise that British further education has grown up almost independently both of the schools and of the universities. In the early days a small minority of young workers gave up their evenings to try to make good the opportunities that they had missed at school. Some time later employers began to come into the picture, giving young people time off for study—first, on one day a week and, later, in a few cases, for periods of up to six months in a year.
  Now, with nearly ½ million students benefiting from day release, I am sorry to say that the annual rate of increase has slowed right down, and we have to make important decisions between possible lines of advance. For instance, should we introduce compulsory part-time education for all the under 18s?
  The House will not wish me to traverse again the arguments about the respective merits of county colleges, and raising the school-leaving age. The fact is that we all want to give first priority to reducing the size of classes in school and, therefore, the two other reforms will have to wait a few years before they can be introduced. I did, however, say last April that I was proposing to explore with the local education authorities and both sides of industry the idea of giving students under 18 what has been called "the right to day-release". These discussions have now begun in quite a promising atmosphere, but it is clear they will take a little time to complete. I hope that the fact that they are going on will stimulate release from certain industries.
  Sooner or later, we have to decide whether to continue to base our arrangements mainly on the present system, which puts on industry the primary

  683
  responsibility for training their young workers, or whether to make a major change to something more like the French system, under which about one-third of their young people get their further education and their initial industrial training before they go into employment. I would not expect much support for turning the present system upside-down. Industry's rôle is the major rôle. But, certainly, improvements, some of them breaking new ground, can and should be made. To give one example, we are encouraging technical colleges, in consultation with industry, to provide full-time integrated courses of education and industrial training during the first year of apprenticeship.
  If we take a more general look at our present system we can see that it has three main defects. First, the various routes from school into further education have been neither very clear nor very widely understood. The worst feature of all has been that large numbers of 15-year-olds have either stopped their education altogether, or had to go for a year to evening classes, instead of starting straight away on a daytime course in a college.
  Secondly, the requirements of modern industry have changed and grown a great deal faster than the pattern of technical courses, though much has been done since 1945. I am thinking particularly of the urgent need for more and better trained technicians, for now that the supply of scientists and technologists is improving, this is the greatest shortage.
  Thirdly, as the hon. Lady said, too many students in further education fail to complete their courses. We can never eliminate this wastage altogether, but it ought to be possible to reduce it drastically.
  We have moved to remedy these defects. During the last year my Department has been reviewing, reconstructing and bringing up-to-date the whole pattern of courses for technicians, craftsmen and operatives. To give the House some idea of how vast an operation this has been, I can say that it affects million students, several hundred courses, and every industry except agriculture, with which we are dealing separately.
  We have drawn heavily on the Crowther Report and on the advice of
  684
  the National Advisory Council, under Sir Harry Pilkington, and we have consulted all our partners in the educational world and industry. I shall be ready to announce detailed proposals before Christmas, and these will represent one of the biggest reforms in technical education that we have ever made.
  But we must not look at the 15s to 18s who are no longer in school simply from the point of technical education. The Crowther and Albemarle Reports—and now the Wolfenden Report—rightly cast the net much wider. We must provide many more opportunities for general studies, and the proposals to which I have just referred make a good start here. More experiments are needed in non-vocational courses. We must encourage student union activities and opportunities for physical and social recreation.
  Our great aim is clear enough. We want all technical colleges to develop as centres of further education in the widest sense, serving the whole of the community in their area. There is a very great deal to be done before we reach that point. The schools, the colleges of further education and the Youth Service have developed more or less independently. Now they must be brought into effective partnership and a coherent educational provision for our young people up to the age of 18 must now be provided. If we can achieve that and do the same for full-time education with the help of the inquiry which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will soon announce, I think that we shall have taken a very long step forward in education.
  I apologise to the House for keeping ft so long, but there is so much to cover. I should like to make one more observation. When I was looking at the material for this debate I had also very much in mind that the general conference of U.N.E.S.C.O. will open next Monday in Paris. I asked myself whether the British delegation could truthfully report to the 80 nations there assembled that we were doing a really good jab in education. I admit that I had some hesitations, because we know of so many children to whose special needs we should like to be paying much more attention. We know that 2 million young people are still outside the Youth Service and that there are many adults whose interest in

  685
  life could be quickened by the provision of more liberal studies and a better opportunity to enjoy the arts.
  Wherever we look, there is, and always will be, much more left to do in education. But we can say that there is progress on all fronts. The educational building programme is the highest in our history. We are making sure that the numbers and quality of the teaching profession will steadily increase, and we are vastly improving the whole range of further education. There is no room here at all for complacency, but it is a fact that we are advancing and, I believe, in the right direction.
  I hope that the House will reject the Opposition Amendment to the Address and that, in doing so, will tell us to go to Paris and give the U.N.E.S.C.O. conference an encouraging progress report on education in England and Wales, and, as my right hon. Friend will show this evening, in Scotland, too.
  5.4 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: When the President of the Board of Trade was replying to a speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) last week he used a Latin phrase and, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) asked him to translate it, he said that it meant: "Don't shoot a man on the way down." The trouble in taking aim at the Minister is that we are not quite sure whether he is on the way down or the way up. He has, since he formerly held this office, been to the Board of Trade, and I rather imagine that I am the only Member of the House who believes that the most important office in the United Kingdom Government is that of Minister of Education.
  However, let us be quite certain of this—the future of this country depends upon the way in which our education service prepares the youth of the country for a life of full citizenship. Compared with what other Ministers have to do, there is nothing more important than that. The Minister comes at a fortunate time in the attitude of the country towards education. We hear no complaints now, not even from the farmers, about the cost of education.
  I thought that one of the most illuminating paragraphs in the Crowther
  686
  Committee's Report was paragraph 13, which really opens the main body of the Report. It states:
  "This Report is about the education of English boys and girls aged from 15 to 18."
  May I say that while I am a sound English nationalist, I hope that the Scots and the Welsh will not be left out—
  "Most of them are not being educated."—
  I very much doubt that. I think that everybody of an impressionable age is being educated in spite of himself, sometimes for good and at other times for evil.
  "But they are all at a highly impressionable age, with their characters still being formed and, except in rare instances, with their minds still capable of considerable development. It seems to us clear—to anticipate our conclusions"—
  That is a motto that Ernest Bevin used to apply to Ministerial statements. He said, "Put your conclusions in the first paragraph. If I agree with them, I do not need to read the rest."—
  'that it is both necessary and practicable greatly to extend in the next few years the provision made for the education of boys and girls in their later teens. Looked at from where we are now, the prospect may seem daunting—there is so much to be done. Looked at, however, in the light of the distance that we as a nation have come in the last hundred years, the prospect is surely encouraging. Each step forward, which seemed so difficult at the time and to many so intolerably expensive, has quickly been found to have justified itself and indeed to have paid for itself. We could not as a nation enjoy the standard of living we have today on the education we gave our children a hundred or even fifty years ago. If we are to build a higher standard of living—and, what is more important, if we are to have higher standards in life—we shall need a firmer educational basis than we have today. Materially and morally, we are compelled to go forward."
  I thoroughly agree with every word in that paragraph. It should be a great encouragement to the Minister to know that that sentiment is very generally held now in all ranks of society. He has now in front of him a series of Reports—Crowther, Anderson, Beloe, Wolfenden, Albemarle—all of them dealing, in the main, with the problems advanced in the Crowther Report.
  One of the things that disappoints me with regard to the right hon. Gentleman is the fact that he is always going to make a staggering pronouncement in a few days' or a few weeks' time. I admit that he is getting on a little bit, because when I heard him at Easter on the

  687
  Crowther Report I thought that he had postponed it to the Greek Kalends. However, I understand that wiser counsels are now prevailing. The right hon. Gentleman can be quite sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will await with interest the various statements which he has foreshadowed in his speech today—for there has been very little definite statement—with an assurance that in a few months' time we shall get an answer to most of the problems so ably raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) and the other matters which the right hon. Gentleman himself introduced into the discussion.
  I do not intend to comment on what the right hon. Gentleman said on the question of public libraries. I think it is a great pity that this matter has to be put off until the Boundary Commissioners' Report for, as far as I can see, there is little hope of any Report of the Boundary Commissioners getting unanimous support in the House. Indeed, I was told by two or three Conservative Members of the House who attended the conference at Scarborough that it was the most deadly dull conference that they had ever attended until the chairman of the Rutland County Council stated that he was not in favour of committing suicide, and that the excitement generated by that bold announcement compensated for all the tedium of previous discussions. At any rate, it does not foreshadow an easy passage for the various Reports that the Boundary Commissioners will shortly be presenting to us.
  With regard to the Wolfenden Report, I hope that that will receive consideration from the Minister when he gets the Report from the Central Council of Physical Recreation as a basis of a new social outlook on the matter in this country. I do not want to see the universities repeating the blunders of the American universities in giving places in university colleges solely on a man's athletic abilities, for we all know the scandals to Which that led a few years ago. I am quite certain that we shall have to consider the deplorable division in this country into amateur and professional status when we face the competition from the totalitarian countries. How a
  688
  man can avoid being a professional in the way that we regard professionals in those countries seems to me to be a matter which requires a great deal of explanation.
  I recollect that we once had a discussion in the House on rowing in which the wish was expressed that apprentices on Tyneside should appear at Henley to row in the eights. When I pointed out that as they were engaged in the trade of boat building they were excluded as professionals, there was so much commotion that even the A.R.A. altered its rules. It once tried to exclude an eight from the Australian police on the ground that they were manual workers which was regarded, I understand, as a great insult by the police forces in this country as well as those in Australia.
  Let us face the fact that the greater part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech today was really dealing with the aspects of a new social outlook for future generations as a result of the education service, and what applies in sport in that consideration will apply everywhere else.
  I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) interrupted the right hon. Gentleman about the position of graduate teachers in primary schools. I sincerely hope that we in this country shall get a faculty of education in most universities on the lines of the educational faculties in the American universities. I once had the great privilege of spending a day with the educational faculty of Harvard. After my address to the students in training, the head of the faculty said that it was a jolly fine speech but that I had spoilt that lot for the American system.
  I do not desire the American system of education in this country, but I wish that we could get the same status for the training of teachers in the universities of this country as they have in America. The most disappointing interview which the right hon. Gentleman the present Home Secretary and I had in the framing of the Education Act, 1944, was when we met the vice-chancellors of the universities and urged them to make greater provision for the training of teachers in their universities. I know that they were afraid of being swamped by teachers. It might have been a bad

  689
  thing for the universities, but I hope that with the expansion in numbers that is now taking place the position of the teacher who desires to take a university course in pedagogy will not be overlooked.
  I hope that the arrangements which the right hon. Gentleman is trying to work out between the training colleges and the universities will be successful and that there will be a joint approach to the problem, for I do not want to see the universities get into a highly specialised position. I think that they ought to have welcomed advanced courses in technology. I do not believe that any diploma given by some non-university institution will for many years to come have the same status, not merely in the educational world but in the eyes of the community as a whole, as a university degree with all its associations with the widest ranges of learning.
  While I am afraid that the decision in that matter has been taken, I hope that we are not going to have training in the training colleges regarded as something inferior in social and intellectual status to the training given in the universities. I hope that arrangements will be made by which many of the training colleges can become colleges of a university in the same way that some of the technical colleges have been made constituent colleges of a university.
  The University of Durham honoured me by making me a doctor of civil law—I feared that I was going to be made a doctor of canon law—and on the afternoon that the degree was conferred upon me by Professor Trevelyan a large number of students of Sunderland Technical College were given their degrees of bachelor of science in the University of Durham, and in that way their higher technical training was definitely associated with one of the great universities of the country. I think that a relationship highly to be desired over all this range.
  I regret that the Minister is not yet in a position to make a statement about the Anderson Report and it's recommendation that there should be no means test for the parents of children of either sex who are accepted by universities for a course there. When one considers the situation of this country it seems to me that every youth of eighteen capable of taking a
  690
  university course and who has been accepted for one but debarred from taking it, represents a heavy loss suffered by the country. We shall never be among the big nations of the world in numbers. The United States, Russia, India and China will always outweigh us in numbers. We have to remain the greatest nation in the world and every thwarted, frustrated life among the small number which we have, compared with the far bigger nations I have mentioned, is a loss to our potential position in the world and something which we ought to regard as very serious.
  Where a youth, whether or not he be the son of Charles Clore—or any other gentlemen who, by ways which are perfectly legal, has amassed a large fortune—gets an opportunity of going to a university, I do not think that we ought to say to his father, "How much will you pay towards the cost?" If the parent is willing to forgo such earning capacity as the youth may have, I think it to the advantage of the country to see that the youth gets the best possible education for which his ability and aptitude qualify him. After all, the fundamental alteration which we made in the 1944 Act related to the duty of a parent. The requirement used to be that it shall be the duty of every parent to secure for the child an efficient elementary instruction in reading, writing and arithmetic. If the parent provided that, the law had no further claim on him. The right hon. Gentleman the present Home Secretary and myself altered that requirement and made it the duty of the parent of every child to secure for the child a full-time education suitable to his age, ability and aptitude. The greatest of those three is the last—aptitude. That is the contribution to the mental and physical strength of the nation which the child is best fitted to make when he arrives at manhood. Where it leads him to the university I think that no barrier should be placed in his way.
  In the months of July, August and September in the years between the wars I spent some time, after consultation with the parents of children who had managed to get a place in a university, going round to see whether I could pick up £10 from this charity, £15 from that city company and £10 from some other charity in order to scrape together the amount to enable a youth to undertake

  691
  his university career. In the end, most of them went up, as I did, very ill-equipped financially to stand the strain of a three-year course I broke down under it, but I resolved then that one of my objects in life would be to see that no qualified youth should be debarred from completing his university course because of lack of means. I never get youths coming to me now and saying, "Do you know where I can get an extra £20?" Let us rejoice that in the main, through State scholarships and major scholarships granted by local education authorities and others, youths today are not troubled about financial problems. Incidentally, before those State scholarships are abolished, we on this side of the House want to know what the Government propose to put in their place.
  During the last three years I have spent the same amount of time which I once used to spend trying to find money in attempting to find university places for well-qualified youths. I know that it is very difficult to find out exactly what is the shortage of places, because most of these youths are compelled to apply to any university likely to take them. Therefore, the total number of applicants to the universities assumes a proportion which does not indicate the real need.
  I say to the Minister that the speedy provision of the university places which he has mentioned today must be one of his first assignments in attempting to deal with the problem of those young people who have proved their possession of the capacity, ability and aptitude to profit from a university education. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, the figures have grown considerably in recent years. I regard it as one of the best signs of the times, in education, that families which, a few years ago, regarded a university training as quite outside the realm of possibility for them, now, if they have a lad or a girl of the right calibre, regard it as part of the education service that the child be provided with an opportunity to develop himself or herself to the full.
  The way in which this conception of education is regarded as part of a child's birthright in this country is one of the best assurances that even if we live in what is called an affluent society we also live in a society whose humblest members expect an equality of opportunity which
  692
  previous generations did not regard as their right. I recollect being at a meeting of the school managers of my own old elementary school on an occasion when the ex-headmaster, then the correspondent of the school, reported that a certain girl had gained a county scholarship at a grammar school. I said to him, "Is that the granddaughter of—?" a man of the same name who was a boy with me at school. That man, by the time he had reached 50 years of age, had the longest record for poaching of anyobdy in the neighbourhood. "Is she his granddaughter?" I asked. He said to me, "Yes". "Well" I said, "her grandfather would not have taken a scholarship." "No", he said, "it is the only thing in the locality which he would not have taken".
  There is now an expectation in all branches of society that the broad highway from the primary school to the university shall be open to all who have the ability and aptitude to tread it. I shall vote for the Amendment to the Motion for an Address. I think that the Minister, in his second incarnation in this office, has the greatest opportunity that any Minister of Education has ever had. Even chairmen of finance committees of local education authorities find it difficult now to be critical of education estimates. There is a burning desire that these services shall expand.
  I welcome the Amendment because it puts in the first place, as the first essential, that there shall be a reduction in the size of classes. Education consists in the conversation and contact between a mature mind and an immature mind. That is education in its essence. When I left college I had a class of seventy-three. I never had a class of fewer than fifty-five under my charge when I was a teacher. The only time when one could really teach them anything was on the day when half the class was away on handicrafts. Then one had some chance for individual study for the twenty-seven or twenty-eight who were left in the classroom.
  The reduction in the size of classes so that the full impact of the new definition of the parents' duty can be carried out in the schools is the first job for the Minister to undertake. No matter how spectacular the opportunities provided in the higher ranks of learning may be, they will fail of their full

  693
  effect unless from the earliest day of the child's education, he has the advantage of being taught in a small class, in which a skilled teacher can bring to bear all the qualities of a wisely matured mind to the stirring up the innate abilities and aptitudes that every child in his class has.
  5.33 p.m.
  Mr. Airey Neave: I profoundly agree with what the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said, particularly when he said that the future greatness of this country was bound up with education. That is the reason why I want to speak about education from the industrial point of view, because I believe that our prosperity is bound up with the success of my right hon. Friend in the future in the sphere of technical and scientific education. I think this is a subject we all recognise as being of major importance and we very much welcome this debate tonight.
  In discussing relations between industry and education I should like first to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the progress he is making on the problem of technical education. He referred to the colleges of advanced technology which, in only a few years, have doubled the number of students. That is very good progress and something of very great importance. It is in the field of applied research that those colleges can be so useful in their links with industrial firms. As my right hon. Friend said in his speech, one cannot do everything at once, but I feel that very much has been done towards providing the sinews of war, as it were, in the competition we have to face in the industrial field.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), who moved the Amendment, drew attention to a matter which interests me very much with reference to the report that the Association of Teachers of Science has made about laboratory equipment. I hope my right hon. Friend will take note of this point because equipment is very important indeed. One might also say that we cannot indefinitely duplicate or reduplicate research facilities—we cannot have a Jodrell Bank at every university—but this is a point I ask my right hon. Friend to look into. I think a lot can be done by methods of co-operation between consortia of universities and technical estab-
  694
  lishments which might bring about a sharing of equipment for science teaching.
  The question of day release is also very important. From the point of view of industry, I realise that certainly progress has not gone nearly far enough. As my right hon. Friend openly says, and I agree with him, it has been very unsatisfactory so far. I think he might agree that there could be more meetings, as is being done in the engineering field with which I am concerned at the moment, between groups of headmasters and headmistresses and careers masters and mistresses with local companies. They should follow the precedent of spending a day at the works and studying the products of a particular company, just as the company's representatives should visit the schools.
  The point has been raised about what should be done on this question of encouraging industry to go forward with day releases. I am glad to hear that discussions are going ahead on this question. As to where the responsibility should be, personally I should prefer it to remain with the industries, for reasons which appear in the Crowther Committee's Report, where it is stated that there is considerable diversity in industry and the circumstances are somewhat varied. I should not want to be dogmatic about that point until we hear the results of the discussions which my right hon. Friend is having on this problem.
  It is quite true, as he said—I think it was in the last education debate—that too many employers do not see the benefits of this day release system and the right to claim release, but, as the Crowther Committee pointed out, it depends very much on the type of industry. Although it is true that it is in only a minority of industries at the moment that the day release system has emerged, on the other hand one can see in the engineering industry the growth of apprenticeships, which is very encouraging. According to Crowther, 57 per cent. of the boys entering apprenticeships went into engineering, shipbuilding and building industries and 53 per cent. of all employees granted day release for education came from those same industries.
  I would point to the work which is being done and the progress being made in the engineering industry in this respect.

  695
  While it is true that the structure and the attitude of individual employers determines the issue, I hope my right hon. Friend will go about organising further meetings of the kind I suggested with the staffs of educational institutions.
  I want to cover two broad questions in what I have to say. I think they are both problems which require very regular analysis and review. At this stage of our development in this century, we are faced with the problem of turning new scientific concepts into practical things. That is why we need as many scientists, technologists, technicians and craftsmen as we can get. I do not know about the means. I feel that the £100 million for building and rebuilding colleges is excellent as far as it goes, but I believe we might require more for that purpose in the years to come. On the other hand, there has been a remarkable growth in the work of these colleges. I do not think any hon. Member will dispute that.
  In the long run, the rate of industrial expansion will be determined by the rate at which we produce trained technologists. No hon. Member will doubt it. But the discussion on technical education and between industry and education authorities may well be about what subjects we shall teach and what are the most up-to-date and practical subjects for technical education.
  I want to draw attention to one special feature about our economic development—the industrialisation of underdeveloped countries. The demand in the older countries of what may be called the classic industries for mechanical engineering, civil engineering, road engineering and house and bridge building will be considerable, but what about the new industries? I draw hon. Members' attention to a Paper by Lord Nathan to the Royal Society of Arts on this subject in March, 1959, which makes extremely interesting reading. He drew attention to industries which are developing, such as the electronics industry, which is providing a whole new range of products, the chemical engineering industry, new plastics and fibres and nuclear engineering and aircraft production. My hon. Friend will, I believe, agree that technological education needs broadening into these new fields as soon as possible.
  696
  We also need academically trained scientists and engineers. How are we to assess the demand for such scientists? This has been discussed for several years. I think that we are in danger of getting things out of proportion and of using a number of phrases which may well be misleading, particularly in using statistics and in international comparisons. Mr. Khrushchev said in the United States on 25th September,
  "We graduate three times as many engineers as you"—
  meaning the United States—
  "and whoever has the knowledge has the future at his feet."
  Allowing for propaganda, international comparisons of this sort may well be misleading, because there is much informed opinion at present to show that in pure science—I repeat, pure science—we are not behind the Russians and the Americans. I draw attention to Professor Jewkes' address last year to the British Association about that; it was another very interesting address, and a very good critical analysis of the whole problem. I think my right hon. Friend knows that it is in technology and applied science that we are behind, and that is our problem.
  The statistics which one sees in certain publications can be very misleading. One difficulty, for instance, is the statement that Russia and the United States have about the same number of qualified engineers but the total industrial output in Russia is lower than in the United States. I do not know that these comparisons are necessarily the best guide. What I do know is that we in this country have to make an all-out effort to produce those who will learn technology and applied sciences for the benefit of our productivity.
  The Committee on Scientific Manpower in Britain found that there exists a definite relationship between the rate of increase of industrial production and the number of trained scientists and engineers one employs, but, again, quality is what matters. I emphasise this theme, which has been emphasised before but cannot be emphasised too often—that it is not the quantity of technologists and engineers which we can produce that counts.
  If, on the assumption of that Committee, we had a 4 per cent. increase

  697
  annually in industrial production until the year 2050, there would then have to be over 5 million scientists and engineers in this country, and I do not believe that that is a realistic figure. Indeed, it is a ridiculous result. I believe that if we go on producing the people of the quality we are now producing we have not very much to fear.
  It seems to me that we need much better criteria for studying the problem and, while accepting the advances in our standard of living which may be brought about through science and technology, we should never speak too much in terms of quantity. In any event, if we are aiming at producing industrial leaders, which is a very important point, it is necessary to look at the need for choosing engineers and technologists who are also capable of administration and management. Some of our firms are running courses on financial and legal subjects and labour relations, and this is an important area of training. The London School of Economics has a one-year course in the general theory and administration of business. Are not these courses of interest to other universities? I should have thought that provincial and other universities would welcome and like to study them.
  We have heard much about the need to increase our exports, and I think that one of the main failures in our salesmanship abroad has been the lack of people who speak an adequate number of foreign languages. We should realise that our competitors expect their salesmen abroad—it could be done through business courses of the kind I am speaking about—to know at least four foreign languages. That is the case in Dutch firms and I believe in German firms, too. Trainees have to be able to write a business letter in four foreign languages. I want to emphasise the importance of languages, which I am sure is one of the keys to the exports problem about which we have all been worried.
  Despite these weaknesses and difficulties, if we can maintain the quality of our industrial scientists, engineers and technicians and increase their numbers in a proportion which does not deprive us of historians, doctors and economists, we shall be in a favourable position to compete. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he said about Commonwealth studies, and I am sure that under
  698
  his lead the Ministry will appreciate these problems and will take note of the very true remark of the right hon. Member for South Shields, that the future greatness and prosperity of this country is bound up with education and technical education in particular will make a great contribution
  5.48 p.m.
  Mr. James Boyden: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) in his very constructive analysis of some of our educational problems, for I want to address myself to some extent to some of the points made by the Minister. I always like to listen to the Minister's disarming manner. Had there been a Tory Government in 1947–48 and had he been Colonial Secretary, I can well imagine that he would have said to Pandit Nehru and Dr. Nkrumah very nice things about their countries but would have ended by saying that it was quite impossible for them to become independent because "you cannot do everything at once". In education, he repeatedly tells public meetings and the House why things cannot be done and why the pace is that which his Government and Chancellor have set.
  I was particularly interested to find that he is asking local authorities to do some research into the problem of part-time teachers. His Government hardly set a good example in the matter of research, for his own Ministry did not know the numbers of the bulge or the number of teachers required for a very long time. The University Grants Committee, which is presumably in close contact with the Chancellor, has had several guesses at the right university population.
  The Minister of Health does not know the number and state of the houses he owns or the state of the tenants. One could go on multiplying these things in education and elsewhere. Very often the Government shut their mind to things which cost money because they do not want to know the facts. From time to time, how many hon. Members have been asking Questions to elicit facts of this nature? This afternoon I asked a Question of the Minister of Labour about the number of boys who wanted to become apprentices. The answer was that the Government did not know. The

  699
  answer was implied that the Government would not take any steps to find out. It is a little odd that the Government should tell local authorities that they must undertake the research.
  It boils down to the fact that the Government are prepared to canter forward only at the pace the Chancellor of the Exchequer sets. The Minister of Education is very well satisfied with that pace. When he told us about the 2,400 students who have failed to gain admission to training colleges this autumn, he said that many of them had not the personal qualities to make teachers. One meets the young men and women who have failed to gain admission, and one knows from these contacts that most of them have the characteristics necessary to make good teachers.
  The brute fact remains that the Minister's policy on the training of teachers has come too late and is too little. The current generation of children—children born in conditions more difficult than those experienced by any children of any time—continue to be frustrated by Tory policy.
  The hon. Member for Abingdon spoke about trained technologists, trained engineers, teachers, physicists, mathematicians, and so on. Over the years every advisory committee dealing with the problem of young men and women has pointed out the deficiencies. For example, in the field of university expansion it is anticipated that 122,000 places will be required in 1962. My guess is—I am in no better position than the Chancellor to state the real position—that there are about 105,000 people at universities this autumn. This means that even to reach the 1962 figure of 122,000 places very great efforts must be made, all the decisions having been already taken. In other words, practically nothing that we do now and nothing we say today will affect the 1962 position.
  The 1963 requirement is estimated to be 131,000, the 1964 requirement 140,000, and the 1965 requirement 145,000. From 1962 to 1965, the period which our discussions today might affect, 23,000 new university places have to be produced. Last year 20,000 first degrees were awarded. In other words, the Government have allowed such a situation to creep up on them that we have almost
  700
  to double the number of new university places in a rush, without devoting adequate thought to it.
  It is all very well for the Minister to say that we cannot do everything at once. The University Grants Committee, the Treasury and the Ministry of Education, are not equipped to plan a university development of this size. They have not the staff. The Vice-Chancellors' Committee is no doubt very worried about this. Its members are excessively busy people. They have a host of problems of their own internal administrations to deal with. How can they possibly set about planning the reconstruction of the British university system? It is about time that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Education got together. They should have done this long ago, worked out lines of development, and provided the staff and the experts to enable the University Grants Committee to grapple with this problem.
  To some extent, the universities rather invite criticism by the leisurely way in which they have been proceeding. I am the last person to criticise university independence in academic fields.
  Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: I bet the hon. Gentleman is not the last.
  Mr. Boyden: The last but one. Universities certainly have a very great responsibility to the public. In these days, 80 per cent. of their revenue comes from the State and 80 per cent. of the students receive State grants. The Ministry of Education and the vice-chancellors of universities must carry the public with them. They must do much more by way of explaining their policies, coming forward with requests to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, indeed, standing up very vigorously to him. If that policy had been adopted more vigorously we probably should not be in this situation. As we are in it, we must face it and tackle the radical building up of new universities.
  The Association of University Teachers, which has prepared a document on this, recommends that five or six new universities should be created as one massive task. The association recommends that, in addition to considerable expansion of existing universities, the whole problem should be planned and carried out as a major operation. There is much to be

  701
  said in favour of this as a means of coping with the problem.
  There has been much discussion about the need to provide residential accommodation in universities, but the stark fact remains that whilst there are more students in colleges and hostels than there were before the war, the proportion remains the same. Rather more than one-quarter are now in colleges and hostels, which is approximately the same percentage as before the war. About one-quarter of the total number of students have moved out of their homes into lodgings. That is hardly a satisfactory way of coping with the residential problem.
  I stress as earnestly as I can that there is a need for all persons concerned with higher education immediately to get down to the problem of planning universities and providing them and the University Grants Committee with the staff and the means to do it.
  I turn now to further education. I noted particularly the Minister's phrase, "The glory of our British system is to give people a second chance". I have spent the last 15 years or so dealing with the type of student who has had to have a second chance. I can tell the Minister that it is very much better to give the student the chance the first time. It is the exceptional boy or girl, who has the necessary guts and encouragement—it is often a matter of encouragement—who will take the second step having failed the first. Very often in the educational world the person of exceptional talent or resistance will get there. The nation's problem is to encourage the average type of student to get there too. It is only by pulling up the average type of student that we can meet the requirements the nation cries out for.
  I could not understand why the Minister was so pleased with the further educaton arrangements. Not long ago the Crowther Committee in paragraph 515 of its Report said that this was
  "an area made dark by unnecessary educational casualties."
  Whilst the Minister perhaps has a right to be proud of the Northampton College of Advanced Technology, one might mention in the same breath this phrase used by the Crowther Committee in paragraph 527 of its Report:
  702
  "Only one student in 11 succeeds in climbing the National Certificate ladder from bottom to top, and only one in 30 does so in the time for which the course was designed."
  Those words prove that there is very different and darker sides to the picture.
  One of the main reasons for it is the incredible apathy which has existed over the last ten years or so. I acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman is beginning to make some progress, but he has to face the apathy of the last ten years. He still does not face it with the resolution we demand.
  Neither is it enough to say that the talent is not there. There is a reference in the Crowther Report to some intelligence tests which were devised to test the native ability of some students who have, as it were, fallen by the wayside. When verbal intelligence tests were used on a group of typical Lancashire students, it was found that only 8 per cent. of the National Certificate candidates and only 1·5 per cent. of those undergoing craft apprenticeships measured up to anything like university standards, but when the intelligence tests were adapted to become non-verbal 40 per cent. of the National Certificate candidates and 12 per cent. of those undergoing craft apprenticeships showed university standards.
  I have a profound belief that far more young people in this country are capable of much more development, and I think that this little piece of research proves it. It is the job of the Minister of Education to do all that he can to get this talent to the surface. My own experience has taught me that, time and time again, a very competent young man or woman of quite exceptional ability does not take the steps required to make educational progress, because of lack of encouragement. I always spent a lot of time as a director of extra-mural studies in getting my staff, both full-time and part-time, to take particular interest in those who were capable of going further, and I always felt that the energy required of the staff for that was well worth while.
  I was dealing with relatively small numbers, but I am quite sure that if throughout the educational world there is a real drive such as that, we will get many more thousands of people able to be trained—and, incidentally, some of the thousands of teachers whom the

  703
  Minister wants. There are within our native resources—many thousands of young men and women who will make teachers, but who have not the orthodox qualifications. In our debate on the Crowther Report I was charged with wanting to dilute the teaching profession. That is not the case at all, but I do want some teachers to be of a different character and quality even though they may not necessarily have the academic qualifications to start with. I am quite sure that, given the right encouragement, they will come forward.
  One of the pieces of smugness in the Minister's saying that all things cannot be done at once is that he thereby helps to lose the dynamic in education. He does not realise that if we have a good adult education system and a big drive in further education the whole educational system is toned up to drive forward. I think that for some time Ministers of Education could be criticised in this sense. It is partly in the nature of organisation that things should be dealt with bit by bit but, returning to the question of not being able to go forward, if there were to be an all-out drive in all fields, and if the Treasury would find the money, the teacher training programme and the university programme would be beneficially affected by it.
  As to my own sphere, I conclude by quoting from the unanimous declaration made at Montreal by the U.N.E.S.C.O. conference on adult education. Those of us who work in that section of education have, for a long time, felt that we have had a raw deal from the Minister. He has been fussing about fees; distracting attention from the real things by trying to force up students' fees. I should like to take him away from that miserly and not very dignified attitude to the conference at Montreal. I will read two paragraphs from the declaration, and I hope that they will touch his heart. The conference declared:
  "In the field of international understanding, adult education in today's divided world takes on a new importance. Provided that man learns to survive, he has in front of him opportunities for social development and personal well-being such as have never been offered to him before."
  I remind the House that this declaration was unanimous—Russians, Americans, Britons and all the other delegates.
  704
  It goes on:
  "We believe that adult education has become of such importance for man's survival and happiness that a new attitude toward it is needed. Nothing less will suffice than that people everywhere should come to accept adult education as a normal—and that Governments should treat it as a necessary—part of the educational provision of every country."
  I am quite sure that if that belief in the necessity for educational development, which goes far beyond the complacent tone of the Minister, is put into our efforts we will be able to achieve the necessary number of teachers, the necessary number of engineers—even the mathematicians and physicists—and be able to look forward to that affluent society that at present is a mockery for far too many people.
  6.5 p.m.
  Mr. John Arbuthnot: The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) implied that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education is going at a leisurely pace in the expansion of education and in the provision for the needs of the young and those who are not so young. He has also implied that the nigger in the woodpile, so to speak, is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and says that it is because we have not sufficient money from the Treasury that we cannot go forward at a faster pace.
  I do not believe that that is the true position at all. The real difficulty about going forward faster lies in this fact. If we divide our population into five equal age groups we find that one age group is still being educated and that another has retired. The earning capacity of the country devolves on the remaining three. The amount that we can spend on education and on retirement pensions depends upon what proportion of their income the three age groups in the middle are prepared to set aside for these purposes.
  If we were to insist on spending very much larger sums on education and on retirement pensions we would find the age groups in the middle saying, "We are not getting the share of the national cake—which we are earning—that we ought to have. We shall therefore, demand more wages." That would put up our cost of living, and we should find ourselves back in the position from which we started, if not in a worse one. What we have to do, if we are to spend more on education and speed up the pace, is to

  705
  persuade the age groups in the middle that they should be prepared to set aside a larger sum for such purposes.
  I listened with the greatest interest to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). Incidentally, I was interested to learn that he intended to vote for the Opposition Amendment. From his speech, I was a little doubtful which way he did intend to vote. What the right hon. Gentleman said, and I agree with him, was that my right hon. Friend's speech established a new social outlook. It foreshadowed further progress, and was a speech that we shall all read again with much benefit.
  My right hon. Friend referred to the way in which he is proposing to set up teacher training colleges in physical proximity to the universities so as to promote a close association between them. Again, I find myself in sympathy with the right hon. Member for South Shields, when he said that there may be a danger of a social divergence between the teacher training college and the university with which it is associated. I sympathise with his view that the teacher training college should be linked more closely than in the purely location sense that my right hon. Friend indicated. I should like to see a closer link-up, through which those at the teacher training college will lead a university life and will emerge with a degree conferred by the university with which their college is associated.
  I was particularly impressed by my right hon. Friend's remark that in these teacher training colleges 60 per cent. of the places will be taken by local authorities and 40 per cent. by the churches. That is a most splendid announcement, because I believe that religious education in the State schools is sadly deficient at present—
  Mr. G. Thomas: How does the hon. Member know?
  Mr. Arbuthnot: If the hon. Gentleman will listen for a little while I will tell him one or two things—
  Mr. Thomas: It is a very impertinent remark.
  Mr. Arbuthnot:—and I will develop the thesis.
  I am not for a moment blaming those who give the religious instruction, because I believe that they have an impossible task. The religious instruction is
  706
  not allowed to be denominational, and I believe that we ought to have a much closer association between the State school system and the Churches.
  The hon. Gentleman asks me what makes me say that religious education in our State schools leaves much to be desired. I will give him an instance from a prize-giving which I attended recently at a secondary modern school for boys. There was a special prize for English; the name of the boy who had won the prize appeared against it. There were special prizes for French and for mathematics. There was an entry for religious knowledge, but there was a complete blank against that subject. No boy had won that prize. There were prizes for carpentry, metal work and other subjects.
  Coming away from the prize-giving with the local rector. I asked him, "Did you notice that there was not a boy's name against the prize for religious knowledge" The rector replied, "Well, I can imagine the purgatory that any small boy would have gone through who had won that prize. It was just as well that it was not awarded". I believe that we do not in our State schools have the link-up with the Churches that we ought, and that much more can be done in this field.
  Mr. G. Thomas: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that for a great proportion of our children today there would be no religious instruction at all if it were not for dedicated day school teachers, and that he is insulting an honourable body of people?
  Mr. William Yates: Withdraw that remark.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: I accept completely the first part of the intervention by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas). What I was trying to say was that there ought to be a greater impetus given to the work of the dedicated body of people who are trying to give religious education.
  Mr. W. Yates: Now perhaps the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) will withdraw.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: Both he and I are on the same side. We want to see a greater amount of religious education in the State schools.
  Mrs. Slater: Does the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) not realise that almost every local authority has met all the Churches in its area, including the Free Church and the Anglican Church, and agreed syllabuses have been drawn up? Religious education in many of our schools does not take the form merely of the morning assembly; it is a subject which is taught, and taught very well. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) that what the hon. Member for Dover said is an insult to the teachers who are doing an extremely good job not only in religious education, but in civics and in the general social training of our children.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: The hon. Lady has got me completely wrong. She and I are both on the same side of the fence, too. I am not saying anything in the least derogatory of the work being done by what the hon. Gentleman rightly referred to as the dedicated body of teachers, but I believe, none the less, that there is scope for a much greater degree of religious education in our State schools.
  I am not unique in this belief by any manner of means. As the House knows, I am not a Roman Catholic, but I think we ought to pay tribute to the Roman Catholics for the sacrifices that they are prepared to make for their religious views. I should like to see that attitude as widespread among other denominations as it is among the Roman Catholics.
  Next I want to refer to the statement that my right hon. Friend made about university scholarships. I am delighted to hear that added impetus is to be given to the founders of scholarships who, in the past, have discovered to their dismay that their scholarships were ineffective and of no use to the boys and girls who earned them because they led to a reduction in the State grant.
  In the past, there has been a deterrent to the awarding of university scholarships by charities, private foundations and others. But it is not only in the universities that this deterrent to private awards applies.
  If one writes to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, as I have done, he says that the wishes of the parents
  708
  concerning their children's education will be observed so far as it is possible to do so. But it does not work out like that and there is a danger that parents are losing control of their children's education.
  I will illustrate the point by mentioning a recent case. A constituent of mine who, had it not been for his war service, would now probably have been one of the top captains of a leading passenger line, had a gallant war record. He served on a frigate, which was sunk. He was crushed under some steel plating and he was the only person who survived from the bridge. He was never the same man after that occurrence. He came out of the Navy and, instead of finding himself as one of the top captains of this line, in which he would have drawn a salary of at least £3,000 a year, he had to accept a job worth £1,200 a year.
  Earlier this year that man died, never having recovered his full health since his war experiences. He left a widow with practically no money of her own and with three children. Two of those children were at a boys' public school and the third was at a girls' equivalent. Naturally, the widow looked round to see where she could raise the money to help her to continue the children's education. She went to a number of charitable foundations, and the first thing that these charitable bodies asked was, "What is the local education authority doing to help? "The answer was that the local education authority was doing nothing about it except for being prepared to offer a place in a grammar school and to pay the public school fees for the term's education on which the children had already embarked. "But," said the Kent County Council, "the amount we are prepared to pay for the last term's education will be reduced by any amount that may be forthcoming from any charitable grant that may be available to you."
  That is the attitude adopted by the Kent education authority: it is entirely different from the attitude adopted by several other local authorities to my knowledge, including Huntingdonshire. The headmaster of the public school said, of the elder boy, "This boy has only a year more to do. It would be a mistake to take him away." The same

  709
  headmaster said of the younger boy, "This boy is extremely bright. It would be a tragedy to interrupt his education now."
  It is a great deterrent to charitable trusts and other foundations which are prepared to award scholarships or grants if education authorities can nullify their effect. I do not want uniformity to be enforced as between one county and another, but something should be done to ensure that when a scholarship is given the full amount should be awarded without its being possible for a local education authority to take away the effective help which the donor intended to make available.
  By taking away from local authorities the power of nullifying scholarships and grants, we can do much more to encourage the diversification of our education. We are today in danger, however excellent the State education service may be, of allowing parents' wishes to be steamrollered by the juggernaut of the State scheme. We are in danger of allowing children to be pressed into the State's straitjacket which is in three sizes—the grammar school, the technical school and the secondary modern school. We can get away from that and allow greater diversification, and in my view we should.
  I want, finally, to refer to a gulf which is appearing between the town dweller and countryman. I am very conscious, seeing a number of town boys and girls who go to camp in country areas, that the town dweller does not even know how the country dweller lives. I often give such children a lift when I am going into Dover. They usually come to camp towards the end of the summer, when the crops are ripening. I am apt to ask them questions about wheat and barley and oats. The majority of them do not have a clue about the difference between wheat, barley and oats. We stop and pick an ear of wheat, an ear of barley, an ear of oats and, at any rate, that helps towards a greater education in country things.
  In that respect, I commend that passage in the Gracious Speech which says that the Government
  "will continue to encourage the expansion of the Youth Service …"
  I believe that one of the most valuable educating, agencies which exists today are to be found in the work being done
  710
  by the Boy Scout and Girl Guide movements. They provide a much wider horizon to all those boys and girls who join them, and deserve all the support we can give them.
  6.23 p.m.
  Mr. William Hannan: The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) introduced an ingenious argument at the beginning of his speech when he spoke of groups within society which would be warring with one another about how much was to be spent on education. It became obvious that the hon. Member did not understand the circumstances in which many of the people, represented by hon. Members on both sides of the House, have to scrape and work their way through university, making the best of the opportunities afforded to them. Even if the example which the hon. Member quoted, of his constituent who had found herself with an income of £1,200 a year and with three of her family—
  Mr. Arbuthnot: The hon. Member got me wrong. The income of the father before he died was £1,200. He could perfectly well manage on that, but the income of his widow was negligible.
  Mr. Hannan: I cannot see that it was negligible. It was at least as much as that of many other people who have to live in the same sad circumstances. I presume that the local authority of which he spoke was a Tory local authority, but it seemed to me that in the circumstances, even under the Ministry's own regulations, the hon. Member's constituent was having to do no more than many other people have to do in the same circumstances. What he seemed to be arguing for was the expenditure of more public money and, if that is his argument, we can agree that much more needs to be done for public education.
  I hope the House will forgive me for introducing two or three Scottish aspects. I do so not in a narrow nationalist sense, but because this is a United Kingdom debate and because the Secretary of State for Scotland is present. I hope that some of these comments will be of general interest as they apply equally well south of the Border.
  For instance, wastage, especially in the universities, has been mentioned. We have had great difficulty about getting

  711
  information from Ministers of Education on this subject. The Minister is not responsible for the universities, but, strangely enough, in the Report on Measures to Improve the Supply of Teachers in Scotland, Cmnd. 644, some of the figures were tendered to the Secretary of State as evidence of steps which should be taken to produce more teachers and to deal with the wastage of first year students at universities.
  This is a problem which has given rise to considerable perturbation. On page 13, the Report shows that in Scotland the percentage wastage of first-year students in universities is as high as 22 in arts and 24 in pure science. In Glasgow University it was 25 per cent. in arts and 29 per cent. in pure science.
  One would have thought that those figures would have been high enough to have proved that the universities themselves have been rather lax in these matters and that they should have taken steps to deal with them long ago. What is the Secretary of State doing to rectify the matter and, if the standard of the average student is to be improved and more people are to be encouraged to stay at the university, what is the Secretary of State doing about providing a fifth university in Scotland?
  In order to encourage some young people to get over the difficulty of first-year tutelage in universities, the Appleton Committee on the Supply of Teachers of Mathematics and Science in Scotland as long ago as 1955 suggested that something should be done about providing them with tutorial assistance. It is one of the attributes of Oxford and Cambridge universities that, perhaps more than others, they provide such assistance together with residential accommodation, but in Scotland nothing has been done about that very important recommendation.
  After all, our young people who go from senior secondary schools in Scotland and from grammar schools in England and Wales to university find themselves in a completely new atmosphere, no longer in intimate touch with their teachers. This is particularly so in Scotland. I understand that students entering university find themselves for the first time in classes which are more like mass meetings. Will it be denied that, in some
  712
  cases, there are 100 or 200 students at a class and that they receive no more than the skeleton of the lecture and have no personal advice, in many instances? They are left on their own hook, if I may use a colloquialism.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland has had plenty of warnings. If the Minister's statement today is to be taken as symptomatic of what the Secretary of State for Scotland will say in reply later, we shall not accept it. The terms of the Amendment seem to be more merited than ever in the light of the Minister's speech today.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland had a Report in 1951 on the shortage of teachers. He had a Report in 1953, another Report in March, 1955, another one in June, 1957, and now the present one, on which he has not yet come to any decision in regard to the recruitment of teachers or the suggestions which have been made. He has acted on two of the Reports, but there are others on which he has not yet acted at all. Having regard to the bulge which will come to its peak in two years, we say quite definitely that the seriousness of the situation and the great need to meet the coming emergency has been disregarded.
  I come now to the subject of technical education. During the weekend I read in the Glasgow Herald of 5th November a report of what the Minister of State, who is the principal propaganda officer for the present Government in Scotland, had to say. He said that in 1956 the Government had announced a major expansion of technical education. But that was not all. Last year, he said, when the 1956 programme was under way, the Secretary of State announced a second programme for 1961–64 of £6 million. The Government had already approved proposals to spend £151 million, which provided for 19 new local colleges.
  That is just a regurgitation of things which have happened in the past five years. What are the facts now? The Glasgow Herald in its leader gave the answer:
  "Unfortunately this steep rise in the provision of such colleges does not necessarily mean that there has been a sudden awakening to the need. It is merely that 1961 is the last year of the Government's £10 million programme launched in 1956, and all the projects are crowding into the tail end. Much of the new building should have been in use now"

  713
  The proof can be found in the Scottish Education Department's own pamphlet, "The Structure of Vocational Further Education", in which in Appendix A are listed several of the projects. Out of 34, only four have been completed and five are now under construction. What about the others? If the Government run into further economic difficulties, shall we have more rises in the Bank Rate, and will local authorities be subjected to indecision and lack of planning and so that even the programme which is to start only in 1960 will be imperilled?
  I will give the House the circumstances of the rest of the 34. Ten have plans approved but tenders have not yet been submitted. One has plans approved and the tenders are under consideration. Four have plans under consideration. Seven have accommodation approved but the plans have not yet been submitted. One has plans approved and tenders approved, and two have accommodation proposals under consideration.
  The Government's case, of course, is that there have been interminable delays and lack of co-operation on the part of local authorities. This is not true. Glasgow Corporation particularly has been most anxious to go ahead. Will the Secretary of State deny that negotiations for a new college at Kilmarnock have been going on since the days of the Labour Government, and it is to be started only next year? How can that delay of nine years be explained away? After all, it is this Government who have been in power all the time.
  My hon. Friend the Member far Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) was quite right to say that it is now generally accepted that Britain's fate in the future depends upon our attitude to the new scientific and technological age. If what we do is to be worthy of the British people, there must be a greater sense of urgency and a revolution in our approach to these matters. The day when the white collar and black coat were thought to be more respectable than the slide rule and the dungarees has gone. This is accepted. Professor Galbraith summed it up in the cryptic sentence, "Either we learn mathematics and physics—or Russian". That is the issue. If we are really sincere, we must apply
  714
  ourselves with greater urgency and authority to what we have to do.
  The Minister of Education referred today to a new programme for technical education. He said that we needed to have the fairways clear. With that remark I certainly agree. The course for the pupil at grammar school is quite clear right up to university. In Scotland it is quite clear from the primary school and the secondary school right up to university or central institution. It is with the young people in the modern secondary school, the technical school and junior secondary school in Scotland that many of us in the House are primarily concerned. They constitute the 70 to 80 per cent. of the population who, in later life, will be miners, skilled craftsmen, car makers, builders, engineers, engine drivers—the people on whom we depend for success in the export market. Unless we are behind this great army of people—I would call them the forgotten army—in our efforts, we shall fail. It is to these young people that we must address our attention.
  There must be a greater provision of facilities at local level. I take the view that the real question is not whether we should compulsorily raise the school-leaving age to 16, but how best can we make education so attractive that boys and girls will remain at school until 16 and will want to do so? They should, out of a satisfaction in their own instruction at school, really desire to apply themselves with zest and zeal to the things which interest them so that they continue to a later age. But this, of course, requires the provision of courses.
  Before lauding the Government's suggested programme, I shall await with interest an indication of what will be done in fact. It is one thing to hear Ministers make statements like those we heard this afternoon. It is another to experience the outcome of them in reality. Young people at junior secondary schools learning mathematics and science are inclined to ask themselves what use those subjects have for them. In technical colleges they will be able better to associate such subjects with the realities of life. The Crowther Report itself says that we should raise the school leaving age to 16; but, as I say, I doubt that that is the real question. We must break the barrier between the senior

  715
  secondary schools and the junior secondary schools.
  Even at the age of 13 or 14 our young people, without impinging on the normal educational facilities, should have the right to be taken outside school to see what the workaday world is like and in that way have their interest aroused.
  There is tremendous wastage even in evening classes. There is wastage in our day release classes. This proves that there is need for these radical improvements. If wastage is defined as failure to gain a certain certificate and a recognised qualification 70 per cent. of our young people in evening classes fail in their third year and 90 per cent. fail in their fifth year to gain their City and Guilds certificates. The Crowther Report, dealing with this very aspect against the background of the nation's need of trained manpower, says that these wastage rates are shocking.
  There is wastage also in the evening class system. It is true that the day-release system has better results, but even those who are in favour of that system have to give way to the block release in which for six, eight or ten weeks the young people are released. In an east of Scotland technical college, for example, 18 per cent. of the students gained the ordinary certificate by evening class studies but 33 per cent. gained the same certificate on day release. The comparable figures of the Crowther Report are 19 per cent. for evening classes and 29 per cent. on day release.
  Earlier today, one hon. Member mentioned that not sufficient young people were being allowed off on day release. If the situation is bad in England and Wales, it is certainly much worse in Scotland. Let me quote some comparisons. In the chemical and allied industries, for example, whereas England and Wales 60·5 per cent. of the young people engaged in these industries are allowed off on day release, the figure in Scotland is only 9 per cent. In the engineering and electrical goods industries, the figures are 61·3 per cent. in England and Wales and 47 per cent. in Scotland; in construction, in England and Wales 47·6 per cent. and in Scotland only 22 per cent. In shipbuilding and marine engineering,
  716
  which are basic industries to Scotland, the Scottish figure is 19 per cent. but in England and Wales it is 41·3 per cent. These comparisons are shocking. They show the great need that exists and the responsibility that rests with the Secretary of State.
  It is not sufficient to say that this is a matter for industry only. Today, the Minister of Education has half admitted, at least, that the Government are considering a change in this aspect. He said that the Carr Report has been debated and that while the Carr Committee came to the conclusion that it was still a matter for industry, the Government have been inclined to have second thoughts. I hope that they have had them and I hope that they will now plan and take the initiative in this matter in order to help.
  It is not sufficient for the Government to say that they are spending so much money now compared with what they were spending a few years ago or to say what they are spending in comparison with the days of the Labour Government. That argument is as dead as the dodo. [Interruption.] If hon. Members provoke me, I should like to take them through the figures, but whether they are figures based on U.N.E.S.C.O., whether the comparison is made with Russia or even with the time that the Crowther Report was prepared, it will be shown that we are spending less per head of the population on education than some other countries. This argument is the main one and I am glad that my hon. Friends have put down the Amendment, which I have the greatest pleasure in supporting.
  6.45 p.m.
  Miss Harvie Anderson: In the short time which is available to me, I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) in detail. Since, however, he has quoted the White Paper of which I am part-author, I am glad to happen to have in my hand the more recent figures for teacher training in Scotland. It is a subject in which the Government can be congratulated when we realise that there are now in training in Scotland 4,900 students, a figure which is 30 per cent. higher than in 1957.

  717
  I welcome the opportunity of taking part in this debate, because it is particularly appropriate that in this, the quarter-centenary of the Reformation, John Knox's ideal of an educational highway leading from the primary school to the university along which any child of ability can travel, irrespective of its parents' economic circumstances, has almost been realised. I emphasise "almost" No one should enter this House with undue optimism of moving mountains, but four centuries is a long time.
  Today, I should like to say four things. First, I agree with the right hon. Membere for South Shields (Mr. Ede) in wholehearted support for the main recommendation of the Anderson Committee that university education should be free for all those with ability to benefit. This is clearly the enactment at last of the principle announced four centuries ago and I recognise the logic today of including all full-time further education for a first degree or diploma, which, as my right hon. Friend the Minister has said, I believe it is possible to define.
  I take that view because we do not know how many children are prevented from attending university by the parental means test in its present form. Such evidence as there is suggests that some sections of the community are certainly handicapped, including the larger families of professors, to which the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) referred earlier, school teachers and other professional people. Thus, it appears that some able pupils are left out. This is something that the nation cannot afford.
  Moreover, believing that men and women are roughly of equal average intelligence, and before this House I will not venture to put it higher, it is an interesting fact that the university population today comprises 75 per cent. male students and 25 per cent. female. I believe that this ratio is as connected with the economic consideration as with the early marriage age. While 6 per cent. is the accepted figure of school leavers who at present have the necessary qualifications for full-time further education, it is generally accepted that 11 per cent. of all school leavers could reach this level. This is something which we all want to happen.
  718
  That raises the question of university places, to which reference has already been made. Earlier this afternoon the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) spoke on this point. I should like to refer to his Question of 25th October, when he asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
  "how many applicants possessing the necessary qualifications for admission to a British university have not been accepted for a university place this autumn."
  The reply from the Chancellor of the Exchequer was:
  "This information is not available".[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th October, 1960; Vol. 627, c. 2126.]
  In view of the serious nature of the problem, the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland asked that that information should be obtained and the situation kept under review. I would hope that this would be done, because I think that this is a view which deserves the support of the whole House. It is already well known that the system as it stands at present requires a multiplicity of applications from one student to several universities, and this makes it well-nigh impossible to discover the answer to the question which the hon. Member asked.
  Lack of information on this point seems almost as surprising as another aspect which has not been referred to today, but was referred to some few years ago—I think, in a Question in this House—when figures were revealed at that date, I think 1955, showing that 2,500 places in British universities were at that moment vacant. I do not know what the most recent figure available about this is, but I think that it is one which, in this debate, is relevant and would be of interest to many of us.
  As we know, in 1938 there was a university population of approximately 50,000—that is, of full-time students. We also know that today there is a university population of full-time students of approximately 100,000. By 1970, we are told by the University Grants Committee, that there will be 25 per cent. more university places and twice as many 17-year-olds. We have already heard and discussed today the possibility of having to provide from 170,000 to 175,000 university places, which would assume that all those with the ability to acquire entrance standards would be accepted. This

  719
  picture, to me at any rate, raises considerable doubts. For a moment or two I should like to put forward one or two.
  Does this figure, this huge figure of 170,000 and upwards, match the additional ability available? Is there a danger of dilution in the assumption that there shall be a greatly increased university education in this way? Where will the lowering of standards come? Will the intellectual freedom of the universities be assured? In fact, to what extent is it proposed to expand the existing institutions?
  There are, we all know, 21 universities and colleges under the University Grants Committee at present, and this surely raises the question of whether these are being profitably used. To consider that I should like to turn for my third point, which has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Maryhill, namely, the question of wastage.
  I want to refer to this in relation to full-time education only, but I should like to point out that very little research has been done on this subject, yet I believe it to be doubly important since many failures are extremely difficult to fit in to non-graduate employment. I hesitate to use the phrase here, but over the years in Scotland we have referred to these students for some reason or another as "stickit Meenisters". It is not, perhaps, a very happy phrase to use in this House, and my consolation is that there are not here many Scots who recognise its significance. I think that the failure rate must, therefore, be judged by those who got stuck half-way through their career and have to be re-established in less lucrative and less attractive positions, as well as by wastage of actual university places.
  The research which has been carried out at Liverpool by Sir James Mount-ford; at University College, London, by Dr. Malleson and by the University Grants Committee itself reveals an agreed overall wastage of about 17 per cent. Dr. Douglas MacIntosh, with whom I had the honour to work, has made a very detailed analysis in Fife of those students, holding bursaries, and one of the interesting things there is that the failure rate of over 16 per cent., which is similar to that shown by the other researches, is after the resit in September
  720
  of the June examinations, but that would suggest a much more serious difficulty as a result of the June examinations. I think that anybody interested in education at all is aware of the difficulties imposed by this resit, and also of the damaging effect it has on a first-year student.
  I have no desire today to go into detail which I think is very relevant to the discussion, as revealed very strongly in a 38 per cent. failure rate in science faculty as compared with a 10 per cent. failure rate in the arts faculty. This has been referred to casually by one or two others, but it is obviously a matter which should be of primary concern. This failure rate represents a waste of public money which, overall, amounts to a considerable sum and it is a matter on which I hope my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench will consider, and that education authorities would welcome a full-scale inquiry, because although I think that the universities obviously have their individual records, these have long been regarded as confidential, and I think that, perhaps, we are agreed that this, in the main, is rightly so.
  This brings me to my last point, which is value for money. Increased expenditure on education will be universally welcomed, but it will be welcomed only if the money is well spent. Of the anticipated increase in the number of students, how many should receive this training in universities, bearing in mind—and I am surprised, if I may say so, that no mention has been made of this during the debate so far—that the universities have a major commitment in research? If we are to maintain and enable them to maintain their position as leaders in the pursuit of knowledge and in research, then we must safeguard them against over-expansion. Should, therefore the three colleges included for the University Grants Committee grants at present receive university status? In Scotland, the Royal College of Science and Technology is most highly regarded and there is a strong case for its recognition. To what extent should technical colleges be developed?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) referred to the apprentice training scheme. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility to link up a national apprenticeship training scheme with a technical college In other

  721
  words, I want to see the ladder everywhere, and I think that if we apply the recommendations of the Carr Report and try to develop a national apprentice training scheme we can provide the means of linking them.
  I have expressed doubts as to the wisdom of greatly increasing the size of universities. I am concerned, as other hon. Members have shown themselves to be, that there has not been a greater growth in residential accommodation made available in recent years. I believe that this will shelter the student from the stress of travelling, which has often been forgotten or underestimated. Undoubtedly, it would provide a better environment and, most important of all, it would provide opportunity for the interchange of ideas and ideals which are well-nigh denied to the travelling student at present.
  Assuming for the moment that three new universities are desirable and necessary—and there are recommendations as reported by the University Grants Committee for new institutions at Norwich and York. I should like to see a recommendation for a University of Inverness. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give great thought to this possibility. I am aware that universities cost money, but I make this suggestion after a good deal of consideration and not as a bright idea which has struck me a few hours before this debate.
  I have felt for a long time that one of the remarkable features in the present-day life of our Scottish universities is the keen competition from students south of the Border to come into them, but there is no doubt that the atmosphere provided by our four Scottish universities, with their long and ancient traditions, has been something which is not offered readily elsewhere other than in Oxford or Cambridge.
  It has long been accepted in Scotland and in Great Britain generally that these ancient seats of learning were established and recognised as necessary many centuries before other parts of Great Britain recognised the necessity for this form of education. It is because we have been conscious in the debate today that we are in a century of ever-widening educational opportunity that I think it is appropriate that on both sides of the House we might seriously consider the
  722
  establishment of new universities, and I hope that we shall include as the fifth in Scotland a University of Inverness.
  7.2 p.m.
  Mr. George Thomas: The hon. Lady the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) never addresses the House without giving us something worth hearing. I am deeply grateful for the contribution that she has made, although we are debating a Motion of censure and we shall be voting against the Department and the Government tonight.
  I warmly agree with the hon. Lady's proposal that there should be another university to educate the Scots. I thought that, if anything, the hon. Lady over-gilded the lily when she claimed that the Scots were so far in advance of the people of the rest of these islands in education after my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) had given those dire, striking and terrifying figures of failure in the first year—though no doubt similar figures could be produced from other parts of the country.
  The Minister covered a very wide area in his speech. I was hoping that, in view of his major headache in seeking to recruit a sufficient number of teachers in the 1960s, the right hon. Gentleman would have paid tribute to the teaching profession and would have said that he not only invites its co-operation, but that he has had it in a striking manner. The recent conference on culture and mass media which was organised by the National Union of Teachers has been just one of many ways in which the teaching profession itself has been labouring to make the nation education conscious. Unless we can get the general public keen about and conscious of the need to improve and expand the education services the Minister cannot hope to solve the problems to which he has referred.
  Before I go on to express views of my own, I should like to refer to what has been said by the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) about the inadequate amount of religious instruction in our day schools. I do not want to do the hon. Member a disservice, although I am always quick to defend my colleagues who still labour in the schools. I believe that we would deteriorate within a decade into a nation of near-barbarians were it not for our day

  723
  schools. I believe that the House cannot measure the debt that it owes to our teachers. That is why I am sensitive when I hear these criticisms that not enough is being done in cur day schools when, in fact, we ought to be almost fulsome in our gratitude for and appreciation of what has been done.
  Since 1945 we have been engaged in the House in a battle of priorities in education. Even as we enter into the prosperous 1960s, in a period of expansion, priorities, quite clearly, are still of the first importance. What is our overall aim during the next decade and a half, which is as far ahead as we can reasonably see and estimate? I believe that it is to increase the number of qualified young people without reducing the quality. We want a two-dimensional expansion of the education service—an expansion in quality and an expansion in quantity.
  First, I would refer to quality. I believe that there are certain facts given in the various Reports which ought to be disturbing us all. Mediocrity is still able to buy its opportunities within our education service. To get to Oxford or Cambridge it is still a tremendous advantage if a student has been to a public school first. The figures speak for themselves. At Cambridge, 55 per cent. of all students admitted in 1955 came from the Headmasters' Conference independent schools, another 10 per cent. came from the direct grant schools, and 25 per cent. came from grammar schools. These are the latest figures in Principal Brinley Thomas's minority Report to the Anderson Report.
  This is by no means a reflection of the fact that there is greater talent in the public schools. I do not believe that the greater gifts are the perquisite of those privileged individuals who enjoy a public school education. I have had the opportunity during the past few weeks to visit several Methodic public schools. They are all of a very high and worth-while quality and the people who get their boys and girls into them are fortunate, but I seek only to point out to the House that privilege is still available to the wealthy.
  This problem reveals the fact that the length of school life for the great majority of our young people is inadequate. One out of every three of the
  724
  17-year-olds in our schools today is in a public school, and the public schools have one-quarter, or one out of every four among those who are recruited for places in the universities. Does anyone in the House believe that merit alone justifies these figures? At Cambridge, where 55 per cent. of the admissions came from independent schools, only 10 per cent. of those admissions took a first, whilst of those admitted from grammar schools 18 per cent. took a first.
  We ought to be looking very seriously at the fact that so great a proportion of our 17-year-olds are leaving school and not even thinking of taking their places in the universities, and that 92 out of 100 of our 18-year-olds abandon full-time further education. Of the young people, the teen-agers, 87 out of a 100 abandon the idea when they are 17 years of age. I believe that these are striking figures. They show that there is disturbing evidence that all is not well with the educational world, though we might well have gathered otherwise from the languid air of the Minister as he moved from one subject to another this afternoon.
  Recruitment for our universities and training colleges ought surely to be from the best talents available in the nation. It ought to be the basis on which we shall build in the 1960s. Mr. R. K. Kelsall, who was commissioned by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals in 1957 to report on education at the universities, pointed out that only 66 per cent. of the top intelligence group admitted to our maintained grammar schools are the sons and daughters of manual workers. As we reach the end of the maintained grammar school period, only 47 per cent. of them are still there, and when it comes to the universities only 26 per cent. of them find their places in a university.
  I do not suppose that anybody, not even the most reactionary Member in the House, will suggest that intelligence is lower in the children of manual workers than it is in those of the professional classes. We know that talent is being lost, and we ought to address ourselves to the question of why it is being lost and what we can do to put this matter right.
  In the Crowther Report, we were reminded, on page 8 and in Table 2, that the age of youngsters leaving school

  725
  varies according to income of the family. In the case of the professional classes, 34 per cent. are still there at 18 years of age, among children of the clerical and non-manual workers 10 per cent. are still there, and the figures for other classes are: skilled workers 4 per cent., semi-skilled 2 per cent., and unskilled 1 per cent. Nine times out of ten, the unskilled are also the lower-wage earners. We cannot talk about full opportunity in our universities and colleges if we are not making it possible for more youngsters to stay at the secondary grammar schools until they are 17 and 18, which means that the question of maintenance allowances in the secondary grammar schools is of higher importance than removing the means test from those going to the colleges or universities.
  Whose problem will be solved when we abolish the means test? I am all in favour of making its abolition our ultimate aim, but it is the better-off people who will be relieved. Everybody on the other side of the House knows that. Who are the people who would benefit if we dealt first of all with adequate maintenance allowances in the secondary grammar schools? We should, at one blow, enable a vast army of young people with gifts and talents to stay in school longer and qualify for the universities.
  It is quite true that inequality of opportunity still decides who gets into the colleges, and, in particular, into Oxford and Cambridge, which, with the University of London, take more than 50 per cent. of all the university students in Scotland, England, Wales and Ireland. We fool ourselves if we pretend that we have reached a happy millenium when there is a broad highway for the children of workers from the infants' school right through to the university. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member the Lady for Renfrew, East, but John Knox and she will have to wait a little longer.
  Quite clearly, there is a vast army of youngsters who are leaving our secondary modern schools because of economic pressure. Affluent society or not, there are still working families who take away gifted youngsters who ought to be kept at school with the help of the Ministry—help which they would have in other places. I say that the Minister should give priority to increased maintenance allowances for sixth-formers in our
  726
  secondary modern schools before tackling this problem of the means test, for it is the wealthier people who are affected when their sons and daughters gain scholarships and are unable to benefit by them.
  If it is a battle between the one and the other, I know on which side I should come down, but I do not think that it is a battle. I like to think that education in these islands shall be free, and that the taxpayer will take the responsibility of giving to everyone a full opportunity, but we all know that with the present dichotomy in our education service, and with a private, privileged sector, there cannot be, this equality, unless the Government are prepared to alter their attitude on this fundamental question.
  It is significant that one out of every four boys who last year obtained an A-level certificate did not go to a university, nor to a training college, nor to any other form of full-time education. There is a leakage here that should be stopped, and the Minister ought to look for the reason. To be in the field of competition for public awards for university scholarships, bursarships and open awards, young people need to stay in school until they are 17 or 18. Last year, the proportion of 17-year-old students still at school in grant-aided and recognised schools was 11·4 per cent., an increase since 1956 of 2 per cent. There is something wrong with our priorities, or this figure would be substantially altered.
  Before I turn to the subject of the recruitment of teachers, I want to make one other point on the subject of secondary grammar school students having full equality of opportunity with those at the public schools. I do not suppose that there is any hon. Member in the House who would say openly that the facilities of the secondary grammar schools should be less than those of a public school. After all, the national asset is our young people, never mind the type of school from which they come. I do not want to close the public schools. They have got something obviously good, and if I had a son—well, I have not got a son, and there we are.
  Mr. Farey-Jones: There is still time.
  Mr. Thomas: I see that the hon. Member is not in need of any education.

  727
  I want to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the Report issued by the Association of Teachers in Science, in 1959, pointed out that the percentage of schools in which accommodation for science teaching is adequate is: local education authorities, 45 per cent.; direct grant, 84 per cent. and independent schools—the public schools, which hon. Gentlemen opposite know so well, and also one or two of my right hon. and hon. Friends—84 per cent. I am only too pleased about these figures, but we have a long way to go to bring our secondary grammar schools up to the standards of those schools. To talk about equality of opportunity while people are able to buy their way into the private sector and thus get into Cambridge or Oxford over the heads of the children of railway workers, miners or farm workers, is objectionable.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) uttered a warning note to the Minister about State scholarships, which have been marking time at 1,850 since 1952. We shall want to know from the Minister what he proposes to do to increase the opportunities for teen-agers who would benefit by education in universities and colleges.
  I now turn to the recruitment of teachers and the question of the training colleges. I was fortunate that I had my training as a teacher at Southampton University College. It is now a full university. This meant that I was freed from the niggardly, narrow discipline which prevailed in so many training colleges before the war. I hope that with the advent of the three-year period of training there will be a new attitude altogether to the dignity and the status of teachers in their training. It is no good trying to treat them as children when they have to be adults leading young people into a fuller life in the community. I hope that the training colleges will be linked more and more closely with the universities. I know that that is the Minister's aim. He said so today, and he has said so previously, and I entirely agree with that aim.
  But the recruitment of teachers is more than an academic problem. The Minister will have to bear in mind that, although we want the right type of person to be recruited—people with a
  728
  sense of vocation who know that to handle other people's children is a great privilege and responsibility—although we want to draw into the ranks of the teaching profession those who will never let these high standards down, we have none the less to bear in mind that, if we are to recruit, the profession must be made to look more attractive.
  The Minister knows that there are two questions about which the teaching profession today is unhappy and, indeed, is deeply stirred—at least, in England and Wales. I am not sure what the arrangements are in Scotland. One relates to widows' and orphans' pensions—the fact that if a teacher of 50 years of age is stricken down and dies there is nothing at all for his widow and children. The fact that there is nothing for teachers comparable with what the police, civil servants, or workers in the nationalised industries are entitled to is a standing disgrace to the country.
  It is high time the Minister showed some initiative in getting local authorities, who appear to be more forthcoming than he is, to agree to talks on a scheme to give social security to the teaching profession, for professional status surely involves social security for the dependants of those who fall by the wayside.
  Teachers are citizens and we deny ourselves a great deal by not allowing them to play their full part in local government. To handicap a community by stopping keen, progressive school masters and school mistresses from sharing in this part of our democratic life is a foolish, shortsighted policy to pursue. The Minister could introduce the necessary legislation to put this right.
  We look to the 1960s with hope. We all have our own ideals for Britain, which means much to all of us, on whichever side of the House we sit. However, I am convinced that all that the Minister has said this afternoon will remain idle words unless he can infuse into the education service a greater sense of equality of opportunity for the 17-year-olds from the cottage and the farm as for those who come from the more cushioned sectors of our society.
  7.27 p.m.
  Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I welcome the opportunity to take part in this extremely important debate. I am particularly glad to have

  729
  the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas). I am sorry in a way that he has gone to such an extent to attack what one might call the public school entry into the university. During his speech he was completely obsessed by Oxford and Cambridge, so much so that we did not hear a word about the University of Wales, a very fine institution, as I know from the time when I was working in Wales. There one gets just as much opportunity as one does at Oxford or Cambridge.
  I, too, want to see—I am sure we all do—equality of opportunity for everybody, no matter from what home they come. I want to see all able to go through the primary and secondary schools to the university if their talent shows that they can cope with what they will have to learn and do when they get there. However it is quite untrue to imply that boys and girls going to Oxford and Cambridge go there without taking an entrance examination. The scholarships are completely open to all to take, and there is no bias on one side or the other. No one enters the university without taking an examination.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Cardiff, West that at the moment the figures are weighted towards the public schools. The reason obviously is that one stays at the public schools longer; the opportunity is there at the moment. But the hon. Gentleman must know, as we all do, that what we are trying to do is to increase the educational standards and opportunities in all our schools. If we are to change priorities now, not only shall we—as the hon. Gentleman would advocate—have to give more grant maintenance but we shall also have to increase the number of teachers in order to cope with the extra children for the extra time. Obviously, we cannot do that at the moment because there just are not enough teachers available.
  My right hon. Friend has put in train in this last year the most enormously expanded teacher-training programme. As he showed today, in time that will bear the results which the hon. Member wants. It will take time for these trainees to come through and be able to take their places as teachers in secondary schools.
  Dr. Horace King: The hon. Gentleman said that
  730
  public schoolboys and State grammar school boys compete on equal terms for open scholarships to Oxford and Cambridge. How does he deal with the simple fact that every public school has closed colleges for which only boys from that school can sit and for which the whole of the State grammar school population is debarred from sitting?
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: As the hon. Gentleman said, I was talking of open scholarships. I agree that I did not mention closed scholarships. They go back several hundreds of years, as he knows. I do not see anything wrong in that. They exist and there is a form of entry to them if the necessary standard of scholarship is attained. The amount of State scholarships has increased hugely in recent year and they are open to all, no matter where the entrants come from.
  Mr. W. Yates: The hon. Member for Southampton. Itchen (Dr. King) said that pupils from grammar schools were de-barred from sitting. How does he account for the closed scholarship between Appleby Grammar School and Queen's College, Oxford?
  Mr. Scott Hopkins: I am sure that if my hon. Friend catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, he will be able to clear up that point. No matter on which side of die House we sit, even if afflicted with a certain amount of prejudice—as I think the hon. Member for Cardiff, West was during part of his speech—we are most certainly very anxious that all children, no matter where they come from, should have the very best of opportunities.
  Mr. G. Thomas: I was making a case for getting the same length of school life for the mass of working children as for those Who go to public schools. That was the burden of my case.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I understood the hon. Gentleman's case clearly. In my view, as soon as we can get the additional teachers through the training colleges—and that is my right hon. Friend's aim—and have, in time, brought classes down to a reasonable size, I am quite certain we shall attack the length of time that boys and girls can stay in school if they so desire and have the ability. Let us not be misled—they must have the ability and the wish to stay on, otherwise it is a

  731
  complete waste of time for both child and teacher.
  I agree with the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, that we all want to see the very best. In recent years, particularly in the last year, a tremendous advance has been made. I do not want to weary the House by quoting figures of the amount of school places built, but it has been particularly striking in the industrial areas, in our cities and in our urban areas. There has been, in those areas, a tremendous amount of progress not only in primary but in secondary education, where the bulge has been coped with in primary education and has gone on to the secondary school stage.
  The problem has also been coped with in further education—or industrial education, if one prefers that name. It is progressing satisfactorily. I was attracted by the idea put forward by my right hon. Friend in saying that apprentices should have the right to go to day school if they so wished. It is a very sound idea, but once again I hope that it will be extended not only to children in industrial areas but also to those in the rural areas.
  Although progress has been very considerable in built-up areas, it has not been so good and has been weighted against us in the rural areas to a certain extent. We are not exactly playing Cinderella, but our clothes have been a bit tatty in comparison with our more beauteous sisters in the cities. In my own county of Cornwall, which I know better than elsewhere, and which serves well as an example of a rural area, we have all the problems with which we are all familiar—under-employment and youths going away when well educated. We have a particular problem there, because apart from two spurts in education—in 1870 and 1901, when the education committee at that time took a tremendous leap forward and built many schools—there was not very much advance between 1901 and 1945.
  Then, when the 1944 Act began to come into effect, in Cornwall we did not start to gear up to the new tempo as quickly as some of us wished. Our first post-war primary school was built in 1950, and the first secondary school in 1954. That was not a staggering leap forward in the early days of the Act. It
  732
  may have been that there was a different kind of Government then which was not encouraging the expansion of the schools programme between 1945 and 1950. Be that as it may, there was not much doing at that time.
  Thus, in Cornwall, we got caught up in the bulge and have had to build very quickly—as rapidly as my right hon. Friend and his predecessors would allow—in order to provide enough school places for all the children who were to go through. It has been done. By the time the 1960–61 programme is finished we shall have been able to cope with all that.
  Mr. F. H. Hayman: The big burst of school building was for grammar schools from 1907 to 1914, but the new secondary modern school in Stratton was built and opened in 1938. The county had a building programme which was interrupted by the outbreak of war.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I know that he is an expert in this, particularly in Cornwall. What he says is true, but the building was spasmodic. I think that he would agree that it was not exactly dynamic.
  Mr. Hayman: I quite agree. I thought that we should get the facts straight, however.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Nevertheless, we do have these problems in the rural areas. The other problem, particularly in primary education, is that we have many one-teacher schools. I have talked on this point before in the House, but it is one which still exists. One teacher copes with a class all day long, and that is asking a lot of any person. No matter how devoted that person may be, it wears the nerves, but they all do it extremely well. Indeed, my own young son was at one of these schools a year ago and received a first-class education while there, to the great credit of the teacher. Boys and girls of that age are little fiends. They try the temper of a saint.
  Perhaps one of the solutions would be more part-time teachers. My right hon. Friend said how difficult it was to get the register and to cope with this problem and to get the system working properly. I see the point, but it is the

  733
  only solution. Perhaps we could find retired teachers or teachers who have married and would be prepared to come forward.
  I know, indeed, that they are prepared to come forward, but always the difficulty in the country is the transport needed to bring them from their homes to the schools. It just cannot be found. They have not cars, and public service transport is not, unfortunately, up to the standard required for getting somebody to a place in time for 9 o'clock in the morning. I would ask my right hon. Friend to re-examine this aspect of the problem, to see whether some method cannot be devised to help local education authorities to persuade retired part-time teachers to travel from their homes to the places where they are needed within the authority's area. At present they are not in a position to do so.
  Cornwall had another problem in primary education. We had many all-age schools, where children stayed on up to the age of 15. That was not good. It was extremely bad for the children, and difficult for the teachers. We had about 200 such schools after the war. At the beginning of this year we still had 30 left, but I am delighted to say that at the end of this year's building programme there will be none left in Cornwall. That is a remarkable achievement for a small county, and it is due largely to the drive of my right hon. Friend, who has helped us so much, and the drive of the local education committee.
  Mr. Hayman: Would not the hon. Member agree that although all the all-age schools will be eliminated in a year or two, many of the secondary school buildings to which our children have to go are most inadequate?
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: If the hon. Member had not been quite so impatient he would realise that I was coming to that point. This problem has been tackled by building new grammar or secondary modern schools, thereby taking off the top of the all-age school population and putting it into its right and proper place. A great many such schools have been built, but not enough. Indeed, there are in Cornwall more secondary modern and grammar schools which need complete rebuilding than in almost any other county.
  734
  The reason is a simple one; it is because local education authorities have been concentrating on building new secondary schools in order to reduce the number of children in the all-age schools. No old buildings have been replaced, with the result that buildings built as long ago as 1901, and even 1887, are still being used, although they are in a dreadful state. A school in my constituency, not far from Launceston, consists of a camp. If I were a serving officer I would not put my company of troops in such a camp, but the children are there. It is waterproof and warm—on occasions—and the children seem to learn there and do quite well. Nevertheless, it does not represent the kind of standard that I want to see, not only in my county but throughout England.
  This is one of the things from which the rural areas have suffered. They have had to cope with an exceptional problem, and have not been able to carry out replacements. The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) knows about this. A few days ago he asked my right hon. Friend a Question about the rebuilding of a secondary school in his constituency. He also asked a Question about the savage cut which my right hon. Friend has seen fit to make in the major building programme for 1962–63. It has been a very savage cut—from £750,000 to £125,000.
  I have mentioned the amount of work that still remains to be done in Cornwall in regard to secondary schools. Over 36 have to be replaced. It is no good saying that they can be dealt with under the minor works programme, as I believe my right hon. Friend's Ministry has suggested. If the minor works programme is used to deal with these old secondary schools it will mean patching—using a few thousand here and a few thousand there—and then, before we know it, those schools will have to be pulled down and replaced by new ones, and all the money spent in the past five years or so will have been completely wasted. It would be better to face the fact that the replacement of these out-of-date and outmoded secondary schools must be undertaken, and to get on with the job of rebuilding them, providing the necessary finance by way of the building programme.
  In a rural area like mine there is also an under-employment problem. Many

  735
  people are employed on casual labour in the building trade, where they are liable to unemployment. One thing that rural areas require is stability of the labour force. Workmen want to know that the work will be there from week to week, and month to month. One of the biggest employers of labour, especially in Cornwall but also in other rural areas, should be the local education authority building new schools, not directly but through contractors. But a contractor cannot keep men when he does not know from year to year or even from week to week what kind of building programme will be allowed from the Ministry in London.
  The planning staffs in the local education authorities have to cope with an equally difficult situation. They have to plan from year to year what major works they should carry out. They then put in their applications, and the amounts they have asked for are slashed, and sometimes cut out completely. This makes things very difficult. Cornwall has not yet been told what its minor works programme for 1961–62 will be. It is very difficult to plan ahead and to make arrangements to cater for future labour requirements. It is important to have some kind of stability. We want our young people to stay on and have the best possible educational opportunity. I know as well as anybody else that I am asking for more money, although at the moment the money may not be there.
  Earlier on my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) said that it was all a question of priorities, as did the hon. Member for Cardiff, West. I agree. That is the sole question. We have to know whether the nation is prepared to spend the necessary amount of money on education and whether, in his turn, my right hon. Friend is prepared to see that one part of the community does not suffer more than the rest. He must see that the rural areas get a fair crack of the whip. They should be given a sum proportionate to their needs, which I can assure my right hon. Friend are far greater than the needs of the towns, at the moment.
  The same consideration applies to further education. We must have some idea what is to happen in further education and technology in the rural
  736
  areas. Many hon. Members have pointed out that the great problem is the necessity to travel from where a person lives to the place where he attends night or day classes. People often have to take lodgings, if they can find accommodation. The further education programme for Cornwall has once again been cut by my right hon. Friend. I would ask him to reconsider his decision. The local education authority asked for two extensions to its technical institutions in Falmouth and Redruth, but both applications have been refused. That is a pity. Pupils at grammar and secondary modern schools are finding their outlet impeded because Camborne Technical College is overcrowded. They therefore leave the county, and do not return.
  Mine is a rural constituency, in a rural part of the world, and it depends a great deal on agriculture. Some of its secondary schools are running agricultural rural sciences courses for sixth-formers. At the moment there is no end-product; there is nowhere pupils can go when they finish their secondary school courses. One of the greatest needs of the West Country, and especially Cornwall, is a farm institute, where all the work done in the six forms of the grammar schools and the top forms of the secondary schools can be continued, but here we run into a most awkward problem. It is difficult to ask a man who is farming a small farm, probably with only his son to help him, to allow his son to go to school in the evenings, or on day release, or to take a course at the farm institute, when the farmer is not physically able to carry on the work on his own, and in any case does not want to.
  I would ask my right hon. Friend to look into this problem of a rural area where there are small farms and where there is a crying need for a farm institute. We must have something of this kind for our young people. I am certain that some method can be found—some form of grant or transport—and I ask my right hon. Friend to set up a Departmental inquiry to see if he cannot find a solution, because I am sure this is a matter which affects not only Cornwall but other rural areas.
  I am quite content with what has been done in education, particularly in the

  737
  past year, but there is a great deal more to be done and I am confident that under my right hon. Friend's direction we shall go forward, so long as he remembers some of the things that I have said. If he does that we in the West Country might be in a position to get the best of two worlds.
  7.51 p.m.
  Mr. G. M. Thomson: I am sure that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) will excuse me if I do not follow him into the dark recesses of some of the all-age schools in Cornwall. I content myself with congratulating him on lending his support to the campaign which my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) has been running to improve educational conditions in that part of the country, against some reluctance on the part of the Minister of Education.
  I should like to take up the hon. Member's commendation of the Minister's proposal that the problem of further education should be met by giving young people the right to claim day release from their employers. I hope that the Government will not go much further with this suggestion. It seems to me to be both a silly suggestion and a cowardly one. It is silly to put it forward now, because it was a suggestion that the Crowther Committee went into most sympathetically. The Minister will find its consideration on page 182 of the Report, and it came down very decisively against it. It is a cowardly decision because it is the State that should accept this responsibility and not ask the teenager in his or her first job to stand up to the employer and take the risk of victimisation. That seems to me to be a very wrong way to go about this matter, and not likely to get the results which we all seek.
  I want, too, to say a word to the Secretary of State for Scotland about the problem of day release in Scotland, because we have in the Crowther Report a detailed indictment of the inadequacy of this kind of provision of education in England. I point out to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who is new to this job, that it is a sign of the timidity of the Scottish Office on educa-
  738
  tional matters that this very fine Crowther Report was a Report dealing entirely with England and Wales, and that we should not have anything comparable dealing with the Scottish educational system.
  We have in the Crowther Report a detailed picture of the inadequate system of day release in England, but what sort of attitude are we supposed to take in Scotland? The inadequate level reached in England is held in front of us in Scotland as a sort of target to aim for by the Secretary of State for Scotland in the years that lie ahead. In Scotland we are doing only half as well as in England in the matter of day release. The tragedy is that we are beginning to do even worse than in previous years.
  I had a letter from the Secretary of State for Scotland last week giving the latest figures of day release in Scotland for the Session 1959–60, which has just ended. During that year, there was a drop of 533 young people between the ages of 15 and 18 receiving day release education in Scotland. The figures were down from 17,303 to 16,730. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) mentioned the speech made by the Minister of State for Scotland, Lord Craigton, on this problem on Friday of last week. My hon. Friend was unduly generous to the Minister of State, because he did not quote the Minister of State's comment on this situation. He quite bluntly, and, I think, quite rightly, said that the state of day release in Scotland is today shocking.
  What is to be done about it? I am sure that one has to tackle this by bringing in the State and introducing some element of compulsion, certainly in those areas, as the Crowther Committee recommends, where there are already facilities available for this sort of education. At the moment, the only young people who get day release are those who happen to be in the position where it coincides with the interests of both the employer and of the State that they should gel, release. This applies to only a very limited number of people. Lord Craigton, I think, recognised this quite frankly. He said—and I quote from his speech:
  "The fate of the nation"—

  739
  the Scottish nation, for the Minister of Education's benefit—
  "is in the hands of the employers."
  That is the situation we are in. We shall not make further progress in giving our children day release in Scotland unless we get a much greater degree of co-operation from the employers than is so far enjoyed.
  We have watched this development patiently for many years, but the latest figures show a positive decline in the number of young people getting day release, which indicates to me that we cannot expect any real advance on the basis of voluntary co-operation. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider seriously the attitude put to him by the Scottish T.U.C. It comes out against the proposal for claiming the right of release for young people and urges the Secretary of State to take the initiative in certain areas where facilities are available in promoting schemes of compulsion. I think that to do it experimentally on that basis would teach us about some of the problems and be most useful.
  I want to go on to the problems of university education. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) has left the Chamber, because I wanted to give her support in her campaign for a fifth university for Scotland, and to ask her about inconsistencies in her speech. She seemed to indicate a great deal of anxiety lest we increase the number of university places too much yet, at the same time, she pressed the Secretary of State for a decision about a fifth university. I think that the hon. Lady must be unaware of the actual record of this country in terms of provision of university places.
  The Minister of Education asked the House, in his speech, what sort of report he could make to U.N.E.S.C.O. about the state of education in Britain. I suggest that he might consider taking with him, in view of his gallant words of introduction to his speech, two of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench as part of the British delegation to U.N.E.S.C.O. They might help to prevent his giving too rosy a picture to the conference in Paris. The fact is that, taking Britain's university provision in comparison with that of other countries, it is a national disgrace.
  740
  Our provision of university places is about half the Western European average.
  It might be said by the hon. Lady, who seemed to be arguing the philosophy of the elite in university education, that this was so because we keep up standards whereas the other countries do not. But I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff. West (Mr. G. Thomas) said. He pointed out, even given the present university standards in this country, how much wastage there is and how many young people there are who qualified by intelligence and ability to make full use of university education, but who, for one reason or another, do not get the opportunity to get it.
  In pages 8 and 9 the Crowther Report gives some vivid figures about this and illustrates it with an interesting survey of National Service recruits. Of the top 10 pet cent. of ability in the National Service group, four out of ten left school at the age of 16. The Report showed that among that top 10 per cent. of ability, about 43 per cent. of the young men came from the homes of manual workers, and two-thirds of these left school at the age of 16. If we take the second rank of ability,—still well above average intelligence—we find that 75 per cent. of the young men who came from the homes of manual workers left school at the minimum age-15. There is a great deal of room for preventing that waste of talent, a waste which the nation cannot afford in present circumstances.
  In Scotland, we have a higher proportion of university places than the United Kingdom; with 10 per cent. of the United Kingdom population, we have 17 per cent. of the university places. It remains true, however, that Scottish universities are turning away students who are fully qualified to enter universities. I have been seeking information on this subject from the Scottish universities. In an earlier debate I criticised the universities for being reluctant to give the House the kind of information on public questions which I think we ought to have. I should like to take this opportunity to give a word of thanks to the university authorities for the information which they have given me on this matter.
  As the hon. Lady the Member for Renfrew, East said, there are immense complications in finding out just what

  741
  the shortage of university places is in the community at the moment. There is a great deal of duplication of applications, there are people who apply who have adverse headmasters' reports, or who are applying after having had a very unhappy and unsuccessful year at another university But allowing for all these facts, and indeed, making a generous allowance for them, it seems to me that in Scotland at the moment there are probably about 200 students who possess the necessary attestation of fitness to enter a university, but who have been unable to find a university place. That is a guess—it cannot be anything else—but I ask the university authorities to consider whether they might not give us much more accurate information on these subjects as it affects the United Kingdom as a whole.
  In bringing out these facts, I am not suggesting that Scottish students should have any absolute priority of entry to Scottish universities. Quite the reverse. I think that the more our Scottish universities, while preserving their national character, have a wide variety of people from many different places learning in them, the better they will be as universities. But I insist that Scottish students who fail to get a place in a Scottish university should have the same rights to seek a place in English universities as English students have who come to Scotland.
  I am not at all sure that that is the case. My impression—and I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would correct it—is that Scottish local authorities are extremely reluctant to give grants to Scottish students to go out of Scotland and seek university places there. English local authorities, as appears from the case of my local university at St. Andrews, seem to be much less parochially minded. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will do everything he can on that point.
  In case there is any misunderstanding, however, I emphasise that I am most anxious that Scottish universities should attract people from a wide variety of places. I understand that Edinburgh University is now divided roughly into 60 per cent. of students from Scotland, 20 per cent. from England and 20 per cent. from other foreign countries, although I am not quite sure whether
  742
  the classification "other foreign countries" includes Wales! In any event, it seems to me a reasonably fair pattern. I am told by the University of Edinburgh that the faculty of medicine, which is world-famous in this session had 986 applicants for 150 places and that the Scottish applicants got 101 of these out of 141 applications whereas all the rest got 49 out of 845 applications. I do not think that the Scots can claim that they are being unfairly discriminated against by Edinburgh University.
  Indeed, the Secretary of State knows that I have been concerned recently not so much about Scots being turned away from Scottish universities as about Africans being turned away from Scottish universities. I raised with him the fact that the Scottish Universities' Entrance Board have so altered their entrance regulations that it will be very much more difficult for African students to gain entry into our Scottish universities. There is a long and very honourable tradition of Scottish education carried out through missionaries in Africa, and it would be a tragedy if we were to find that African students were not able to attend Scottish universities when they wished to do so.
  Scottish students who cannot get into a Scottish university may, if the Secretary of State acts vigorously enough, go to an English university, but African students who cannot get into a Scottish university are likely to be asked to go to Moscow or Peking. Russia and China are making vigorous efforts to attract young African intellectuals, on whom the future guidance and development of that great Continent very much depends, and I plead with the Secretary of State, although he has no direct responsibility, to use all the influence he can with the university authorities to make them aware of the wider implications of this change in the regulations.
  There are other hon. Members who want to speak, and I will finish as quickly as I can. I hope that we shall have a much more vigorous and dynamic development of education than the Minister of Education indicated in his opening speech. I accept the arguments of the Crowther Report—I am sorry that the Government do not—about raising the school-leaving age in advance of a system

  743
  of compulsion in further education, but all these things, in whatever order one decides to do them, whether to increase the university places, to increase further education or to raise the school-leaving age, demand a very much bigger recruitment of teachers than we have had. On the problems of recruiting teachers, the Crowther Report is immensely interesting, because it puts it bluntly to the Government that they have had responsibility during recent years and that if they had had the will to face up to the problems in advance, then the teacher situation would be a great deal better today than it is.
  It all comes down to the Government having the political will to give education the necessary priority in our community. It is not a case of not having the money to do it. Crowther demolishes that argument in a devastating way when he points out that all the reforms which he proposes would cost over ten years an extra £250 million in public expenditure and that over recent years the community has been spending £228 million more on tobacco and on drink. This is a question of priorities and so much depends on the lead given by the Government.
  In some ways this is the heaviest and most serious responsibility which rests on a Government of this country today—whether they will rise to the occasion, give a lead and insist that as a community we put education first and make the investment in education which is necessary not only to preserve our living standards in competition with other countries in the years ahead, but also to enable us to give a lead in showing how to build up a decent and healthy society in the second half of the twentieth century.
  8.9 p.m.
  Mr. R. P. Hornby: I wish to carry on from the point where the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) left off, because I am very much in tune with his thoughts on that point. One of Adlai Stevenson's phrases describes the tenor of the debate. He said, apropos aid to under-developed countries, "We must cope with the revolution of rising expectations."
  It is these rising expectations which we have heard about during the debate—rising expectations of longer years at
  744
  school; rising expectations of better buildings to be taught in; and rising expectations of the right, which an American boy or girl has, to a university education if young people care to take advantage of it, regardless of their academic attainment. On that last point I quarrel with some Americans. There are rising expectations of a high standard of teaching, and rising expectations of something to do with the leisure which is coming more and more on to the horizon for the youth of today. All these are things to which people are looking forward. How quickly and successfully can we meet these expectations?
  Several hon. Members have asked how many of the things that we want to do we can do all at once. How much have we to concentrate first on one priority and then on another? Hon. Members on both sides who have studied this subject recognise that an enormous advance has already been made. In recent years there has been a very large increase in expenditure and a very substantial increase in the number of students staying on at school. Yet some people, quite rightly, for material reasons as well as for cultural reasons, for personal reasons as well as for national reasons, are dissatisfied. Seeing other nations going as fast as ourselves, and in some cases faster—notably Russia—they ask whether we are matching what is being done elsewhere.
  I want to concentrate on the size of classes and the number of teachers required to teach those classes, because that is one of the subjects mentioned in the Opposition Amendment, the other two points being that they want to see better progress towards a longer school life for every school child and better provision for further education. I shall concentrate on the size of classes and the provision of teachers because I believe that these points are absolutely fundamental to everything else in terms of standards. They are far and away the most important.
  I wish to cite one or two points which have not been mentioned so far. We are right to put the reduction of the size of classes first, because that affects our ability to recruit teachers. The two problems are interdependent. A very large class of 30 to 40 pupils, or even more, puts off teachers. Their morale is

  745
  lowered. Many of them fight very gallantly against this.
  Twenty-four per cent. of classes in primary schools contain more than 40 pupils. Sixty-four per cent. of the secondary school population is still in over-sized classes. However much we may want the Crowther recommendation and many of the other things which have been mentioned, we must not forget those figures. They must come first.
  From listening to the debate I have gained the impression that hon. Members opposite want the Crowther recommendations to be implemented now. They will, in fairness, agree that the Crowther recommendation was for 1966 to 1968. The Crowther Committee thought that that was the best period at which to adopt its suggestion. It has not been turned down by my right hon. Friend. The last date on which he must take a decision on this is in about 1963. That is the date when the decision has finally to be taken in terms of looking at the supply of teachers and the buildings available. He has from now until 1963 in which to concentrate all the energies of his Department on the supply of teachers, in the hope that at that time he will be in a position to say that the Government can go forward with the Crowther recommendations.
  Mrs. White: I have not been able to listen to all of the debate, but I do not think that anyone on this side has suggested that the Crowther recommendations could be implemented at once. What we have asked for is a firm decission by the Minister on which of those recommendations he will implement, and when. We believe that until there is a firm decision there will not be the necessary concentration of effort or thought on the part of those concerned. As regards the suggestion that the Minister is likely to be able to do it by 1967, we see from the circulars emanating from the Ministry that it has no thought beyond anything earlier than 1970.
  Mr. Hornby: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, because that helps to make my point clear. I hope very much that the Crowther recommendation will be implemented in about 1967. That is what I look forward to and want to see done. I also think that the Minister is quite right not to take a sharp decision now in advance of seeing what his
  746
  success in recruiting teachers will be. This is a point on which the two sides differ.
  The right thing to do administratively, and the way in which one is most likely to get an efficient system in 1967, is to concentrate now on the supply of teachers and, in the light of the Government's success in that field, to go ahead to the second half of the programme. Failure to announce a date now will not affect the success of the recruiting drive.
  I want to mention, as a background to the debate, some figures relating to the supply of teachers. There are about 270,000 teachers in maintained schools now. To cope with the over-large classes, we want another 60,000. In addition to that, for the Crowther recommendation we want another 20,000, making 80,000 in all. The present average annual increase in the teaching force is between 5,000 and 6,000.
  Those figures show what a very great increase in effort will be necessary and how successful the campaign for teacher recruitment will have to be if the 1967 programme suggested by Crowther is to be achieved and if the first point mentioned in the Amendment—the reduction in the size of classes—is also to be achieved. Nothing that we do or say in education debates should in any way seem to obscure the vital importance of the need for increasing the number of teachers.
  What are the prospects of finding the necessary number of teachers? Are we, as my right hon. Friend suggested, doing all that we conceivably can to ensure that we get these recruits? In one respect we shall have a little luck next year, because the biggest output from the schools, namely, the bulge generation, will begin to emerge from the schools. We hope that the same proportion as now, if not a slightly larger one, will continue to apt for teaching as a career. This should, and will, help us.
  Against that, in the following year we shall have to face the problem of the changeover from the two to the three year training course. We shall also have to face the considerable increase in the birthrate over the last four years. In about 1962 classes in primary schools will again increase in size. Over the last four years there has been an increase in

  747
  the birthrate of between 10 and 12 per cent., which will cause very considerable strain, starting at the lower end of the schools.
  In addition—I emphasise this point, because I do not want to belittle the problem we shall experience in recruiting teachers—because of the earlier marriage age there is a greater loss of teachers, notably women teachers, than we had initially expected.
  For all those reasons, I emphasise that, to achieve what we want, the battle to get more teachers will be very tough and considerable expenditure will be involved. What are we to do to get them? We shall certainly need every one of the training college places. At present, we are deliberately overcrowding the training colleges in order to cope, as an emergency measure, with the year of intermission, but after that I believe that the overcrowding will be gradually run down over the years, and that, as the quantity is reduced, we shall try to raise the quality. That seems to be the right balance there.
  Next comes the question of the quality of the students. I have looked into the matter as carefully as I can, and I have asked as many questions as I can, to find out whether we are refusing to accept into the training colleges people who have the right qualifications for teaching. Although I have no doubt that, here and there, mistakes have been made, my impression is that, by and large, precious few of those of the right quality who have wanted to teach have been unable to get into a training college. Nevertheless, in view of the increased numbers staying on at school and the increased numbers in the secondary schools, that might not be true over the coming years unless the training college expansion programme went ahead as fast as possible. I am sure that we shall need every one of those places.
  I also make a plea for the maximum possible expansion in the day colleges. There are quite a lot of people who could be recruited for teaching for whom the residential course is not the right thing. In some cases, very much maturer people may have gone into industry and worked up to the middle ranks there. When those people find that they are not getting much further they may probably like the idea of teaching.
  748
  There might be some discussions in that respect between the representatives of the Ministry and of the employers—with particular reference to pension arrangements. If such people were subject to private pension schemes it might be worth while, because in that bracket there are some possible recruits whom we had not had hitherto.
  With the remarks made by my right hon. Friend and others about the recruitment of women teachers—particularly those who have married and might be induced to return to teaching—I completely agree. That is obviously the biggest potential source of new recruits, and I hope that we shall get as many of them back as we possibly can. There is great need for carefully directed propaganda about the very real need there is for these people to come back. Such propaganda is very important, but, as has been said already, it is probably best done by those now in the teaching profession. If we were to launch a national campaign to try to get those people back and they found, after returning, that they were not wanted by head teachers and other members of staffs, the whole thing would pack up at once.
  It would be an excellent thing were my right hon. Friend again to have a go at the Treasury, to try to make it see the light about this double taxation of the married women. It is sometimes possible to make exceptions where there is a particular need. For instance, we have made exceptions in our military training arrangements so as to provide exemption from National Service for mathematics and science teachers. According to the Ministry's Report for 1959 the resultant increase in recruiting was quite startling. The numbers nearly doubled. Special exceptions for a specially-proved national need such as recruitment of teachers might find justification even in the stony heart of the Treasury.
  One comes back to money. The Board of Education, as it was in the days of which the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) spoke, has become the second largest spending Department. As my right hon. Friend said when talking about the Crowther Report, the expenditure seems likely to go up to about £1,200 million or £1,500 million in the 'seventies, and rise to above 6 per cent. of the national income. We shall get that

  749
  money for the purposes that have been mentioned in this debate only if we succeed at every turn in carrying public opinion with us; by giving the sort of lead about our intentions—as mentioned by the hon. Member for Dundee, East—and also by getting our priorities right and by avoiding waste in quality and in administration wherever possible.
  With those thoughts, I commend the priorities mentioned by my right hon. Friend. I am sure that there is a very real need for the expansion in university places to take place as quickly as possible. I also believe that, despite the Opposition's Amendment to the Motion, there is a large measure of agreement on both sides about the sort of things that we would like to see done between now and 1967.
  8.26 p.m.
  Mr. Austen Albu: With a great part of what was said by the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. Hornby) I am sure most of us on this side would agree—in particular with his interesting remarks on the need for the recruitment of teachers. All this merely illustrates that one cannot consider education in separate parts but only as a whole. The recruitment of teachers is very much dependent on the expansion of higher education and, to some extent, the expansion of higher education is dependent on the expansion in the numbers of those who stay on in the secondary schools for longer periods.
  I thought that the hon. Gentleman perhaps had not fully realised one point. He said that he did not think that many of those people who applied for training college places were turned down, though capable of benefiting from such training. I think that he underestimated the great scope for expanding the number of those coming to that level in the secondary schools. That was made clear by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) who quoted from the Crowther Report the numbers of those who left school at the age of 15 but who, had they stayed on, would have been perfectly qualified to go on to a university, or to embark on some other form of higher education.
  When we listen to the sometimes rather complacent speeches of those who try to apologise for or excuse the level of
  750
  our university population, we must remember that the number of university students in this country is lower than that of almost any other civilised country. Even if we add in the teacher training colleges and colleges of advanced technology—which certainly teach at least at the level of universities in many other countries—it still amounts to only 3 per thousand of our population, as compared with 17 in America, 10 in Russia and 6 in Australia or Czechoslovakia—
  Mr. Ede: But has my hon. Friend considered the standard of admission to all except perhaps the top five or six American universities?
  Mr. Albu: I was coming to that point. I realise that there are some people who want to maintain a university system in this country as one in which only an élite are considered capable of going to the higher levels of education. I realise that this is a question which very much concerns the House and I shall deal with it in due course.
  I believe it is essential that in the next ten years we should double the number of those who receive higher education either at the universities or at one or other of the institutions to which I have referred. This is a task for the University Grants Committee in its quinquennial review and for the Ministry of Education in respect of other colleges.
  It is essential that the policies of both these bodies should be co-ordinated, because in the present situation the development of higher educational policy is divided between the universities and the new colleges which are teaching at university standards, which is illogical and confusing. For this reason I welcome the statement made by the Minister that he is setting up an inquiry which will examine all forms of higher education. I suggest that the terms of reference of such a body should be to determine the social and, occupational structure that we are likely to have at the end of the century and to suggest plans for the development of higher education in all its forms.
  Coming back to the question of standards, I do not pretend that the answer to the question of what should be the form and size of our higher education is

  751
  a purely expert matter. In determining such a policy, our social and political values are inevitably involved. I should have thought that hon. Members on this side of the House would be likely to have very different views on this subject from those of hon. Members opposite.
  I was particularly interested in the remarks of the hon. Lady the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) who seemed to fear that if we were to expand our university population too quickly we should be lowering our standards. Of course, we should. But are we then saying that those who attend universities should be only the gifted few and not those who would benefit from such an education? I hold the opposite view. We should expand the numbers who obtain a university education so that we include not only the gifted few but all who would benefit from it. I am convinced that the greater the number of those who have such an education, the smaller will become the social gap which exists in our society.
  This is one of the beliefs from which I start when considering a policy for higher education and which I hope will be considered by the committee which the Minister is setting up. My second belief is that the need for qualified and trained people in all walks of life will grow, as I also believe that the need for the unskilled will decline. If we are to keep our place in the world, the general level of our education must rise.
  My third reason for emphasising the need for this great expansion in university education is that there is a serious danger that the gap between the expert and the generally educated will grow. That gap already exists. Democratic control will become weaker and we may find the politician giving way to the scientist who may claim for his personal values a scientific justification which they do not really possess. Hon. Members may have read the fascinating science fiction story by Professor Hoyle, "The Dark Cloud", which deals with this subject in a very amusing and interesting way. He makes no bones of his contempt for politicians and his belief in scientists.
  I welcome, as I think we all do, the foundation of new universities, but I
  752
  would suggest that the nucleus for further expansion, exists already in the colleges of advanced technology and in the teacher training colleges. I also welcome the relationship between teacher training colleges and universities. A suggestion which I like, that has been put forward by some people, is that the colleges of advanced technology and the teacher training colleges should combine to form colleges of arts, science and technology with the right to award first degrees. They should certainly have independent government and should not come under the local authorities. Incidentally, I welcome the Minister's statement that he is going to examine the position of the colleges of advanced technology in this respect. They would presumably have to be financed by the University Grants Committee or some similar body.
  Coming to the question of the standards of university teaching, I would remind the House that if we enlarge a pyramid we must have a larger base at the bottom. If we have more students, although many may be qualified for a university education, the average level may be lower. It does not mean that we will not keep the highest at the top. I believe that in the future the universities will have to pay more attention to general degree students in addition to those who take honours degrees. If they do so they will have to pay much more attention to teaching by comparison with research, although I recognise that participation in research is often a very good method of teaching.
  In this connection, I believe that we may have to consider in the future whether we should continue to aim at a professional education in three years to a first degree, which is the case in almost all professions except medicine at the present time. I believe that, if a professional qualification is required, we may in the future find, as most other countries have found, that we require at least a fourth year or, in the case of the sandwich course, a fifth year, leading to a higher degree. If we could adopt such a policy, then the present degree of specialisation required at entry would be very much less. I believe that most people would welcome that.
  Certainly, if the degree of specialisation at present required in the sixth

  753
  forms of our grammar schools were to be reduced, this would help to break down the gap between Sir Charles Snow's "Two cultures" which today starts in the sixth forms of our schools. If we were to adopt such a policy of more general degrees and, possibly, a fourth year for those who want a professional qualification, a very much larger number could receive a university education who were not seeking through it a professional qualification but who would be able to continue their education side by side with those who were. In this way the gap between those who were going to university for professional purposes and those who were going for general education might be narrowed.
  I wish to say something about what, at least, the Minister made to appear an important change in Government policy towards the technical colleges and the education of technicians and craftsmen. I hope that this was not, as it were, a false alarm, because what the Minister said sounded very important. I have heard nothing of it before and, as far as I know, no rumours have gone out about it. What he said sounded to me like a complete reformation of our technical education system. If this is so, I welcome it, because undoubtedly it is time we had it. In particular, there is a very serious need for a new form of education for those who will not, perhaps, go forward to a university or a college of similiar standing but who would benefit from a two-year whole time or three-year sandwich course of a vocational nature. This type of course, leading to some sort of award, which might be a Higher National Diploma, is needed for the increasing number of foremen, technicians and skilled clerical workers required in industry and the public service.
  The present Higher National Certificate courses are now quite unsuitable, for two reasons. First, they have, over the years, come to be aimed at membership of the professional institutions and, therefore, in theory at any rate, each subject is supposed to be taught at university level, though I doubt whether it ever is. They are therefore not suitable for these students. The second reason, is that I believe that the type of education given in day-release or evening classes is not today adequate even for
  754
  this purpose, that is to say, the training of technicians.
  Of course, all these suggestions, whether for an increased university population or for increased education for technicians, by a sandwich course or full-time technical college education envisage a voluntary or compulsory increase in the numbers of those staying at school until 17 or 18. As several of my hon. Friends have pointed out during the debate, we have still a long way to go before our secondary schools provide equality of opportunity. There is not time now to refer in detail to the very interesting latest report of the Science Masters' Association about the provision and maintenance of laboratories in grammar schools, but there is no doubt that the inequality of opportunity is not only great, but the gap has even widened since 1957 owing to the activities of the industrial fund set up by certain industrial firms to support the establishment of laboratories in the public schools.
  The figures really are quite startling. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) quoted some of them. It is not only in the provision of laboratories but also in the provision of technical assistance that the difference lies. For instance, the direct grants schools have more than twice, and the independent schools have nearly five times, the number of technicians assisting in the laboratories compared with the local education authority schools. The amounts spent on apparatus are also greatly different. In the case of independent and direct grant schools, the amount is more than twice that of local education authority schools, although, there again girls are discriminated against, as my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) pointed out.
  But this is not the whole story. Whether or not a child stays on longer at school is often determined by early experiences both in the family and in the primary school. Certainly a child starts with an hereditary equipment of intelligence, but there is growing evidence to show that intelligence is profoundly modified by social experience. The I.Q.—that peculiar yardstick—is not a fixed thing. Intelligence can be created by proper teaching methods and that is of profound importance to those of us on these benches who believe in social

  755
  equality. We must tackle the inequalities of opportunity at the point where they are most effective in determining a child's life, and that is at the beginning of school life when the child has his first experience of formal education and when his whole attitude to learning may well be formed.
  If we believe in abolishing social inequalities wherever we find them and where they are most harmful, we cannot be satisfied with the present size of classes in primary schools. I believe that this is profoundly important. The fund of talent which is wasted in our children is to be found not only in those who leave secondary school early for financial reasons, but also in those whose whole attitude to education has been determined by some very unfortunate experiences which they may have had in oversize classes in primary schools, especially when they may have come from families without a great interest in education. It is the first experience of education which may well determine a child's attitude towards it for the rest of his life.
  I am afraid that I have gone from one end of the education spectrum to another, but education for a democratic society must be looked at as a whole, and that is my only excuse for doing so.
  8.42 p.m.
  Mr. J. M. Coulson: I want to turn my attention to what many hon. Members besides myself obviously consider to be one of the most important sentences in the Gracious Speech, and I think that their very interest in this subject shows how concerned about it they are. I refer to that sentence which speaks of the continued expansion of schools and colleges. I am very glad that my right hon. Friend said that that includes not only colleges of higher technology and teacher training colleges, but also universities, university colleges and other forms of higher education.
  I could not feel more strongly about the importance of universities in the life of the country and what a considerable influence they exercise on the rest of the educational system. We talk of doubling the standard of living, but that is something which does not happen merely with the passage of time. It
  756
  happens only because of the various inventions which we invent and because of the exports which we make and because of our technical ability. All that, in turn, depends on the technical ability, inventiveness and industry of our boys and girls as they leave school.
  Not only our standard of living, but our national esteem and possibly our national survival are affected. I do not wish to say that there is any monopoly of industry or inventiveness in people being educated at the higher establishments and universities. That has never been so, and never will be so, but I think that they supply a very important percentage of the people who will influence the wealth of the country.
  If those ideas are true, we are in very grave danger of lagging behind in this race. I know that my right hon. Friend is aware of that fact and is worried about it, and I welcome the announcement that there is to be a review of higher education.
  Perhaps at this stage I can indicate the lines upon which some of the advance should be made. I am putting them in a certain order which would not be the order of everyone's choice, but which at least reflects my view of them. The first thing is an alteration in the length of courses at universities and other establishments of higher education. The second is an increase in the number of university places; and the third is an alteration and rationalisation of entrance examinations.
  I very much respect the independence of the universities and I know that the universities are very keen to find a solution to many of these problems. They are ready to co-operate and, although co-operation will not be easy, it is absolutely vital. In that co-operation, if it comes, there will obviously have to be some surrender of independence by the various universities towards forming a national scheme. I am certain that that is essential.
  Let me deal, first, with the alteration of the length of university courses. It is not sufficiently realised what a strait-jacket the three-year normal degree course is and what influence it has on causing over-specialisation and cramming in our secondary education. The whole content of knowledge, particularly on the scientific side, has increased

  757
  enormously in the last few years. The whole of the burden of this falls on the wretched sixth form boy, who has to specialise to get into a university. It is not entirely the fault of the universities, for the simple reason that if a boy or girl had not specialised and did not possess specialised knowledge, they could not go and take advantage of all the facts which are thrust at them from the beginning of the three-year course. The whole thing is rather a vicious circle.
  First, therefore, I should like to see an extension of the university period of training. The training college courses have now gone up to three years and it is an anomaly that the length of the normal degree course has not been increased also.
  My second point concerns the increasing number of places at universities and other institutes of higher education. The object of this is twofold. The first object is exactly the same as increasing the length of courses—in other words, cutting down too much specialisation in the schools. The second object is the obvious fact that it increases the number of graduates and, therefore, the flow of graduates into the nation, which should do the country good.
  The need for expansion is recognised by everybody, by my right hon. Friend and by practically everybody who has spoken in this debate. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a few weeks ago that he had given the University Grants Committee permission to discuss with the universities an increase in the number of places to 135,000 by the late 1960s. Now, reading the returns for the universities for last year, I understand that the University Grants Committee has prepared a plan for the expansion of university places to 175,000 by the early 1970s. I understand that this proposal is being considered by the Treasury, whose decision, I hope, will be in favour of increasing the number of places. If so, this will represent a remark able increase in the number of places by 70 per cent. since 1958, from about 102,000 to 175,000, which is excellent as far as it goes.
  As many hon. Members have said tonight, we must expand a great deal quicker if we are to keep up with continental countries. Federal Germany, for example, with a population much the
  758
  same as ours, hopes to double its expenditure on education between 1960 and 1970 to provide for 300,000 university students. In France, the number is half a million. I know that numbers are not the only criterion, but they show a distinct disparity between the opportunities of education in this country and those in continental countries.
  The shortage of places has a serious effect on our secondary education. The Crowther Report talks about broadening the basis of education and suggests that the scientist to some extent should be literate and that the arts man to a certain extent should have a knowledge of science. This is excellent, but we cannot do this sort of thing without the co-operation of the universities. If the universities would lay down as a condition of entry that the arts man should have a knowledge of science, possibly even including a certain amount of science in the first year of the arts course at the university, with complementary arrangements for the science man to have a knowledge of the arts, we should go a long way towards a solution of the problem. At the same time, none of this is possible unless we have longer courses at the university and more places, possibly as many as a quarter of a million and not merely 135,000 or 175,000. That is vital.
  Many of our universities have expanded enormously in the last few years and others of them are continuing to expand or have plans for expansion over the next few years. Possibly, the best future lies in more universities. I have in mind the more historic centres like York and Lincoln and I hope that this sort of idea is being pressed forward.
  Of course, the very unpleasant alternative to all this, as the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) mentioned just a few moments ago, is the creation of a privileged society, of people who have the privilege of going to a university, competition to enter which is maintained. As a correspondent said in The Times the other day, we shall produce, if we do not look out, a "package elite", which is something we would wish to avoid at all costs, even, if possible, at the expense of reducing the standards of entry; because, after all, what is the standard of a regurgitation of a mass of facts of the age of 18? What matters is

  759
  the standard of the graduate turned out at the end of his three or four years' course.
  The third thing with which I am concerned is the rationalisation of the requirements of the universities without deterioration of the independence and character of the individual universities. The first and very obvious of the discrepancies is that between Oxford and Cambridge over the necessity of Latin as one of the entrance requirements. The Universities of Oxford and Cambridge talk about rationalising entrance arrangements, but this discrepancy between them is one example of discrepancies which can be increased a number of times over among all the universities in the country.
  That sort of thing not only makes the educational task more difficult, but makes the schoolmasters' task of advising almost impossible. I do not, of course, suppose that it will ever be got over to allow the sort of prejudice which prompted one college, which shall be nameless, to give a place to a man, who, when asked what he played, said, "Cor anglais", and when asked what position he held, replied, "The second row". At the same time, I feel that very serious efforts should be made at this very moment. There should be discussions between the universities and the Government and other interested bodies to see what can be done to rectify this very unsatisfactory position.
  Finally, I should like to say something about grants for higher education and the Anderson Committee's Report. Reference to grants is also made in the Gracious Speech. I understand that my hon. Friend has not made up his mind about this problem. I hope that he will throw himself in with the majority of the Anderson Committee and recommend total abolition. The same considerations apply as they do to the provision of extra places at the universities.
  I know that this involves considerable expenditure. Most of the things I have been talking about involve considerable expenditure, but I felt I had to make these points none the less, though I am not putting them forward as ones which take priority over the really important and prior thing, providing more teachers and reducing the size of classes. That,
  760
  obviously, comes first, but these other things are, in my opinion, very close to the initial desire to decrease the size of classes and to increase the number of teachers.
  I do not think that we as a nation can afford to refuse university and higher education to children who are actually suitable for it. We cannot afford to deny it to the children of parents who cannot afford it, particularly where the parents have a number of children equally suitable for a university education. Although I welcome what the Gracious Speech says about education, I hope that its wording does not preclude great efforts on the part of my right hon. Friend and other members of the Government to gain the co-operation necessary to achieve all these things, to get our educational system in the van of progress among the nations and to maintain our country's position among the nations.
  8.53 p.m.
  Mrs. Harriet Slater: In the five or six minutes left to me I wish to concentrate on one or two points. One is the question of the recruitment of teachers. I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the request I made to him that the married women will not be counted in the quota of women teachers because of the difficulty of getting them back and the fact that they would be unemployed by local authorities in whose areas their husbands who were teachers were employed.
  Secondly, I hope that the Minister will withdraw the letter he has sent out dealing with the question of primary school teachers and training colleges mainly training for primary schools. I hope that he will take back that advice. We are at the stage in education where we need to unite the profession, not to break it up into groups or classes. I hope that that bad advice by the Minister will be withdrawn. Whether it was advice given to him, or his own point of view, makes no difference. The fact remains that teachers feel it very keenly.
  The National Union of Teachers also feels it very keenly, because it is almost a slap in the face for all those teachers who feel they have a call to teach in primary schools, and whose standards are as important as those of any others in the teaching profession.

  761
  The other point that I wish to make is one which has already been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas). It is that it is no use giving grants to people to go to the universities if, at the earlier stage, we prevent their having an opportunity of going there. In many of the secondary modern schools boys and girls are staying on until the age of 16 and 17 and examination results show that they are doing exceeding well, but in many cases there and in the grammar schools boys and girls are prevented from staying on because the maintenance grants are completely unrealistic. Many of these boys and girls are prevented from going on to universities or to some other further education mainly because their parents cannot face the burden of their remaining at school until they are 16, 17 or 18.
  I know of a constituent of mine who has six children. He works "split turns" as a bus driver and because he gets a wee hit over the maximum allowed he cannot get a £5 grant for his eldest boy who is at a grammar school. This sort of thing is completely unrealistic and we are denying to boys and girls at the stage when they are most in need the opportunity to continue with their education.
  Several hon. Members have spoken about university education and I entirely agree that every effort should be made to expand it. Nobody has fought harder than I have as a member of the local authority in my constituency for opportunities for working boys and girls to receive the best possible education. But further education is very varied and in our educational programme we must provide opportunities for all kinds of further education. Whilst the importance of the universities has been stressed today, I urge that we should not forget commerce and industry and the sandwich courses, the day-release courses, the adult education classes and the whole great variety of educational opportunities that should be provided.
  The local authority in my area is providing as varied an opportunity of further education as is possible and I am very pleased to say that all our educational institutions are absolutely crowded out with students. If we had not provided pre-nursing and similar courses, the young people who have
  762
  gone on from these courses to the training colleges, particularly to study domestic science, would have left school at a much earlier age. I hope that, our having provided the first part of this further education, the Minister will see to it that next year we shall be enabled to provide the second part.
  I hope, also, that we shall not forget the youth and community work which still remains to be done throughout the country and through which opportunities are provided for those who have either missed or have not had the ability to take advantage of further education whether at evening school, training college or university. In these days it is essential that we should give youth the greatest possible chance to live a wider and a fuller life. I hope that the Minister will not be content to give a little help but will give a great deal and that in further education the recommendations of the Crowther Report will be put fully into practice.
  Miss Herbison Miss Herbison rose—
  Mr. W. Yates: On a point of order. You will have observed, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Mr. Speaker's Ruling given at column 185 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 2nd November, concerning the custom which has developed in this House in regard to choosing the subject for the day's debate. In that Ruling, reference is made to the new custom which, according to the Clerk of the House, began in 1918—the custom of arranging debates through the usual channels—and has been followed since.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. I do not think that this is an appropriate time for the hon. Member to raise that point of order. We have got to the end of the debate, and the winding-up speeches on each side must now be made.
  Mr. Yates: Further to that point of order. I have been sitting in the House for twelve hours waiting to speak on behalf of my own constituents on the Gracious Speech, and not as a private Member to listen to business chosen by the two Front Benches.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: But there is an Opposition Amendment on this occasion.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It would be inappropriate to give a lengthy reply to the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates).
  9.1 p.m.
  Miss Margaret Herbison: My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), who opened the debate from this side of the House, made a very excellent case indeed for the Amendment to the Motion for an Address on the Queen's Speech which we have on the Order Paper.
  I was very interested to listen to the Minister of Education. He treated that Amendment and the speech of my hon. Friend not with boxing gloves, but with kid gloves. He was very gentle, but rather complacent. At the end of his speech, although from time to time he said that there were certain problems, he left me, and, I am sure, many hon. Members on both sides of the House, with the impression that we need not worry too much about the educational future of Britain.
  I take the opposite view. Take the problem of teacher training and the shortage of teachers. I think that all those who have spoken from both sides of the House today have stressed the importance of this matter. For a number of years the Government have set up committees to advise them on the very best way of attracting more people to the leaching profession. Various committees have made reports to the Minister of Education and the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I will deal with some of their recommendations later.
  I do not want to go over all the points which my hon. Friend made but, first, I want to take up one point on the question of teacher training which is perturbing everyone who is interested in education in Scotland. I was interested to find out that it was also perturbing those in England and Wales who are interested in education. This is the fear of the segregation of the non-graduate teacher from the graduate teacher in training. We have never had it before in Scotland, but I understand, and I have it on good authority, that the Secretary of State has sent out a memorandum with the proposal that the only new training college which we are to have in Scotland should be a
  764
  training college for non-graduates. This is a very shocking thing indeed, but I will deal with that later, when I come to the question of the fifth university.
  There is another proposal which has filled with dismay not only the teachers, but everyone interested in the future of our children in Scotland. This latest proposal is that we should train non-graduate men as teachers.
  Mr. William Ross: Really?
  Miss Herbison: I am not surprised at the exclamation of my hon. Friend, though I know that it happens in England and Wales.
  For generations of pupils in Scotland every male teacher of general subjects has had to be a graduate of a university. A special committee of the Advisory Council on Education in Scotland examined this question of how to attract more people to the teaching profession and it rejected the proposal to use non-graduate men teachers with only one dissentient voice—that of the hon. Lady who is now the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson).
  Who would these non-graduates be? In Scotland, for a considerable time the non-graduate teacher has had to do three years' training, a provision which is now to obtain in England. If a graduate wanted to take what we term an ordinary degree he would have three years at university and a year at training college, making four years in all. If he were to be a non-graduate teacher he would have three years' training, and the men who took it would be those who had not the academic qualifications to enter a Scottish university. In other words, we should be debasing the currency of teaching in Scotland.
  I understand that the Secretary of State says that he is considering this proposal because of the shortage of teachers. The same special committee which turned down that proposal with only one dissentient voice said that if we were to man our schools properly we needed 300 more graduates a year than we had before the war. Three years before the war graduate recruitment into our schools was, on average, 640 a year. The figure for 1959 was 894, a gain of 254, or only 46 short of the figure which the committee suggested in its report. I ask

  765
  the Secretary of State whether he knew of this great increase in graduates entering the training colleges when he made this proposal for none-graduate men teachers?
  The Minister of Education, on the training of teachers, said that they were making sure that the numbers and the quality of the teaching profession will increase. Those were his words. But if the Secretary of State's proposal is carried out it will ensure that the quality declines in Scotland. At another point in his speech, the Minister of Education said that we must take care not to lower the quality of our teachers. I say again to the Secretary of State that we should be debasing the currency in the teaching profession by accepting non-graduate men-teachers. Far from achieving what he wants—an increase in the number of teachers—he will attract fewer graduates to the profession, because fewer men graduates will want to enter a profession in which non-graduate men are to be teaching, because of the lowering of status of the whole profession.
  In any event, if the Secretary of State foolishly carries out this proposal, who are these non-graduate men to teach? The pupils in our junior secondary schools? Are they to have them? Those children who, willy-nilly, will leave school at 15 ought to have the benefit of the best teaching possible until they are 15 years of age.
  This committee made other proposals, one of which I am certain would attract more men and women, and particularly more men, into the teaching profession—pensions for widows and dependants. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) made this point in his speech, but who was the Minister who turned this proposal down when we discussed the Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1956? It was the Minister who is once again Minister of Education.
  We fought this as hard as we could to get pensions for widows and dependants—pensions that civil servants get as a matter of right—but the Minister of Education and the Secretary of State for Scotland turned that down. I want them to give serious consideration to this matter, because I am convinced that in searching for more teachers one of the
  766
  ways to attract them is to ensure that their widows and dependants have security in future.
  Then my hon. Friend dealt very adequately with the question of attracting married women back into the profession, but the Minister merely sailed off that as nicely as could be. He said that the way to attract more married women back was to get the unmarried women teachers to say what a welcome they would hold out to them. But perhaps also the married women who are still in the profession could also tell them that it is scarcely worth while for them to come back because of the penal taxation which obtains at present. My hon. Friend made that point very clearly and the Minister did not deign to give a reply to it at all. I hope that the Secretary of State will deal with it, if the Minister found it impossible to do so, because I am convinced that by that method we would be able to attract back into the profession experienced teachers who have been out of it for a time because of domestic responsibilities.
  Finally, on this question of teacher recruitment, I say to the Secretary of State that this ill-conceived proposal to have non-graduate men, and other proposals that we have had in the last years—proposals which were actually carried to fruition in Scottish education—are bringing into education in Scotland what we consider to be the less desirable features of English education. That does not mean that I think that ours is so much better than the English, because in technical education we are in a very much worse position.
  Why is it that since the Tory Government came to power in 1951 proposals have come, time and again, from the Scottish Minister bringing us into line with what obtained in England—but only that which obtains in England that could be criticised by English and Welsh Members? I have tried to find out why this should be. Perhaps one of the reasons is that we have had no Minister responsible for education in Scotland, except one, in this Tory Government, who was educated under the Scottish educational system. The Secretary of State, for instance, was educated at Winchester and Trinity College, Cambridge.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I hesitate to intervene, but I was at three previous schools—two of them girls' schools.
  Miss Herbison: The Secretary of State has given the game away. If they were girls schools in Scotland they were not part of our ordinary educational system, because, thank goodness, it is a co-educational system.
  Now let us take the Minister who has just left the Scottish Office and who was in charge of education there until last week. His education was in two Scottish schools, but they were Scottish public schools that follow the English system of education, and he finished up at Trinity College, Oxford. The present holder of this office as Joint Under-Secretary of State was educated at Eton and at Trinity College, Cambridge.
  I have nothing whatever to say about these educational establishments. I think that each one is excellent, but no Scottish Minister has the knowledge of Scottish education and the pride to ensure that what is best in it should be obtainable throughout the country. I hope that greater efforts will be made to preserve what is best in Scottish education.
  I now come to the question of university education, which also forms part of our Motion of censure. It is true that in Scotland a larger proportion of people attend university than is the case in England, but that does not mean that all who have the requisite ability or the necessary qualifications receive a university education in Scotland—far from it. The Crowther Report makes this clear.
  The 1959 Report of the Scottish Education Department says:
  "Many able pupils still leave school without completing their courses."
  There has been much talk of the Anderson Committee's recommendation that the means test should be completely abolished. This recommendation has the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House, but when the Minister of Education and the Secretary of State for Scotland are considering the recommendations of the Anderson Committee I hope that they will also consider recommendations that were made long before that Committee was set up. Those recommendations included one for a
  768
  much higher grant for pupils who stayed at school after the age of 15.
  I am not saying that every child who leaves at 15 does so because of financial circumstances, but many do. A committee set up by the Secretary of State recommended much higher maintenance grants for that age group. The Secretary of State raised them, but not to anything like the extent suggested. The Government must accept the major responsibility for the loss of those able pupils to our life in Scotland, England and Wales. One hon. Member opposite said, "But if you gave them grants to keep them at school you would need more teachers." Does not he and the Government realise that if those boys and girls had stayed on at school we could have been able to recruit from among them many of the extra teachers that we now so desperately need?
  Can the Secretary of State tell us the extent of the present shortage of places in Scottish universities? Does he know? My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) wrote to the Secretary of State, and another hon. Member asked a Question of the Minister of Education to find out how many young people with the requisite qualifications to enter a university failed to find a place. The answer, from both the Minister of Education and the Secretary of State for Scotland was, "We just do not know". What a lame excuse, to say that they did not know because students made applications to various universities. That is a dreadful state of affairs.
  The Ministers of Education for both countries so little cared about the matter that they had not bothered to find out how many youngsters in Scotland with a certificate of attestation of fitness and in England with the necessary academic qualifications have been refused entry to a university because there were not sufficient places. It is time they did know. How can we place any reliance upon their figures of the need for university places in the future if they do not know how many places we are short of at present?
  At the moment, taking the proportion per 1,000 of our population who attend universities, we are lowest of all the developed countries with the exception of Ireland, Norway and Turkey. Some

  769
  people say that we cannot judge the position properly because the standards are different. I agree that that is so in many instances, but the fact remains that in almost every other developed country more students over 17 and 18 years of age are receiving full-time education in some institution than is the case in this country. That ought to be of grave concern not only to the Minister of Education and the Secretary of State for Scotland, but to everyone in the country.
  A Parliamentary delegation returned not long ago from the Soviet Union, I have spoken to some of them. They said that they were extremely impressed by the industrial and scientific progress in the Soviet Union. It impressed them and it gave them cause for concern. I know that there is much discussion about the hydrogen bomb and I realise the grave fears about it, but I am certain that in the future the greatest threat to this nation will come not from the hydrogen bomb, but from the great industrial and scientific developments in the Soviet Union. Again, I warn the Government that they are making little preparation for that.
  I want to deal with the wastage in first year students in the universities. I understand from figures given by my hon Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) and in the University Grants Committee's Report that it is over 20 per cent. That is a very high figure. Has the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Minister of Education made any inquiries about this serious wastage, or is it like the case of those who cannot find a place? I know that the universities are autonomous bodies, but the Ministers of Education ought to inquire why there should be a serious wastage of young men and young women who have attained the qualifications to enter a university but who, at the end of the first year, fail to make the grade.
  I am informed, again from a very reliable source, that first year students are tutored mostly by the most junior and inexperienced of the staff. When teaching in schools is by inexperienced people we cannot expect good results, and in the universities it is the same. I do not know so much about the English as the Scottish universities, but in Scottish universities there are big classes
  770
  where students are educated, or not educated, and there is a sorry lack of a proper tutorial system in many faculties. Has the Secretary of State for Scotland had any discussion with the university authorities about that? One way in which the Treasury could help would be through the University Grants Committee making increased provision for senior appointments to most of our universities.
  My last point on universities concerns the halls of residence. We had a Report in 1957 from the University Grants Committee. It was an excellent Report. What has the Treasury done about it and what urgency has been given to it by the Minister of Education, particularly by the Secretary of State for Scotland? I say "particularly" the Secretary of State for Scotland because Scotland presents the blackest picture.
  What do we find? The proportion of students in halls of residence in England is 31 per cent., in Wales 26 per cent., and in Scotland merely 12 per cent. The picture is even more gloomy when we consider various universities in Scotland. In St. Andrews there are 48 per cent. in halls of residence, in the great City of Glasgow, only 7 per cent., in Aberdeen until in the last year, when the hall of residence was opened, none, in Edinburgh, 10 per cent., and in the Royal College of Science and Technology, 2 per cent.
  Dr. Barnett Stross: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the newest of our institutions, the University College of North Staffordshire, it is 100 per cent., as it ought to be in most of these universities?
  Miss Herbison: I am delighted to hear that. If that can be done in one college, it is time that in the other colleges a great improvement took place.
  University education does not mean merely attendance at classes. There is the influence of student upon student and also the influence of the lecturer on the students and the students on the lecturer. Where we have what obtains in Scotland, that influence is lost altogether. Those who travel are weary, and that may account for some of the wastage in the first year. Also, the discomfort of lodgings may account for it.

  771
  I wish also to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland about the fifth university and the new training college for Scotland. Two separate bodies are discussing them. The Minister of Education said that he wanted to link the new training colleges, where possible, to universities. It seems to me that that is just what the Secretary of State for Scotland is determined not to do in the case of the new university and the new college. I would ask him, as many educationists are asking him, to set up one committee to discuss the siting of both the fifth university and the new training college. If that were done, we might have some chance of getting a worthwhile university and a very good training college for our teachers.
  My last point is about technical education. In its provision we are miserably behind England and Wales. In 1956, with a very great flourish, the Government announced their £10 million plan over five years for technical education in Scotland. Some education authorities believe that at that time the Government went round the authorities and added up what was on the stocks, and it came to £10 million, and so the Government said, "That is the sum that we shall spend."
  The Minister said that our greatest shortage was in trained technicians. That is the field with which I am now dealing. This year, 1960–61, is the last year of the five-year programme. My hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill has given the overall picture, and I want just to look at the biggest city in Scotland, Glasgow, and see how it is coping with its share of the £10 million, which was trumpeted throughout the country. It is to have three colleges. Are the pupils streaming in to these colleges? Not at all. Not one of the colleges is open at the moment. Two are in process of being built, and the third has not even been started. Of the two that are being built, one is to take the place of a college which is already housed in ramshackle buildings, and so it will not be producing extra places.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) questioned the Minister on the college for his area. The young technicians who would have been in this college if it had been built—and it is
  772
  not even started—are at the moment being educated, or not educated, in an old model lodging house. No wonder there is a Motion of censure against the Government on this question. We have had promises of great things, but none of them has come to fruition.
  The Secretary of State need not say that the blame lies with the local authorities. He is responsible for education in Scotland. I am informed that it is a case of the plans from the education authority going to St. Andrew's House and being sent back by St. Andrew's House and altogether being given much more detailed examination than is the case when a secondary or primary school is being built. If that is the case—I am reliably informed that it is—a great deal of censure must rest on the Secretary of State. We on this side believe most sincerely that every child should have the right to develop to the very full whatever abilities and skills it has been endowed with.
  The Government have now announced—the Minister announced it today as if it were something wonderful—that the Prime Minister will make a statement in a few days' time about a committee which he is to set up to inquire into all fields of higher education. The Minister of Education need not be proud of that announcement. That committee should have been in existence five, six or seven years ago, instead of its constitution being announced today. If it had been set up long ago, many of the problems now facing us would already be on the way to solution.
  If our children are to have the opportunity of developing their abilities to the full, it will not be under a Tory Government, but under a Government who believe in equality of opportunity at every stage of education and put their priorities in the correct order.
  9.30 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): The House will have some sympathy with me in winding up the debate, if only because it is never easy to wind up in half an hour a debate which has covered both Scotland and England and Wales. If I fail to answer some points, particularly in relation to England and Wales, my right hon Friend the Minister of Education,

  773
  who has watched the debate very carefully, will have them in mind. However, in what I shall say I shall cover from a Scottish point of view what applies to the whole of Great Britain.
  The hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) made a valiant attempt to justify what I understand is known by hon. Gentlemen opposite and in the House as a whole as a three line Whip. She attempted to justify this Opposition Amendment, moved on the last but one day of the debate on the Gracious Speech, on the ground that the Government have been too late. The gravest charge made against the Government in the debate is not that we have done too little, but that we have been too late. To some extent it may have been said that we have done too little, but the main charge has been that we have been too late.
  Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite must ask the question which every Government have to ask themselves: can one do everything which one wants to do simultaneously? That question has been asked during the debate, and various answers have been given. I do not think that anyone will seriously allege that one can do everything simultaneously. From what my right hon. Friend said in opening the debate and what I propose to say, it will be seen that the Government have an intense sense of urgency about the education problem. We have shown it by all we have been doing in recent years and by what is happening now. There may be faults. Of course there are faults. We are only human. All Governments are.
  Some things should move faster than they are now: I will come later to technical college construction in Scotland. Taking all the points raised in the Amendment, it is obvious that the Government are moving hard, fast and effectively over the whole range of education.
  The hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North raised one or two specific points which I will deal with before I come to the main part of my speech. She mentioned the memorandum on the training of teachers and talked about the training college in Lanarkshire and the non-graduate group of men. A memorandum has been sent out. It raises the main training problems for discussion. It
  774
  makes no proposals. It only asks for views. That seems to be a very reasonable thing to do. Views were asked on the non-graduate men's group, but there is no proposal.
  Miss Herbison: Or even the thought of it.
  Mr. Maclay: One must allow people's brains to work over a whole range of problems. The hon. Lady has expressed a very strong view. I know that very strong views on this matter are held by many people in Scotland, but it is worth testing to see what other views exist. One must be broad-minded, to that extent at least. The memorandum does not mention a women's college. I understand that this idea originated as a possibility from the Scottish Council for the Training of Teachers. That is the answer to the two points which the hon. Lady rather stressed at the beginning of her speech.
  Miss Herbison: On the second point, do we have an absolute assurance from the Secretary of State that the new training college will, like all other training colleges in Scotland, take graduates and non-graduates?
  Mr. Maclay: I would not like to give a specific answer now. The hon. Lady raised it at the beginning of her speech and I do not really know what all she said was about. However, I have found the facts of what has actually happened so far and I shall not commit myself to an unknown proposition.
  Another point that the hon. Lady touched on, not only at the end of her speech but when she interrupted my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education, referred to an inquiry into the whole question of further education She rather suggested that this should be on a Scottish and English basis—with two separate bodies—instead of on a United Kingdom basis. I cannot this evening forecast the Prime Minister's statement, but the problem of advanced education is to a considerable extent necessarily a Great Britain matter. To give only one very small example, the University Grants Committee is a Great Britain body.
  It would be unwise for me this evening to say that I thought that there was a strong case for two bodies. The

  775
  organisational problems may properly be examined on a United Kingdom basis, but I think that it would be essential for England and Scotland to apply in their own way any principles evolved, adapting them to their own circumstances and the nature of their own institutions. I want to be clear about that, but I shall not forecast now exactly what will happen. There are very serious considerations to be borne in mind when we are considering whether there should be one body or two.
  Throughout the debate it has been noticeable that the number of school places provided in England and Wales and Scotland has not been mentioned by any hon. Member opposite. I agree that the specific point is not covered in the Amendment, but I do not wonder at their reticence. The Opposition know that the Government have a tremendous record in this respect. Throughout the whole of Great Britain, the number of school places provided in recent years has indeed been a remarkable accomplishment, bearing in mind all the other things that have been going on simultaneously—
  Mrs. White: The right hon. Gentleman realises, of course, that in a country where education is compulsory by law, if the population increases, as it has, one is under an absolute obligation to provide extra places. I therefore do not think that that is a matter of policy.
  Mr. Maclay: The hon. Lady should be a little careful about using that argument, because that was the position between 1948 and 1951. I leave out 1945–48, because I know that those were difficult years. Many plans were laid, but the fact remains that there has been a quite remarkable implementation by this Government simultaneously with many other things. In Scotland today—as is known to hon. Members opposite, but let them be reminded of it—almost half of our school children now receive their education in up-to-date buildings, most of them new. We have now largely transferred our activities from new buildings to the improvement of the existing schools, particularly those in the country. That is a good record and, as I say, I do not wonder that hon. Members opposite have kept very quiet about it—
  Mr. Harold Davies: I represent a country area, and I have written to the Minister on this subject. There is absolute chaos in regard to our north Staffordshire country children. We have them being kept from school because of the difficulties, and the Minister knows that he is misleading the House about the agricultural and rural areas when he speaks like that.
  Mr. Maclay: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Education will have to deal with that, because I do not think that it arises from anything that has been said.
  I turn now to the staffing of the schools. My right hon. Friend devoted a good part of his speech to the position in England and Wales, so I shall confine my remarks on this subject to the position in Scotland. As we have all said, on both sides of the House, in all our debates on education this is the most important and the most difficult problem in education at present. It continues to give great concern, but there are marked signs of improvement. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) gave some figures of what is now happening, and I should like to extend those a little on a slightly different basis.
  In 1956–57, the number of students in Scotland who began teacher-training, graduate and non-graduate, was 1,950. This was 500 better than the pre-war figure, but certainly that was not remotely good enough. Since then there has been a remarkable advance because the figure is now over 2,750. That means an increase in recruitment of about 40 per cent. in the last four years, and we see no reason why this high level should not be maintained or even raised. I am glad to say that we are attracting more honours and ordinary graduate teachers as well as non-graduate teachers. That is very satisfactory.
  Several hon. Members attacked me personally as Secretary of State for our failure to accept all the recommendations of the various committees which have reported on this subject. If they will look through these reports very carefully, they will find that there are only two or three that we have not been able to accept. I believe I am right in saying that. The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North mentioned one. I

  777
  know of one other which related to a highly difficult subject—full pay and pension—and I believe there is a third. But by and large we have used these excellent reports to the full. We have been able to do most of the things for which they asked and the results are showing very well indeed at the moment.
  Although the actual number of recruits has gone up, we are far from satisfied, for two main reasons. We are not getting as many honours graduates in mathematics and physics or as many homecraft teachers as are required. The first category is particularly serious. The rate of loss of young women through marriage is also still increasing.
  Increased college enrolment in the last few years is having an effect in the schools. That relates directly to one of the points in the Amendment. There are 700 more certificated teachers in Scotland than there were a year ago. That is not a bad figure. Some of the areas which showed the greatest shortages are the areas which have benefited most.
  The increase numbers entering the colleges of education indicate that they are very much in need of expansion and, as the hon. Lady knows, the governing bodies have all been giving great attention to this problem, particularly in this past year. Plans are in train for increasing the total capacity by about 50 per cent., including the one new training college to which the hon. Lady referred. This figure appears, on present indications, to be adequate for the needs for some considerable time to come.
  My right hon. Friend spoke about his plans for inducing married women in England and Wales who were formerly teachers to return to schools, and all I would say is, far be it from me to lag behind the Minister in his pursuit of married women. We are doing what we can to explain to married women who have been teachers the facts about the shortage and to encourage them to come back into service. We hope to advertise in, and to enlist the interest of, the Press, to seek the support of church and womens' organisations, to make use of film and television, and to circulate letters and leaflets of information to married women. As the Minister indicated, this campaign will start early in the New Year and will be carried on at the national and local level.
  Mr. G. M. Thomson: Would the right hon. Gentleman press the colleges of education to recruit married women as students? There is evidence that discrimination is being shown by colleges of education against women students.
  Mr. Maclay: I will look into the hon. Member's suggestion.
  There is no point in providing modern schools with modern equipment and well-trained teachers if the curriculum is not adapted to modern conditions. Great changes are being made which will open up new opportunities for young people in Scotland. In 1962 we will be introducing the new ordinary grade of the leaving certificate, and for the first time Scottish pupils will be able to qualify for a recognised leaving certificate at the age of 16. We hope this will encourage many who now leave school at 15 to remain to qualify for the ordinary grade, and that some who are successful will remain for a further period and obtain the certificate on the higher grade. In 1962, also, the certificate will be available to young people who have left school and who continue their studies at further education centres.
  The Advisory Council on Education in Scotland has recommended that there should also be an advanced grade of the certificate. This would provide sixth year pupils with a clearer objective than they have at present and would help to develop a higher standard of work in the sixth year of our schools. This in itself might help to reduce the wastage in universities to which so much reference has been made. It is one of the things which really may help in that very serious problem.
  I cannot give the figures in regard to university wastage for the reasons I have already indicated in letters which I have written, but I am prepared to examine whether there is a way of overcoming the difficulty. When speaking of wastage, it is interesting to realise that in Scotland, of course, we have a younger age of entry to university, on the whole, than there is in England, and this must have its effect. But my sympathies are with those who, like my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, East, feel that there ought to be a more careful study than there has been at any time so far directed to why this phenomenon

  779
  should occur. It is serious, and I think it needs further examination.
  I come now to what I would describe as the links between secondary and further education, because what I wish to establish is the case for a steady flow of education right from the earliest primary stages through to the fully trained, qualified, degree-holding output at the top. In its Report published last year, the Working Party on the Curriculum of the Senior Secondary School recognised that one reason why able pupils leave school prematurely is that their curriculum too often fails to take full account of their future vocational needs. The Working Party accordingly recommended
  "a closer integration of secondary education with further education than exists at present".
  One of the measures it suggested was that arrangements should be made under which passes in the Scottish Certificate of Education should exempt students from the corresponding parts of the national certificate examinations. Negotiations on this have been successfully concluded and further discussions are now proceeding regarding the national certificates and diplomas themselves. If our proposals are accepted, it will be possible to secure much better co-ordination between secondary education and further education at this level. Also, it will be easier to guide students into further education courses suited to their abilities and thus again reduce the present heavy rate of wastage particularly in the more exacting courses.
  In the debate on the Scottish Estimates last July, hon. Members very properly stressed the need to improve the links between junior secondary schools and further education courses. A good deal of preparatory work has been done on this subject by my Department, and the whole matter can now be profitably reviewed by a further working party consisting of people directly concerned with the work in the schools and in further education. I shall announce as soon as I can the remit and the membership of the working party.
  I come now to the technical college building programme. As the House knows, White Papers for both England and Wales and for Scotland were published which contemplated large building programmes. I understand from my right
  780
  hon. Friend the Minister that projects in England to the value of £100 million have been authorised under these programmes and, further, that the expansion of the teaching force in further education has gone somewhat faster than the Willis Jackson Report envisaged. In Scotland, as hon. Members have pointed out, the programme announced in 1956 for the period up to 1961 was £10 million and in 1959 a further programme of £6 million was announced for 1961–64.
  I will just confirm the figures which were mentioned earlier. Under the two Scottish programmes, proposals to the value of £15·6 million have been approved, including 19 new colleges and a substantial number of major extensions to existing colleges. It is expected that by 1965 the new and improved accommodation will provide places for at least 100,000 day-release students. I mention that figure because I shall come back to day-release courses in a few minutes.
  As regards actual building under the first programme to which I referred, it is expected that by the target date, 31st March, 1961, work either completed or under construction will amount to over £6½ million, with projects to the value of a further £3 million likely to start in the course of the following three months. Hon. Members have been quite firmly rude about progress with this programme. I have great sympathy with their concern about the speed of this programme, because I, too, feel that concern strongly.
  The fact of the matter is that technical colleges have proved to me, while I have been Secretary of State, a most exasperating subject. When it comes to building them, there are invariably problems about sites, and such problems tend to have to go to public inquiry. As I understand it, and I have tried to examine the matter, one reason is that one wants to get a technical college as well placed as one can from the point of view of availability to students, particularly to students who attend in the evening. There is a serious shortage of right sites for these colleges, and that is one reason for the hold-ups.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North implied that there was an excessive fussiness in the Scottish Office about plans, but the truth is that

  781
  there is not yet a great deal of experience of the ideal planning of technical colleges and there is constant discussion about them. This is a case in which the best may be the enemy of the good. I have warned local authorities and, frankly, members of my own Department that they should not always strive for absolute perfection in this matter, or they will never get work started. I assure hon. Members that I am not complacent about this matter, but the fact is that we are working on the programme which we set out—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is not completed."]—we never said when it would be completed, but I think that by within three months of the target date we will have the whole of the first programme properly under way.
  Miss Herbison: The right hon. Gentleman has said that we are on the target figure, but if he reads his own speech, he will find that by the time the programme was supposed to have been completed, only £6½ million of the £10 million programme will have been started.
  Mr. Maclay: At no time did we say that the colleges would be built in that period. It was always the starting date which was given. If the hon. Lady studies the original statement and what I have just said, she will find that is the case.
  I now come to what for Scotland is an important but depressing subject, day release. In Scotland, the number of day-release students has risen from about 28,000 in the session 1955–56 to 35,600 in the session 1959–60, but I entirely agree that those figures are very unsatisfactory. On that we are all in complete agreement.
  The position is disappointing, but I point out that the Government are doing their share. For a number of years, we have given a great deal of publicity to the importance of day release and, with the co-operation of the education authorities, as I pointed out earlier, we intend to provide some 100,000 places in Scotland by 1965. Undoubtedly, the opening of our new colleges will stimulate development. I sincerely hope so, for, with notable exceptions, there is insufficient sign that Scottish industry as a whole recognises the contribution which day-release education can make to the
  782
  training of young employees. This is not the first time I have said that and we must all continue to try to bring home to industry generally the importance of this matter.
  The Scottish Technical Educational Consultative Council has been giving a great deal of thought to this problem and on its advice, in a further effort to secure support for day release, at the end of last Session we dispatched two leaflets to employers and school leavers respectively and we will carry on that kind of work trying to bring home to the maximum number of people the extreme desirability of taking full advantage of these facilities.
  I now come to the question of the fifth university in Scotland, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, East made a specific proposal. The position at the moment is that the Government are considering the additional number of university places which will have to be provided in the United Kingdom. Until a decision has been reached on that, and until it is known what part of the expansion should take place in Scotland, it is not possible to say whether the establishment of a new university, as distinct from expansion of existing universities, will be necessary. If it appears that a new university is needed, the University Grants Committee will, of course, carefully consider questions of its character and location and pay close attention to the claims put forward by various parts of Scotland.
  I was asked about the number of people who could not get into Scottish universities. I cannot give the answer to that question, but it is interesting to note that rather more than half the students of St. Andrews University at the moment come from outside Scotland. For that kind of reason, it is difficult to get a real assessment of the potential needs. Nevertheless, I take the point made by the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North about the lack of availability of figures.
  I should perhaps try to sum up the Government's educational objectives. On both sides of the Border, the Education Acts enjoin us to secure that all children are provided with education suited to their age, ability and aptitude. If each is to have the opportunity to

  783
  develop to the fullest extent to which he is capable, we must ensure that graded courses are offered to suit widely differing abilities. The education offered should be provided in worthy premises. Therefore, we are pursuing a much larger school building programme than the country has ever known.
  More important still, there must be an adequate number of well-qualified teachers. As I have made clear, and as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education has done, too, the staffing problem continues to cause us concern. As I have shown, however, there are notable signs of improvement. Nor are our aims confined to the schools only. We are trying to develop our institutions of further education at all levels so that an increasing number of those who have left school may continue appropriate studies. We are anxious also that these young people should not be hampered by economic difficulties. It is for that reason that we are again examining awards to students with a view to their further improvement.
  It is clear that we are pursuing these aims with a degree of energy and success which does not justify the Amendment. On its first point, concerning the size of classes, I emphasise that we are succeeding in getting more teachers; and this is the key to reducing the size of
  classes. On the second point, it is precisely our concern about the size of classes that makes us wary of naming a date for the next big advance. The Crowther Report has not been rejected—far from it—but we think it right to reduce the size of classes before raising the leaving age or instituting compulsory further education. I am fairly sure that a great many members of the profession agree that we have got our priorities right in that respect.
  Lastly, I come to the third point of the Amendment. From what my right hon. Friend and I have said this evening, it is clear that the Government are providing large funds for the development of universities and of other forms of further education. We have mentioned also our intention to increase awards of bursaries to students. All through this, there runs clear evidence of the intensity of desire on the part of the Government to get for this country the highest possible standards in education. One must be conscious the whole time that priorities must come into consideration, but I cannot see how hon. Members opposite can possibly go into the Lobby in support of their Amendment.
  Question put, That those words be there added:—
  The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 321.

  Division No. 1.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Collick, Percy

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Ainsley, William

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Gourlay, Harry

  Albu, Austen

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Cronin, John

  Grey, Charles

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Crosland, Anthony

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Baird, John

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Grimond, J.

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Gunter, Ray

  Beaney, Alan

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)

  Deer, George

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Benn, Hn. A. Wedgwood (Brist'l, S. E.)

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Hannan, William

  Benson, Sir George

  Delargy, Hugh

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Blackburn, F.

  Dempsey, James

  Hayman, F. H.

  Blyton, William

  Dodds, Norman

  Healey, Denis

  Boardman, H.

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

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

  Driberg, Tom

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Bowles, Frank

  Edelman, Maurice

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Boyden, James

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Hilton, A. V.

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Holman, Percy

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Houghton, Douglas

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Evans, Albert

  Howell, Charles A.

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Hoy, James H.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Finch, Harold

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Fitch, Alan

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Callaghan, James

  Forman, J. C.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Hunter, A. E.

  Chapman, Donald

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Chetwynd, George

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Cliffe, Michael

  Ginsburg, David

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Janner, Barnett

  Neal, Harold

  Stonehouse, John

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Stones, William

  Jeger, George

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Oram, A. E.

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

  Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Owen, Will

  Swain, Thomas

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Paget, R. T.

  Swingler, Stephen

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Sylvester, George

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Symonds, J. B.

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Kelley, Richard

  Pavitt, Lawrenoe

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Peart, Frederick

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  King, Dr. Horace

  Pentland, Norman

  Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)

  Lawson, George

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Thornton, Ernest

  Ledger, Ron

  Prentice, R. E.

  Timmons, John

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Tomney, Frank

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannook)

  Probert, Arthur

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Wade, Donald

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Randall, Harry

  Warbey, William

  Lipton, Marcus

  Rankin, John

  Weitzman, David

  Loughlin, Charles

  Redhead, E. C.

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Reid, William

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  McCann, John

  Reynolds, G. W.

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  MacColl, James

  Rhodes, H.

  Whitlock, William

  McInnes, James

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Wigg, George

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Mackie, John

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  McLeavey, Frank

  Ross, William

  Willey, Frederick

  Mabon, Simon

  Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Williams, Rev. LI. (Abertillery)

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

  Short, Edward

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Manuel, A. C.

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Willis, E. C. (Edinburgh, E.)

  Mapp, Charles

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Woof, Robert

  Mendleson, J. J.

  Small, William

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Millan, Bruce

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Snow, Julian

  Zilliacus, K.

  Moody, A. S.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Morris, John

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mort, D. L.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Mr. John Taylor and

  Moyle, Arthur

  Steele, Thomas

  Mr. G. H. R. Rogers.

  Mulley, Frederick

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  NOES

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Bryan, Paul

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Aitken, W. T.

  Bullard, Denys

  Deedes, W. F.

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  de Ferranti, Basil

  Allason, James

  Burden, F. A.

  Digby, Simon Wing field

  Alport, Rt. Hon. C. J. M.

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

  Doughty, Charles

  Arbuthnot, John

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Ashton, Sir Hubert

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  du Cann, Edward

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Duthie, Sir William

  Barber, Anthony

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

  Barlow, Sir John

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Elliott, R. W.

  Barter, John

  Chataway, Christopher

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Batsford, Brian

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Farr, John

  Beamish, Col. Tufton

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Fell, Anthony

  Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Finlay, Graeme

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Fisher, Nigel

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Cole, Norman

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Cooke, Robert

  Forrest, George

  Bidgood, John C.

  Cooper, A. E.

  Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & stone)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Cordle, John

  Freeth, Denzil

  Bishop, F. P.

  Corfield, F. V.

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Costain, A. P.

  Gammans, Lady

  Bossom, Clive

  Coulson, J. M.

  Gardner, Edward

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  George, J. C. (Pollok)

  Box, Donald

  Craddock, Sir Beresford

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Critchley, Julian

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

  Braine, Bernard

  Crowder, F. P.

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Brewis, John

  Cunningham, Knox

  Godber, J. B.

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

  Curran, Charles

  Goodhart, Philip

  Brooke Rt. Hon. Henry

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Goodhew, Victor

  Brooman-White, R.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Gough, Frederick

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Dance, James

  Gower, Raymond

  786

  787

  Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

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

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Green, Alan

  Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Gresham Cooks, R.

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Roots, William

  Gurden, Harold

  McAdden, Stephen

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  McLaren, Martin

  Russell, Ronald

  Hare, Rt. Hon. John

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs.)

  Seymour, Leslie

  Harrison, Brian (Maidon)

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Sharples, Richard

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

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

  Shaw, M.

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Shepherd, William

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Simon, Sir Jocelyn

  Hay, John

  Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

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

  Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

  Henderson, John (Cathoart)

  Maddan, Martin

  Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

  Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

  Maginnis, John E.

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Hendry, Forbes

  Maitland, Sir John

  Speir, Rupert

  Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hon. Sir R.

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Hiley, Joseph

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

  Marlowe, Anthony

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenthawe)

  Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

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

  Marshall, Dougles

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Marten, Neil

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Hobson, John

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Sumner, Donald (Orpington)

  Holland, Philip

  Mawby, Ray

  Talbot, John E.

  Hollingworth, John

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

  Tapsell, Peter

  Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

  Mills, Stratton

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Hopkins, Alan

  Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

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

  Hornby, R. P.

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Teeling, William

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia

  Moore, Sir Thomas

  Temple, John M.

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Morgan, William

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

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

  Morrison, John

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  Mott-Raddyffe, Sir Charles

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  Hughes Hallet, Vice-Admiral John

  Nabarro, Gerald

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Neave, Airey

  Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Noble, Michael

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter

  Hurd, Sir Anthony

  Nugent, Sir Richard

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Turner, Colin

  Jackson, John

  Osborne, Cyril (Louth)

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  van Straubenzee, w. R.

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Page, Graham

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Partridge, E.

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Peel, John

  Wakefield, Sir Waved (St. M'lebone)

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Peroival, Ian

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Wall, Patrick

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Pilkington, Capt. Richard

  Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

  Kimball, Marcus

  Pitman, I. J.

  Watts, James

  Kirk, Peter

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Webster, David

  Kitson, Timothy

  Pott, Percivall

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Lagden, Godfrey

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Whitelaw, William

  Lambton, Viscount

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Price, H. A. (Lewisbam, W.)

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Leavey, J. A.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Ramsden, James

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Lindsay, Martin

  Rees, Hugh

  Woollam, John

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Worsley, Marcus

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Renton, David

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'field)

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Longbottom, Charles

  Rippon, Geoffrey

  Mr. Edward Wakefield and

  Colonel J. H. Harrison.

  Main Question again proposed.
  Mr. Ernest Popplewell Mr. Ernest Popplewell (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West)rose—
  It being after Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

  TRAFFIC, GRANGETOWN
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]
  10.13 p.m.
  Mr. George Thomas: I wish to raise a constituency matter, and although it is not one which might interest a great number of hon. Members in the House, it is, nevertheless, one of considerable importance to people who live in Grangetown, Cardiff. I wish to raise the question of the traffic problems in one ward of my constituency. One of the wonders of this House is that after discussing great issues which affect the State it is possible to raise matters touching the lives of people in a small part of one's division.
  The Grangetown ward is a closely populated residential ward where two great main roads—Penarth Road and Clare Road—cross and divide the ward into four sectors. Each sector has been seriously affected by an unparalleled increase in heavy and fast-moving motor traffic. This is a common problem in every great city in the country, but I want to refer to the particular one in which my constituents are affected.
  First, I want to refer to Pentre Gardens, Merches Gardens, Mardy Street and Pentre Street and the side streets of that area. There are no fewer than eleven junctions in this small area, without counting the side streets. There are no "Halt" signs and no "Slow" signs at any of these junctions which, for the unwary stranger are potential deathtraps. Indeed, there have been two accidents there within the past month. Heavy lorries and fast-moving traffic alike cut through this quiet part for two purposes: first, to beat the traffic lights at the corner of Tudor Road and Clare Road, Grangetown, and, secondly, to short-circuit their route to the Penarth Road, the other main road. This heavy traffic rumbles through roads never intended for it, with a devastating effect on property and people alike. Nerves are shaken as the china rattles on the dresser.
  The local authority, Cardiff City Council, being aware of the problem, attempted to make an order prohibiting heavy vehicles from using these streets.
  790
  Also, a petition has been drawn up by the residents, led by Councillor Alexander, a young member of the Cardiff Corporation. The terms of the petition, which is now being circulated, are as follows:
  "We, the undersigned, understand that the Cardiff City Council have made an order prohibiting certain streets, viz., Dinas Street and Hafod Street, to all vehicles except those requiring access to premises in these streets, and we further understand that to date the Ministry of Transport are unwilling to confirm this order."
  That is my first grievance with the Minister.
  To return to the petition:
  "We therefore wish to associate ourselves with this previous petition and to add our own strong representations that this order is confirmed and extended to cover Mardy Street, Pentre Street, Pentre Gardens and Merches Gardens. The use of these streets by through traffic is increasing and is providing an added danger to the children and older people of this locality as well as causing noise and distress, and damage to property. Alternative main roads exist for through traffic but the streets in the order and those defined above, which are classed as residential, are bearing the brunt of excessive use of them by through traffic in an effort to save time to the detriment of all residents in this area. We further recommend that the streets named Pentre Gardens and Merches Gardens should be scheduled as children's playgrounds."
  Now I come to the recommendations that I seek to make to the Minister. I support the application that this part of Grangetown should be scheduled as a children's playground. The children have already decided it for us. They play there innocently enough. I fear that we may have serious accidents if urgent action is not taken in the very near future.
  I believe that any traffic approaching the area because it has a right to call on the houses there ought to be limited to 5 m.p.h. I further suggest that all heavy traffic should be prohibited from parking in this entirely residential area. There has been excessive parking of vehicles night and day, and heavy lorries starting up in the early hours of the morning play havoc with the residents' rest.
  I also wish to ask the Minister to look at the question of Penarth Road. This is well known to the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Box); I believe that he goes through my constituency every time he goes home. Penarth Road and Clare Road are two main roads, but they were never made for the heavy

  791
  traffic that they now have to bear. They are both highly dangerous, and it is difficult for the people who wish to cross them. Clare Road has now been given some traffic islands. Penarth Road needs more traffic islands and Belisha crossings, particularly below the traffic lights at the junction with Clare Road and at the top at the junction with Fitzhammon Embankment.
  I know that this is a local problem, but the Minister must carry a great deal of responsibility because when the local authority submitted a solution, his Department turned it down, as if to say that the "man in Whitehall" knows best. I believe that the Cardiff Corporation, which is a very responsible body, certainly knows better than the Minister or his Department what streets in the city ought to be closed to heavy traffic. I trust that the Minister will be prepared to give hope to the people of Grange-town, who, through no fault of their own, find their property being affected in value because of the heavy traffic passing through and also their rest disturbed and their safety endangered. It is because of my anxiety on this question that I took the extreme step of troubling the House with it tonight.
  10.20 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): The problem that the hon. Member has raised is by no means unique. He may not be altogether surprised if I say that we get frequent requests from many parts of the country for the same kind of treatment to be applied to small residential streets which are now being used for heavy traffic, as he has requested for this complex of roads in part of his constituency. We know all about this, because he has been assiduous in corresponding with my right hon. Friend and with me and in putting Questions about the roads in this area.
  Before I deal as best I can with the various points he made, I wish to make one general point. The responsibility of my right hon. Friend in these matters is somewhat limited. The Cardiff City Council is a county borough, and as such it is the traffic authority for the whole of the city area. This means it has power to carry through a large number of different types of traffic schemes without the intervention of anyone else.
  792
  There are, however, certain things that it cannot do on its own without the confirmation and approval of my right hon. Friend. Two of these things have been mentioned tonight—the prohibition of certain streets to traffic, either all traffic or certain types of traffic, needs confirmation, and the designation of streets as play streets for children also needs his confirmation and approval.
  Having made that general point to indicate my right hon. Friend's position—which is, namely, that it is only if these two propositions are put that he has any locus standi—I proceed now to the main points. As the hon. Member said, the trouble in this rather congested restricted area is due to very heavy traffic which is being experienced throughout Cardiff, particularly in the centre and the main thoroughfares. I am told that the traffic there has increased by some 10 to 15 per cent. in the last eighteen months, and this is quite a startling increase. It is an index, of course, of the improving economic position of Cardiff and South Wales in general.
  The problem principally arises, as he said, because a lot of traffic going either from the City or west of the City down to Penarth or the docks has to make use of two of these main roads, and since these roads are congested there is a tendency for traffic, particularly the heavy lorries, to filter through some of these smaller residential streets in order to take short cuts and avoid the congestion. There is a glorious expression, which I must not keep from the House, used in my right hon. Friend's Department to describe this process. It is called "traffic seepage". I came across it for the first time today. The hon. Gentleman will understand what I mean.
  In addition there is the problem of street parking. There is a great deal of parking of ordinary private cars in this district, and also a large number of lorries parked there, often at night and for most of the night. These two things together undoubtedly cause a good deal of annoyance to the local residents. I say frankly that I have every sympathy with them and I understand their feelings and difficulties.
  I come next to the particular case which he raised—the question of Hafod Street and Dinas Street. These are two small streets which the City Council asked us some time ago to prohibit to

  793
  heavy traffic. We were obliged to refuse the request, not because we have any illusions of grandeur and believe that we in Berkeley Square—not Whitehall—know better than the City Council, but because a census of the traffic made by our divisional road engineers on the spot showed that, overall, the volume of traffic in these two roads is quite slight.
  I talked tonight on the telephone to our divisional road engineer in Cardiff. He told me that to the best of his information—and he knows the area well—those two roads are not used as short cuts by much traffic because, as he put it, they are really not on the way to anywhere. They are part of a complex of roads in this area, but they do not form an obvious diversionary route for traffic going from one point to another.
  As for the parking of vehicles in these two roads, as I said earlier, the City Council is itself the traffic authority. If it felt it desirable to do so in the interests of the residents in the locality it could make a "No Waiting" order. It could prohibit parking or waiting in either or both or these streets. The City Council knows this, but so far it has not decided to do this. Therefore, my right hon. Friend is bound to say that he cannot see any reason to prohibit these streets to traffic, or even to certain types of traffic. The question of the prohibition of waiting is not for my right hon. Friend, but for the City Council.
  We have to be a little careful in agreeing too freely to restrictions upon certain types of traffic using certain types of street, because if we start blocking off certain streets to traffic, our action has repercussions elsewhere. If we block off a street the traffic which normally seeks to use it will be forced to use other streets, and complaints will then begin to arise from residents in those streets. If we had accepted what the City Council had in mind to do, and prohibited Dinas Street and Hafod Street to heavy traffic or all traffic, there would have been complaints from residents in the other streets on either side, which would then be used by the traffic which no longer went down these two streets. The more streets that are opened and the fewer the prohibitions, the more even is the distribution of the traffic. For that reason we have to adopt a rather tough policy in connection with the requests we receive from time to time, from many parts of
  794
  the country, for the prohibition of certain streets to certain types of traffic.
  My next point concerns the request that the whole of this area should be designated a number of play streets. I was not sure whether the hon. Member was exaggerating a little, but I think he will agree that it will be virtually impossible to close down all the streets in this area.
  Mr. G. Thomas: I am sorry if I caused the Minister to misunderstand me. I was referring to the Pentre Gardens-Murches Gardens square.
  Mr. Hay: Then I misunderstood the hon. Member. This would not be an easy thing to do. However, I can give him one piece of good news. He may know that we have been approached by the City Council to turn a road in this area—Clive Lane—into a play street. I understand that the Council has had this in mind far some time. I can tell the hon. Member tonight, as we shall very shortly tell the City Council, that if it chooses to make an order to this effect my right hon. Friend will be ready to confirm it, subject to any objections made when the order is advertised—for these orders have first to be made by the City Council, then advertised, so that there may be opportunities for objections to be lodged, and then my right hon. Friend has the power of confirmation. That is the general position.
  The hon. Member next raised the question of pedestrian crossings in Penarth Road. We have no record of any applications made by the City Council for what we call uncontrolled crossings—that is zebra crossings—in Penarth Road. Our divisional road engineer has reported that he has had no requests for crossings at all. There is a controlled crossing at the traffic lights at the junction of Penarth Road, Corporation Road, Clare Road and Paget Street, but there are no other pedestrian crossings in these roads, or so I understand. Nevertheless, on 26th October last the Town Clerk of Cardiff made formal application to us for a grant towards the cost of providing central refuges at two sites in Penarth Road. The first is to be near the junction with Taff Embankment, and the second near the junction with Tresillian Terrace. This application is being considered. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman tonight exactly what the answer will be. That is the position about pedestrian crossings.

  795
  As for the accident figures, I have not detailed figures with me about the accidents in the whole complex of roads which has been mentioned. The information we have shows that the accident rate here is no higher than it is either in other parts of Cardiff where the same sort of conditions apply or elsewhere in the country. It is true that as traffic mounts, particularly in an area greatly used by heavy traffic, the risk of accident is to that extent increased. On the whole, this area does not seem to us to have an accident rate much higher than those to be found elsewhere.
  I have covered most of the hon. Gentleman's points. One must look at this problem and the traffic requirements of Cardiff as a whole. It is not very easy to select one area and try to deal with it in isolation. As soon as one tries to do that, one transfers the troubles and difficulties elsewhere. Neither I nor my right hon. Friend is in any way unsympathetic to the inconvenience that is caused to residential areas through the process of traffic seepage.
  The rise in traffic in Cardiff, and indeed throughout the country, is due to the greater economic activity which is going on and the much wider possession, ownership and use of cars. The picture is, therefore, not entirely black. There are certain black features to it, but there are also many white ones.
  The long-term solution in all our towns and cities lies in major improvements to roads and to car parking facilities. In the short term, there is no doubt that streets have to be kept as open as possible to help to spread the load of traffic, because to close them only makes the problem more acute. This may seem a somewhat hard doctrine, but it is the only realistic one.
  In addition, we must press on as quickly as we can with the control of on-street parking and the provision of off-street parking facilities. I understand that the position in Cardiff is that the City Council has under the closest examination some far-reaching schemes of traffic and parking control. The Council is in the process of building two large off-street car parks, with others planned for the future. The Council is almost on the point of taking the plunge with regard to parking meters, which we sincerely hope it will decide to install
  796
  at a fairly early date, because we are convinced that their installation is the best answer to be found, at the moment at any rate, to the problem of on-street parking.
  If the City Council, by the examination of all these ideas, can provide a solution for the parking and traffic problem in the central area of Cardiff, that itself will have its effect upon the problems which the hon. Gentleman has raised. I do not want him to take away from the debate the impression that my right hon. Friend is indifferent to what is going on. He certainly is not, but his powers are limited and, if and when the City Council comes to us with plans which require our confirmation, we will certainly look at them in the most sympathetic light possible, bearing in mind the responsibilities that we have and the effects that a decision there may well have in other parts of the country.
  Broadly speaking, I do not feel despondent about the problems of Cardiff. The City Council knows perfectly well what is going on and what to do about it. We will help it in every way we can.
  10.34 p.m.
  Mr. Wedgwood Benn: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has replied with his customary courtesy to the very powerful plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) on behalf of these residents. My hon. Friend would never have raised this topic in the House if it had not been a question which had caused much local concern.
  With respect to the Parliamentary Secretary, to say that this is a common problem does not necessarily dismiss my hon. Friend's argument. If there is heavy through traffic in a residential area, particularly if motorists are allowed to use it as a lorry park, it interferes with the safety, comfort and health of people just as much as if a factory were allowed to be built there which disturbed people by working at night. This is therefore a fundamental question which affects the lives of people in the cities.
  I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has altogether met the points made by my hon. Friend. First of all, it is very

  797
  common for the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary to say in this House that nothing can be done by them be. cause it is up to the local authority. In this instance, the local authority has recommended action which the Minister has refused to reinforce. It may be that other action will be approved, but some action, based on local opinion and no doubt carefully worked out, has been rejected by the Department. That is bound to cause anxiety. I do not know whether Cardiff engages a trained traffic engineer. I hope that it does. All big cities should have a traffic engineer. We want to encourage the systematic study of traffic flow by the authorities. But I think that the Minister should have been very slow to turn down any such application.
  Secondly, there is this big problem of lorries and their parking. This is something that causes anxiety not only to the residents but to the drivers of the lorries. They have nowhere to park their vehicles. They say that they are pursued by the police if they leave them on certain streets and are therefore driven into the residential area. If we are to have a policy making the road free to compete with the railways, the Government will have to insist on, and assist in, the construction of lorry pounds where lorries can be left overnight, safe from theft—that is a very big matter for lorry drivers and hauliers, in any case—and so leave residents unaffected by early morning and late night working.
  It is all very well to make fun of seepage, repercussive jamming and the like, but the simple fact is that we are not keeping up with the demand made
  798
  upon our roads by the new vehicles that are coming on to them. It is no use saying that it is better to have a car that one cannot use than not to have a car at all. The fact is that this 15 per cent. increase, representing an increase of 1 per cent. per month in Cardiff and elsewhere, is far ahead of even the moderately-accelerated road improvement programme the Government have announced. The Government are absolutely defeatist in believing that the public want such a slow rate of urban road improvement and would not be prepared to pay for better facilities. If a man is prepared to invest, say, £400, £500, £600 or £700 in a car, he is also prepared to pay for the roads—and to see that they are built—that are necessary for him to use his car.
  I well understand the difficulty in which the hon. Gentleman finds himself, because these are decisions taken by the Cabinet—and not even in his own Department—but it is not good enough for him to dismiss the difficulties of my hon. Friend as a common problem. It is a national crisis. All I urge now is that the public want some money to be spent on roads. They are prepared to pay, because there is no virtue whatsoever in allowing our roads to get so overcrowded that not only road users find life impossible but residents in congested areas find the residential benefits of their property are much affected. I hope that we shall have an opportunity to discuss this wider question before too long.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Eleven o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Royal Agricultural Show (East German Visitors)
  Royal Agricultural Show (East German Visitors)
GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES
  External Broadcasting
  External Broadcasting
  Low-Priced Book Scheme
  Low-Priced Book Scheme
  (a)Low-Priced Books
  (a)Low-Priced Books
  (b)Book Export Agreements
  (b)Book Export Agreements
  (c)British Council's Libraries and Presentations
  (c)British Council's Libraries and Presentations
  (d)Grants for the Development of Libraries Overseas
  (d)Grants for the Development of Libraries Overseas
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Widows
  Widows
  Medical Appeal Tribunal
  Medical Appeal Tribunal
  National Assistance (Gateshead)
  National Assistance (Gateshead)
  Chest Disabilities (Inquiry)
  Chest Disabilities (Inquiry)
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Commercial Aircraft Operators (Safety Standards)
  Commercial Aircraft Operators (Safety Standards)
  Turnhouse (Alternative Airfield)
  Turnhouse (Alternative Airfield)
  Space Research (International Co-operation)
  Space Research (International Co-operation)
HOSPITALS
  Mental Hospital Staff (Excess Hours)
  Mental Hospital Staff (Excess Hours)
  Medical Staffing (Working Party)
  Medical Staffing (Working Party)
  Ilford and Barking
  Ilford and Barking
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Midwives, Gateshead
  Midwives, Gateshead
  Poliomyelitis
  Poliomyelitis
  Social Work (Training)
  Social Work (Training)
  National Health Service (Whitley Councils)
  National Health Service (Whitley Councils)
  War Disability Pensioners (Motor Vehicles)
  War Disability Pensioners (Motor Vehicles)
  Motor Tricycles
  Motor Tricycles
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
  BRITISH COUNCIL ARTS EXHIBITION, MOSCOW AND LENINGRAD
  BRITISH COUNCIL ARTS EXHIBITION, MOSCOW AND LENINGRAD
  ICELAND (FISHERIES DISPUTE)
  ICELAND (FISHERIES DISPUTE)
  INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
  INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
ROYAL NAVY
  Apprentices
  Apprentices
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Apprentices
  Apprentices
BAHAMAS
  Women (Franchise)
  Women (Franchise)
BRITISH GUIANA
  Cuba (Trade)
  Cuba (Trade)
ZANZIBAR
  Constitution (Changes)
  Constitution (Changes)
MALTA
  Constitutional Commission (Membership)
  Constitutional Commission (Membership)
EDUCATION
  School Dental Service, North Wales
  School Dental Service, North Wales
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency
  Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency
  Quarterly Magazine, "Good Business"
  Quarterly Magazine, "Good Business"
EMPLOYMENT
  Carr Committee (Recommendations)
  Carr Committee (Recommendations)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Kiosks, Somerset
  Kiosks, Somerset
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Patents and Trade Marks (Fees)
  Patents and Trade Marks (Fees)
  Quarrying Materials
  Quarrying Materials
BRITISH ARMY
  Apprentices
  Apprentices

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

STATEMENT—THE "LADY CHATTERLEY'S LOVER" CASE
2.35 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will allow me to trespass on your time for a brief moment in order to express my regrets for having unintentionally misled my noble friend Lord Teviot, and the House, on Thursday afternoon of last week. My noble friend asked my advice as to whether he should discuss a case which ended the day before. I am afraid that my mind was focused on the more general social problems on which I had to reply, and I said that it was our usual practice to wait for the expiry of the time of appeal. It escaped my mind that this case had been tried on indictment when, of course, there is no appeal from an acquittal. I can only suppose that I must have had in mind that most cases of this sort are tried in magistrates' courts from which the prosecution can appeal on a point of law. At the best this is an explanation and not an excuse, and I must express my deep regret to the House for my lapse and publicly to Lord Teviot, to whom, of course, I wrote at once and from whom I had a characteristically generous reply on Friday.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I must thank my noble and learned friend for the very kind way in which he has dealt with this question.

WARSHIP CONSTRUCTION AND THE SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY
THE EARL OF CRAVEN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is true that production of warships is up to date for the first time since the end of World War II because of declining orders in the shipbuilding industry.]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, while the production of warships is now more up to date than it has been since the end of the last war, There are a number of contributory causes for this. Nevertheless, it is true that the naval programme is no longer meeting as severe competition from merchant ship construction as it did earlier when there was a boom in shipbuilding.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, would it not also be true to recognise that since the end of the last war programs of shipbuilding have been very widely cut?
THE EARL OF CRAVEN: My Lords, could my noble friend tell me whether Her Majesty's Government realize the possibilities of the great gains in experimentation and design of propulsive machinery technology which would result from a united policy within the framework of the Common Market?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, that seems to be looking rather into the future, but as a general proposition I would agree that the more we get to know what our neighbors are doing the better.

DECIMALISATION OF THE CURRENCY
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, having regard to the debate on decimalization of the currency on Thursday next, they will place in the Library of the House a number of copies of the Joint Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science and the Association of Chambers of Commerce on this subject.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, the Report is not an official publication, but I am informed that a number of copies are now available in the Library of the House. I certainly hope that any of your Lordships who are interested in the subject will study the Report.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I thank my noble friend.

ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH
2.40 p.m.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion moved on Tuesday last by Lord Dement—namely, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as followeth:
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I rise to move the Amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough—namely, to add at the end of the proposed Address:
"but humbly regret that the policies of Your Majesty's Government are not conducive to an ordered and expanding economy."
My Lords, I venture to assert that there is hardly any of your Lordships, sitting wherever he may in this Chamber, who would put his hand on his heart and say that he or she is wholly satisfied with the advance in the economy of this country at the present time. The one exception that may be true may be the case of the noble and buoyant Viscount who leads the House, who may possibly take a different view. But those who will disagree with what I have said—and I think there will be very few, if any—should read the leading article that appeared in the Financial Times on Saturday last, dealing with the business outlook. The writer used these words:
"Weighing up all these divergent trends, the most likely forecast for the economy as
214
a whole is that industrial production will probably continue on the level trend which it has maintained for most of this year. It is on the whole more likely to decline than to rise, but any changes either way are likely to be fairly small."
I think that is not a very pleasing prospect for the economy of this country.
We have been aware for some time past that the balance of trade has been unsatisfactory, that the exports of this country are increasing at a much smaller proportion than those of other countries land then, last Tuesday, the day when Her Gracious Majesty read her Speech from the Throne, we had the Press release from the Treasury, saying that in the first three quarters of this year there has been practically no change, no increase, in the actual production and productivity in this country. I venture to suggest that that is a grave and serious situation.
The purpose of this Amendment is to fasten upon the Government a part—, I would consider a major part—of the responsibility for this serious state of affairs. It is bad enough that our exports should lag so far behind those of other countries. I was looking at a table the other day and I found that in France, Germany and Japan there has been a far greater increase than we have had here. That is not to say anything about production in the Soviet Union. Even if we take with a measure of reserve all the optimistic views and forecasts of that country, still everyone knows, and those who have visited Russia and have brought back evidence will admit, Chat there has been a marvelous increase in production in that country. It is serious enough that we should have had these two items: the serious condition of our balance of payments and the serious failure to keep abreast of other countries with our exports and our trade. Now we have this Press release telling us definitely that in the last three quarters there has not been any advance in production. After all, our production is the fountain source of our wealth, and if that is not going to increase then our future is black indeed.
Your Lordships who know about these things will recognize that these three sets of facts are not independent facts; they are to a large extent inter-related. But it is worth realizing that whichever index you take, whichever starting point

215
you go from, in all those three oases you have this gloomy forecast of what is taking place. The major point is, who is responsible for this? As I said just now, I have no hesitation at all in fixing a large share of the responsibility upon Her Majesty's Ministers and the Government of the present day. That seems to me to require little proof, but I will proceed in the course of my speech to indicate in broad outline the major facts which I rely upon for that charge. I shall deal only in broad outline, and noble Lords from our Benches who follow me will no doubt, from their individual knowledge of different matters, fill in details, and some of them will add matters upon which I do not, for lack of time, propose myself to touch.
I would begin in the first instance by taking the monetary situation. There is no doubt that the uncertainty provided by the fluctuations in the bank rate in the course of the last few years has played a great part in preventing industry from laying its plans ahead. How can any business man, not knowing whether the bank rate is going to be three, four, five, six, or possibly even seven per cent., day his plans satisfactorily? The fact is that he does not; and that is one of the main reasons why our economy is unable to progress in an orderly and expansionary manner at the present time.
For quite a good part of this year we have had a 6 per cent bank rate. We are told that it has now been reduced to 5½ per cent. That step might have been regarded with some satisfaction. but it was accompanied at the time by a statement by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer that on no account must this be regarded as a retreat from the red light; that it was not even an amber light with a hopeful prospect for the future and the chance in early days to come of its being brought down to the green light with a moderate bank rate. I say that, with that unfortunate gloss that was put upon it by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the effect of this reduction, gratefully received as no doubt it has been, will be of very much less value.
It happened that a few days ago I was reading two speeches, one from Mr. Cobbold, the Governor of the Bank
216
of England, and another from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd. They both expressed satisfaction. The satisfaction of the Governor of the Bank of England was that he was now convinced that it was patent that the monetary policy of the Government and the Bank of England, the putting up of the bank rate, was having a much greater effect than had been supposed at the time when the Radcliffe Report was issued and a somewhat ambivalent attitude was adopted towards monetary policy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he was glad that the promises that the Conservative Party made at the last General Election were being fulfilled; that they were relying more and more upon monetary policy and bank rate than upon any other thing; and he was glad to think that they were going to eschew, as the Conservative Party thought right, physical restraint, and depend more and more, as I understood his remarks, on bank rate. I venture to suggest that that is most disastrous.
The view that those two very distinguished financiers expressed reminded me of a little story I was told when I was a child. There was a man who had a horse; it was a good horse in every way, but the owner was disappointed that it cost so much to feed. He came to the conclusion that if only he could cut clown the diet of the horse a little at a time, the horse could be trained to live on very much less. He therefore arranged that there should be one wisp of hay less for the horse every time it was fed. The experiment apparently went very well and the amount of the horse's food was cut down, wisp by wisp. The experiment was seemingly going triumphantly to succeed when, just as they had got down to the last wisp of hay per day, an unfortunate event happened —the horse died. It seems to me that it is that kind of position with which these great financiers are expressing their satisfaction, while gradually the economy and health of the country is going steadily downhill.
Some people have told me they cannot see how the bank rate affects the ordinary man in the street. To one of those I gave this answer. Let us take one of the smaller houses that are being built in this country in large numbers, a house costing, let us say, £3,000 When

217
the bank rate is at 6 per cent. the interest alone on that money is something like £180 per year; and when (as one must) one has added a lot of other things, like convincing and so on, one gets to a figure substantially above £4 per week for that house. The point I want your Lordships to recognise—and I am sure most of you do—is that someone has to find that money. The tenant has to pay that rent, the taxpayer has to produce a subsidy or the ratepayer has to make it up; but at least £4 per week, and possibly considerably more, has to be found by someone. That means, of course, that not only will all new houses attract that rent but any landlord who is in possession of a comparable decontrolled property which is in good repair can ask up to £4 per week rent, and is likely to be able to get it.
Supposing, on the other hand, that bank interest is only 3 per cent., then, of course, the charges are so much the less—something like one-half of what they would have been—and we get an entirely different situation. Therefore, whether we are dealing with the rent of a small cottage, such as I have taken, or with larger and much more expensive houses, the rents will have gone up, largely because of the bank rate. That has brought this apparently intricate monetary matter to the level at which the ordinary man in the street can understand how it affects him; and it affects not only the ordinary man who rents houses but the whole of the business world in their transactions. As a result, the cost of everything goes up, so that in one aspect, at any rate, a high bank rate actually invites inflation. There we have the whole position. I say, therefore, that so long as we have a Government who rely so implicitly on this monetary method of dealing with the economy of the country, so long are we going to be in trouble and so long are we going to fail to get the expansion to which we are entitled.
Before I leave this purely monetary matter I want to speak on one corollary, a comparatively small point. A high rate of bank interest also affects the price of gilt-edged securities, and Her Majesty's Government have promised to introduce a Bill to enable trustees to invest their resources in securities other than gilt-edged. They are to be entitled to buy equities. I have no objec-
218
tion at all to that principle, though whether, in the present state of the Stock Market, it will be a profitable thing for trustees to invest in equities is at the present time a matter between the trustees and the stockbroker. In so far as they do so, however, I maintain that it is something which is contrary to the terms on which people were invited to invest in gilt-edged. They were told that there were two reasons why they should do so. One was that it was patriotic to do so; the other was that the price of gilt-edged would be kept up, by the insistence that trustees, unless there was some different provision in the trust deed, should be compelled to spend their money in buying gilt-edged.
As to the first, I believe that Her Majesty's Government have shown, by their completely callous attitude towards the fall in gilt-edged, that they put no confidence in that view. Now, with this new Bill they are, as I see it, changing the terms on which they got the investment from the people—and doing so after the investor has paid his money. I regard it as, to that extent at least, a breach of confidence. It may be that it is a good thing for trustees to have this power, but if it is then I feel the Government ought to do something for the gilt-edged investor who has paid his money on a contract which, to that extent, the Government are now tearing up.
I leave that question of the monetary matter and turn to something different—the obssession which Her Majesty's Government and the Conservative Party seem to have in favor of private enterprise against public enterprise, not merely where the balance is even but in cases where there is a perfectly good and flourishing business in public hands. I recognize to the full, I believe, the necessity of retaining a very large measure of private industry. I recognize the great service that private industry has rendered in the past and the necessity of keeping it at the present time; but I should like your Lordships to realize that private enterprise and competition—which is one of the great things it is supposed to help —have changed enormously in the course of my lifetime.
When I was young competition was competition. The man, or the company, who was undertaking a venture did so

219
Entirely at his, or their, own risk. Sometimes they succeeded and made money; sometimes they lost it and went down. It was to some extent a rather brutal system. The weak would go to the wall, and nobody was going to care; and what were called the working classes had a pretty raw deal. But it was economically efficient. Now, to a large extent, competition, in the sense in which I knew it when I was young, has almost entirely disappeared. We have these enormous concerns with which there is really no competition at all, and many of these concerns enter into arrangements with one another, so that competition in that sense has practically gone.
But that is not all. In addition, these large concerns, owing to their power and influence and owing to their importance in the community, go to the Government and get private help. That has made a complete change. It is not a question of private interests trading on their own capital, but, to a large extent, of private interests supported by Government, public money, and of other interests which are of public standing supported by the Government. The most striking and immediate case of that is, of course, the new Cunard liner. The first question we have to ask about the Cunard project is this: would it have been carried out by private means? I take it that the Government would say, "No". What does that really mean? It means that it is not regarded in the City of London as a profitable undertaking. Therefore the Government have decided to subsidize it.
The next question is this: why are they going to do it? They say, I understand, that it is for the national prestige. There are two opinions about that. Some people think that having a large liner in the days to come will be a great feather in our cap; that it will promote our prestige. Other people think that the new ship will be a white elephant when it comes into operation. That view is not one that is shared merely by a few people on this side of the House. I found in reading quite a number of papers including The Times and Financial Times,that they are all doubtful whether it will be an advantage to the country for that money to be spent on it. But
220
that is a question, I assume, dealt with in the Chandos Report, and as we are not allowed to see the Chandos Report we cannot judge whether the arguments are good or bad.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? It will be within his memory that when the "Queen Mary" was first built difficulty arose regarding insuring the hull. There were so many people then who took the view that the "Queen Mary" was not an appropriate investment by the Cunard Company that the market had great difficulty in effecting the cover, and, if my memory is right, the Government had to go to their assistance.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I quite realize that. But, after all, the whole position to-day is very different from what it was those considerable number of years ago when the "Queen Mary" was built. What I am saying is that it is a doubtful question. Those are matters which I am not going to deal with, though they are dealt with by The Times and the Financial Times quite faithfully. The question I am going to discuss is whether the financial arrangements are wise—and this question is asked also by both those organs.
If you are going to start sharing out money to one private enterprise, where are you going to stop? Who is going to decide which are the sheep that are to be fed and which are those that are going to be sent hungry away? If you are going to subsidize the Cunard, what about some other shipowner who owns a large fleet of ships and who wants to put them in working order? Are you going to say, "We gave it to the Cunard. We like that company and we do not like you"? I think that that is a most dangerous position. I have a great respect for the shipping industry. I have had many connections with them and I know their great merit, but I do not think they will like this choosing out of one of their number to have a great subsidy and for others to get none. And the Government will have to decide where it is going to stop.
There is another matter which has hardly been mentioned anywhere, but I read to-day for the first time that it was mentioned in the Financial Times last Friday. I was reminded just now that

221
there were two ships, the "Queen Mary" and the "Queen Elizabeth", on this Cunard line, and I have it on fairly good authority (if I am wrong I shall be corrected) that it is not economic, not viable, to have only one ship of a certain class; we must always have them in pairs for the purpose of crossing the Atlantic. As regards the grant of these large sums of public money to the Cunard Company, what is going to happen about the sister ship of the "Queen Mary", the "Queen Elizabeth", when she also becomes obsolescent? Does this arrangement to-day really bind the Government when that new situation arises that the "Queen Elizabeth" has to be replaced? Does it carry with it practically an obligation for them to find a similar, perhaps even larger, sum of money when that time comes? I am very much afraid that the Government of that day will find themselves in the position that they are practically compelled to make a similar transaction, perhaps of n even more onerous kind, when that time comes. I leave the question of that for the moment.
I come now to certain questions of foreign policy. The first and most important question of trade is our trade with the rest of Europe. There we have the problem of the Common Market. I want to be quite fair to the Government, and I am quite prepared to admit that it is an exceedingly difficult problem. There are large numbers of issues, which would take us far too far away at the present moment, that have to be considered and decided upon. Nevertheless, the Government cannot get away from their responsibility in the matter, and at the present time the outlook with regard to the Common Market is not all rosy. Rainy be possible that even in the course of this debate some member of the Government may be able to put some light on the thing and give us a more optimistic forecast. But in default of that I am bound to say that there are grounds for thinking that our trade with the Continent will be very seriously damaged in the course of the next few years. And certainly, already, the relationship with the Common Market—or no relationship, whatever it is—has been considerably damaged for this country and its trade prospects.
That brings me, finally, to the case of China. I made some remarks on China
222
earlier in the year. They were on political grounds. My noble friend Lord Attlee, I was delighted to see, in his very trenchant speech, dealt with the matter also on more or less the same lines that I took up. But to-day I want to talk about China from the point of view of the trade of this country. There is one thing I have learned in the course of a very long life: that you cannot with impunity ignore physical facts, and if you take actions that imply that certain existing physical facts are non-existent you are asking for trouble and will almost certainly get it.
What are the physical facts in this case? The mainland of China is by far the largest country in the world—I mean in the matter of population. Only the other day they reached the colossal total of 700 million people—one quarter of the whole population of the world. They are an industrious people, and anyone who thinks about it must realize that potentially they are the finest and most important market in the world. Now what have our Government done with regard to trade with China? Out of loyalty to the United States, they have insisted on blocking the entrance of the Chinese Republic into the comity of nations. I know perfectly well that in some ways they have encouraged trade, either through the direct door of China or through the back door of Hong Kong. Nevertheless, this attitude of ours towards their political entry into the United Nations is bitterly resented by the people at the head of the Government of China, and that resentment will undoubtedly be reflected in the trading position.
I made a similar plea last Session, and I gathered from the speech made then by the noble Marques, Lord Lansdowne, that the British Government were not going to carry out what I suggested. They used their vote against the interests of China. I fully understand that they wish to please the United States, but the time is coming when that will no longer be possible. The vote in favor of the entrance of China is creeping up. At the last Assembly of the United Nations a much larger proportion of States than before voted in favour of the China question being discussed—which was, in effect, for China to be admitted.
How much longer are we going to stand on the wrong side? This next time

223
May be the last chance we have of showing ourselves as the trading friends of China, instead of being her enemies. Next time we may be outvoted, and find ourselves dragged along on the wheels of the chariot of the United States. Now I aim a friend of the United States, and this country must remain friends with the United States; but that does not mean that we have to be subservient to her. Where it is a question of doing right or wrong, and particularly where it is a question of blocking our own interests, it is for us to be up and saying, "We are very sorry, but on this occasion we must disagree with you."
That is the last of the points that I wanted to make, but there is just one more thing that I should like to say. Shallow minds— I will not say among your Lordships, but among some of your Lordships' Party—may be rejoicing today at the dissensions in the Party to which I belong. I can understand that; but students of history, whether deep students or those who know only the history of this, present century in our own country, will take a very different view. They know perfectly well that the disappearance of harmony among the Opposition is not good for the Government of the day. It is not good for them to have no effective, united Opposition. It tends to drive them to courses which are not popular with the country: and if a result of the dissensions in my Party is that the Government revert to class prejudice, to Tory idiosyncrasies in the matter of private enterprise; and if, at the same time, out of the perfectly genuine and proper desire to keep friends with our friend and Ally across the Atlantic, they carry on an international policy that is fundamentally wrong and contrary to our interests, then their position as a Party will be in jeopardy. But what is even more important than that is that they will be doing a disservice to our nation and to our people, to whom, in the last resort, whether we are Conservative, Liberal or Labor, we owe our ultimate allegiance. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, as an Amendment, to add at the end of the proposed Address "but humbly regret that the policies of Your Majesty's Government are not conducive to an ordered and expanding economy."—(Lord Pethick-Lawrence.)
3.15 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, we always listen with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, owing to his informative speeches, but to-day it seems to me that more than ever are we indebted to him, because not only has he been interesting and informative, but he has also raised some very pertinent questions, and ones which we shall look to the Government to answer. Indeed, I myself propose to follow him in quite a number of the subjects he has raised.
I think that, as he implied, most people in this country who think about these matters feel that there is some impending economic disaster, as it were, in the air. Perhaps that is putting it a little too high, but we are certainly all very uneasy at the economic situation. Why is production failing to expand in this country to the same extent as it is expanding in so many other countries? Why are our exports failing to keep pace with the exports of other countries in the Western world? Why are there these constant "stops" and "goes" in credit? And why does one great industry after another go into a decline? I feel that the Government must take a considerable responsibility for many of these factors; and I believe that it is due, to a large extent, to their lack of drive and leadership that these conditions prevail. Let us take one example: the noble Lord did not give it, but it is one which I think we are all in a position to judge for ourselves—namely, the road question. The roads are the arteries of commerce, and yet those arteries are hardening. We need an imaginative and radical plan which will enable the traffic of this country, whether private or commercial, to flow; and it is high time that we stopped tinkering about with the problem and got on with it in a big way.
The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, mentioned the question of the Common Market. Here again, the Government's voice is completely confused. Last week, we all enjoyed what, if I may say so, was a most distinguished speech by the noble Earl, Lord Home, in the course of which he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 226 (No. 2), col. 61]:
"One reason for trying to bring the Six and the Seven closer together is that, in face of the Communist challenge to Europe, we must look at every opportunity to close our

225
Ranks, to find fresh means by which we may unite our resources and translate them into action."
A little later he went on to say:
"Of course, in any solution we would carry with us the Commonwealth and the Seven, but I have always thought that for this country to be industrially strong is one of the greatest interests of the Commonwealth, with its members depending so much for capital upon this country for their development."
With that, all Liberals, at all events, would agree completely: we would entirely agree with that as a most enlightened statement of the position. Then I am glad to say that another Minister who has had considerable experience in this field, and who has now been given more responsibility as Secretary of State for the Colonies, Mr. Macleod, said much the same thing. Speaking at Enfield, Mr. Macleod said
"that the Tories were ready and eager for a lead to bind Britain more closely to Europe."
That is taken from a report of his speech. He went on to say:
"The existence of the Commonwealth was no longer an adequate reason for declining to have anything to do with Europe."
With that statement, again, we would completely agree; it is an excellent statement. But that is not by any means the opinion of all the Ministers. As we know, Mr. Heath, at Scarborough, did not come out with anything like that trumpet note. It was nothing like that at all; he wobbled.
Just lately, Mr. Butler, in dealing with this matter, referred to the Liberals in this respect—and also to the Labor people—in most unflattering terms. Mr. Maudling, who has responsibility in this field as President of the Board of Trade, launched a violent attack at Newquay on the Liberals, who, he claimed, wanted Britain to join the Common Market, irrespective of the consequences to the Commonwealth and our own agriculture. As will be remembered, Mr. Butler had already complained that the Six's farm policy did not suit Britain; he preferred our way of helping farmers by way of direct commodity subsidies. Now, what sort of lead to the country is that?
My Lords, all four of these gentlemen are distinguished Ministers. Two of them are saying: "Get into Europe. It will benefit the Commonwealth. There are no restrictions at all so far as the Commonwealth is concerned." The other two,
226
Equally important and equally senior, deride such a policy. In the case of Mr. Butler, he actually went so far as to say that it was not our policy to go into the Six; that we preferred to deal with the matter by giving subsidies to the farmers, which I should think is a rather myopic way of looking at a problem of this size. So no lead is given there.
The next question is the one referred to by Lord Pethick-Lawrence: that of the new Cunard liner. We have been given a challenge, as it were, by the noble Lord, Lord Mills, to deal with this subject concerning the Cunard Company today, and we accept that challenge. As Lord Pethick-Lawrence so rightly says, time after time in recent years private industry has come here for subsidies. In fact, as we all know, distinguished noble Lords who are heads of such industries come here asking for money from the taxpayers', and it is the only time we sec them. They come with their begging bowls like a lot of noble Oliver Twists, asking for more. At other times they fail to find any interest in our proceedings.
The latest private industry to do this—or the latest private firm; it is not even an industry—is the Cunard Company, who want to build a new Transatlantic liner. This is a very odd transaction, according to the information we have been given about it up to the present. Of the £30 million that it is expected to cost, some £18 million is to come from the Government—£14¼ million is to come by way of long-term loan, and £31 million by way of art out-and-out grant from the taxpayers' pockets into the pockets of the Cunard Company's shareholders.
I think that if the Government is going to give one firm £3¼ million as an outright grant, it must have very strong evidence of need. But, as Lord Pethick-Lawrence has said, we have had no evidence of this at all. The report upon which this is based has never been published, and we are not aware, taking one thing and another, whether it is the right course to pursue or not. Many noble Lords have been far longer in the public life of this country than I have, but I wonder whether there has ever been a case before where a sum of this magnitude has been given to a private firm without a scrap of evidence of need. It is all done simply on what we are

227
told are the resolutions or recommendations of a Committee presided over by one of our number, the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, who, so far as I am aware, is not himself a shipping man, although naturally he has had a great deal of experience in business life.
The excuse given for this by the noble Lord, Lord Mills, was that if the evidence were produced, we on the opposite Benches were too dull to understand it. That may be so in regard to some of us; but surely others of us on these Benches are able to consider these things, and, I should have thought, equally able to do so as the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, because although he is a big business man he has neither a degree or a qualification in chartered accountancy nor any particular experience in the shipping industry.
The next point is, is it going to end there? Once we start "dishing out" money from the till, where is it going to end? It will be remembered that in a supplementary question last Thursday I asked about this. I had, of course, no previous knowledge as to what the statement would contain nor did I know that the statement was going to be made, but this thought immediately occurred to me, and this is why I asked the supplementary question. I asked: how do we, as taxpayers'—because it is our pocket from which this money is going to come—and as Parliamentarians know whether the tenders come from efficient firms; whether there is, as it were, proper competition?
I inquired whether foreign firms would be allowed to tender, though they would not necessarily get the contract, because I thought that, with our vast experience, if British firms tendered they would be efficient and would get the tender. But this aroused great hostility from the noble Lord, Lord Mills, and I regret very much that the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, regarded it as an extraordinary suggestion that there should be any competition from other countries. We have always been among those who object strongly to the Americans doing this sort of thing. If British firms tender for American orders and are granted the tender, we always object strongly when the Americans say, "No, you cannot have this order. It is in an area of great unemployment and an American firm
228
must have it." But when it is the other way round there is immense hostility from both the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, and the noble Lord, Lord Mills, and I want to quote what they said, because it is indicative of their attitude of mind. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough said [OFFICIAL REPORT, VOI. 226 (No. 3), col. 153]:
"My Lords, from the point of view of using public assistance for British industry and employment, may I say that I hope the noble Lord will not accede to the request of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore?
"LORD MILLS: I thank the noble Viscount."
Now, what did he thank him for? Was it for saying that the shipbuilding industry needed public assistance? Is that what we have come to in this country—the shipbuilding industry needing public assistance? Without any sort of comparison, a vast sum is apparently going to be handed to the shipbuilders so that they can make this new vessel. All I can say is that with the Tories behind him and the Conservatives in front of him Lord Mills has sewn this idea up very well. I hope that the Government and my old friend the noble Viscount will have second thoughts on this issue, and should it go out for international tender I hope that our British industry would be proved efficient.
I am a little alarmed about this matter because there are rumors that British shipbuilding is not efficient. The D.S.I.R., which is a Government organization, made an inquiry into the shipbuilding industry, and it is an odd and significant fact that the Government have never published that report. It would, I think, be right and proper now, since the Government are apparently not going to allow this tender to go out to international competition, to publish the report. The D.S.I.R. report, if published, would enable everyone to be quite satisfied that there was no allegation of serious inefficiency on the part of the British shipbuilding industry. If the report was not published everyone would have the feeling that the Government were trying to cover things up and were afraid to let this contract go out to international competition.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAIESHAM): My Lords, may I say that the D.S.I.R. report

229
is a very interesting subject, but it has no bearing at all on current production. It is a report on the extent to which adequate research was going on. Of coarse, it is a subject which we should be happy to debate, but it could have no conceivable bearing on the allocation of contracts for the Cunarder.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, of course I am happy to be interrupted by the noble Viscount, but I do not see any objection to the publication of the report. As we have now heard from the noble Viscount, the British shipbuilding industry does not spend nearly enough on research. How can any organization be efficient in these days which does not spend nearly enough on research? I think that the intervention of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House shows conclusively that this is a document which Parliament ought to have before they approve a proposal such as this with regard to the Cunarder. I leave it there, but it is very odd that at this very moment, when the Cunard Company has got £18 million from the Government in one way or another, they are applying through a subsidiary company for a license to engage in air traffic across the Atlantic, in a Blue Riband route by air. It does not seem that the Cunard Company are entirely satisfied with their future as a shipping company when at this moment they are asking for a license to take passengers by air across the Atlantic, and I feel that this is another point which we ought to consider when dealing with the Cunarder.
Is this ship not going to be far too big? This is a matter on which I do not feel entitled to make any particular comment, because I have not had the Report of the Committee, but it is said in many informed quarters that it would be far better to have two ships of 35,000 tons each rather than two of these monsters, which, owing to the amount of passenger traffic now carried by air, do not seem to be justified any longer, as they were 30 years ago when the original "Queen Mary" was built.
I move on to the next point which I wish to make and which has already been touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence. The question we ought to ask ourselves is: what sort of economy do the Government wish this country to have? We had one clear-cut exposition by the noble Earl, Lord
230
Home, in his speech the other day. He made what I thought was an excellent summing up of the position. It is the only speech by a Foreign Secretary I have heard for a good many years which does ask these very pertinent questions. The noble Earl said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 226 (No. 2), cols. 59–60]:
"I have asked some pointed and rather uncomfortable questions because, if the Foreign Secretary is to be the architect of a successful foreign policy, he must know what rôle the people wish to sustain. In a world of strain, are we willing to bear additional strains upon our resources and upon our capital? Are we willing to endure the risks involved in the nuclear deterrent, and to arm ourselves with nuclear weapons and with conventional arms, so that the Communists can never gain an advantage and be tempted to aggression? Are we willing to stand by our colonial responsibilities, ensuring that the path from dependence to independence is one of law and order and justice? Are we ready to forgo some of our own welfare and wellbeing at home in order to span the gap in the standards of living between the countries of Asia and ourselves?"
These are pertinent questions and splendidly put, but, of course, they are not questions that the Conservative Party have asked the electorate at all. The Conservative Party did not win the last Election by asking the people to "stand by our colonial responsibilities" and to be ready to forgo some of our own welfare and wellbeing at home in order to help the countries of Asia. None of those questions was put at the Election, which the Conservatives ran to a large extent under the leadership of the noble Viscount who now leads the House. The Conservative Party won the Election on the slogan, "You never had it so good".
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but since he referred to me, perhaps I should be entitled to do so. I should like to say categorically to the noble Lord that never once in the Manifesto or, so far as I know, during the Election campaign was that slogan used by any Conservative leader. It is an allegation invented against us by our critics. Secondly, every one of the questions, which he has said were never asked, was in the Conservative Party Manifesto and can be found there, with the policies attached to it.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I read the Conservative Manifesto and Mr. Macmillan's speech, and I would ask the noble Viscount to look at it again

231
to see what was the general tenor of the speech and the Manifesto.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord said in terms that we had won the Election on the slogan "You never had it so good". It is that which I am categorically challenging him to show. It is true that in 1958, in quite different circumstances, and once at Oxford three days ago, the Prime Minister used these words, but they were never used as a slogan during the Election or at all in that context.
LORD OGMORE: As we are completely in contradiction, we shall have to turn it up. The whole point is that the Prime Minister had used these words. It was the whole tenor of the Conservative Party at Election time. For anybody to say that they were not means that a certain amount of amnesia goes with success in an Election. People are inclined to forget what they said during the Election which caused them to win it.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord is accusing me of amnesia. I challenge him to produce a single thing which was said during the Election to that effect by me or by anybody else for whom I was responsible. It is all very well for the noble Lord to try to ride off after making categorical statements of fact and having been challenged on the fact. He will find, if he takes the trouble to verify the reference, that the Prime Minister used these words when he faced a highly hostile audience which had criticized the standard of living which they said they were suffering from. He said that the fact was that the standard of living had never been so high. That was the context and the only context. The noble Lord accuses other people of forgetting what they have said, when he is unable to establish a single thing said during the Election campaign which justifies the remarks he has made.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I will turn them up and look, but I thought that they were so well known that nobody would challenge them. This is the first time I have ever heard anybody challenge the fact that the Tories won the election on the slogan, "You never had it so good."
232
One thing the noble Viscount will not deny, because in this case he and I were on the same side and I went into the Lobby with him when he voted against his own Party, and that is that this Conservative Government introduced into this country commercial television, with its immense influence in stimulating domestic consumption. Will he get up now and challenge me on that point? I wait for it. Will he deny that commercial television has had a tremendous effect on domestic consumption, quite apart from its effect in other ways—the very thing the Government did not want to happen? The noble Viscount cannot deny it, because that was one of his chief arguments during the debate, as it was one of mine and of other noble Lords. We said that commercial television, with its ability to create an enormous demand for consumption goods, was going to defeat the Government's own object, which presumably was to keep down demand. The noble Viscount cannot deny it.
What is the result? Every night the commercial features pump out the demand for people to have more cigarettes, more chocolates, to use this sort of soap and become irresistible, to use this sort or that sort of detergent—and your clothes become unwashable! I will ask the noble Viscount this. There are six by-elections on at the moment, or perhaps more. In how many by-elections is the Tory candidate getting up and repeating the wise words of the noble Earl, Lord Home, and saying: You must tighten your belt and go in for austerity. You must not have any more washing machines or motor cars. We must spend more on the Colonies and we must spend more on credits for other countries"? I very much doubt whether in any one case that sort of argument is being used.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am sorry to answer the noble Lord, but he should not ask questions. I am speaking at one to-night and I hope at another in a fortnight's time. I cannot speak for the other four, but those arguments will certainly be advanced to-night and in a fortnight's time.
LORD OGMORE: Perhaps then there is something that this debate has done, and I shall look in The Times to-morrow to see the result. I may say, as a result

233
of all this, that I entirely agree with the noble Earl. I believe that sacrifices are required: that it is necessary to channel investments overseas, and it may be necessary to channel investments in overseas countries. In other words, to-day less money should be spent on skyscrapers in New York and Toronto and more money should be spent on Africa. It is a question not only of overseas investment but also of where that investment is going to be. I cannot help agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, that the stagnation of industry is not only accompanied by but is caused by the Government's monetary controls and their policy of dear money. I think it is too blunt a weapon to be used by successful Chancellors of the Exchequer: it is like using a bludgeon instead of a rapier to prick a balloon, and very often it is the wrong part of the balloon that gets hit; it is sometimes the hand of the man holding it.
I said that I thought it was mainly the Government, but it is not always the Government who have responsibility in this important field: industry, both private and nationalized, and the trade unions, have responsibilities, too. I believe that in private industry there should be a great extension of profit sharing, co-partnership and joint consultation; and that, when redundancy happens, as unhappily we saw recently, there should be proper compensation, with adequate notice and, where necessary, training to obtain new skills. I feel that industry needs to reorganize its attempts to secure an adequate part of the export trade. It needs more energy. And it is quite possible that common services will have to be supplied for many of the small firms to enable them to compete satisfactorily. It is obvious that a small firm which may play a considerable part in the export drive is not in a position financially to support research or investigable ion of its own, but if some organization of that kind could be expanded it would be a good thing. There is one in existence, but that possibly does not go far enough.
As for the trade unions, here they, as well as the industrial firms, have a great duty to do all they can to make themselves fitted for the export drive and for better production figures. They should look at their restrictive practices. Many
234
of these bear no relation to modern needs and they should be dealt with in the light of modern conditions. We on these Benches feel that there is a moral obligation on a worker to join a trade union, but it should be his or her right to decide whether to join a union; and any appropriate union of his or her choice, provided that it has enough people in the industry, should be recognized as being able to represent its members. We feel also that payments to a political fund should be made only by those expressing an affirmative wish to do so; the matter should not, as now happens, depend upon a negative wish. This all relates to industrial development.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that in that case the shareholders of companies should also be consulted before money is devoted to political funds?
LORD OGMORE: I entirely agree with that, and for much the same reason. Then we should like to see the rules of the various trade unions under the supervision of the Registrar of Friendly Societies, so as to ensure safeguards against electoral abuses, such as we have heard about, and misuse of funds. We feel that this is most necessary in these days. It is apparent to us on these Benches that the Government, industry and the trade unions all have a considerable part to play, and all should put their own houses in order before we can really get on our feet.
Finally, the United Kingdom is always in a delicate, position. It is difficult for a country of this size, with no raw materials except coal, and with a population of over 50 million people, to pay its own way. In some ways it is a miracle that it does; but it has done. In order to ensure an ever-increasing standard of living it has to do a great deal better than it is doing now. To some extent, what is true of our position is true of a number of other countries in Western Europe, all of whom, except that they are not islands, have much the same conditions that we have: they are comparatively small; they carne into the Industrial Revolution quite early and they have large populations to keep content. Our complaint against the Government and their supporters is that they look at the world through 19th century eyes,

235
whereas to deal with the vexed problems of our times the eyes must be those of the mid-20th century.
3.47 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, in the peroration to his usual excellent speech my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence had a word or two to say about haw much the Government would miss a strong and virile Opposition. I intend this afternoon to make a modest attempt to redress the balance. We stand here to-day at a time when we have had nine years of Tory Government, and for the past twelve months we have had the rule of the present Government. What is the position? We are in the grip of a credit squeeze; our exports are falling in relation to the world; a balance-of-payments problem weighs heavily upon us; and the grim specter of unemployment is rearing its ugly head in same parts of the country and in some industries. That is the position, and I do not think anybody will say that I have exaggerated it one iota. I intend to offer proof of what I say. Both my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence and the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, have complained of the rigidity of the Government's fiscal policy. I agree with them. There is one common factor running all through the problems that confront this country, and it is that the total of taxation which we as a country have to bear is far too high. It has now reached the startling figure of £7.000 million a year—37 per cent. of our national economy.
During the speech I made in your Lordships' House on the economic debate when we had occasion to debate the Finance Bill, I made a plea to the Government to re-think their fiscal policy. I even had the temerity to suggest that the Treasury had to learn a few elementary lessons. I remember that one of them was that the curtailing of home consumption never yet increased exports. I was right, and I have since been proved right. I venture this afternoon to ask them to learn another lesson: that the way to cure inflation is to increase production, not to curtail spending—that is another thing. I also ask them to get out of their quill-pen mentality. The one thing this country is lacking—and it is one of the things that is preventing increase in our
236
Productivity and leading to quite a lot of our troubles—is incentive. I have always been brought up in the school—and I have said this to your Lordships many times—that it is the hope of reward that sweetens labor. It is no good telling the British workman that he must work harder and then say, "You will earn more money, and when you have earned it we will take it prom you in one form of taxation or another." I remember citing the case of the young executives who are now in their thirties, the best brains we have in this country, and who are sure-tax payers. I repeat the words I used before, when I said that when they want to join this noble army of property-owning democrats, they find they have to pay Schedule A tax. Everything is a disincentive to work. These are some of the things I should like the present Chancellor of the Exchequer to think about.
Exhortation is just not good enough. An army of Ministers has been going round the country exhorting everybody to export more, and yet exports are going down. The President of the Board of Trade made a speech the other day—one of those my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough must have been referring to when he quoted the comment in the Financial Times, "Too many speeches"—in which he said he had come to the conclusion that British exports were not expanding because they were of bad quality, indifferent quality or not high enough quality, and that their salesmanship was bad. In other words, after you have deafened the poor wretched beast by shouting in its ear, and whacking the poor wretched beast's backside with a stick, you have failed— you do not know any other remedy. I am going to suggest that increasing the carrots might increase the effort. That is one of the troubles with the Government's fiscal and monetary policy.
It is no good the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying to our greatest export industry, "I cannot do anything to help", because we must increase our exports at all costs, and the majority of the exports of this country are now provided by a handful of firms. It is the small man who should be encouraged to export, but it is the small man who is hit the hardest. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Brand, making a speech on this subject twelve

237
months ago, when he said that the small exporter does not mind having a gamble with the Government, fifty-fifty, but if he takes the additional gamble to increase his exports or go into the export market his reward is whittled away. He pays 70 per cent. to the Government if he succeeds, and if he fails he walks into Carey Street by himself.
What is the Government's answer? We are not increasing our exports and the Government have not a magic wand. Taxation is too high in all its forms. The Government are in a dilemma. We have got to produce in this country. As I said in a letter that I wrote to The Times during the Recess—and I wrote it only because I could not say it in this House—it is not only mass production we must have in this country, it is massive production. That is the only way we shall bring down our costs. But what do the Government do? They go to the motor industry and, using the taxpayers' money as the bait, let the noble Lord note, they induce it to carry out its expansion plans in Scotland, Lancashire and South Wales, increasing its capacity by doubling the amount it is producing at the present time. But at the same time as they were inducing the British motor car manufacturer to double his capacity, and put up his production cost by spreading his production over the country, did they tell him they were going to institute a credit squeeze which would prevent his selling what he would produce? Is that economic planning? Surely the Treasury do not say one thing with one voice and the President of the Board of Trade say something else with another voice.
Taxpayers' money has been used to build the additional factories in these depressed areas. As the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore said, the porridge bowls are going to be filled with the taxpayers' money. Have the Government paid any attention or given thought as to how the product of those factories are going to be sold? There is a lesson to be learned over this week-end. One of our great British manufacturers who produces a car—I will not mention the name—which threatens to be a world beater, goes into the Italian market and shows at the Italian show at Milan, and trims his price to the bone to get exports. What does he find? As soon as the show opens, all
238
the Italian manufacturers have slashed their prices by 33⅓ per cent. That is the competition you have to meet in the export markets, and you do not learn how to meet that competition either at the London School of Economics or at the Economic Unit of the Conservative Party. You learn that by hard and bitter experience.
If the Government do something in this matter I dare swear that they will do it the wrong way and do the wrong thing; because what did they do before? They lifted hire-purchase controls. The Government's economic policy for this last few years has been foot hard on the throttle or the brake hard on! It has been one thing or the other what did they do on this occasion? They lifted all hire purchase controls in this country overnight. And what did that do? It brought all the rogues and thieves of the country into the hire-purchase business, and at a rough guess the finance houses of this country lost between £6 and £8 million through fraud, wrongful conversion and default. My Lords, relieving hire purchase, making hire purchase easier, is not the answer to our economic problems; because there is one sound principle in hire-purchase business—and I have lived with this all my life: always make the merchandise value a little greater than the debt outstanding. That is, as Mr. Micawber would have said, happiness. When the value of the merchandise is less than the debt outstanding, it means chaos—and the noble Lord, Lord Mills, does not need me to tell him that.
The only thing the Government in wisdom could do to-day would be to extend from two to three years the period over which payments are made on all hire-purchase contracts. But if they go back and vary the present deposit sum it will only bring upon them the tragedies that have happened in this country over these last two years. So when the Chancellor of the Exchequer says: "I cannot afford to remove taxation from the motor car industry"—and there are other industries I could name—I ask: what is he going to do? The trouble is that purchase tax is such a blunt instrument; it damages our best export industry precisely the same as it damages the industry about which the Government do not care. There was a Chancellor of the Exchequer two or

239
three years ago who lowered the purchase tax on silver candlesticks to assist the export trade—at least that is what he said he did it for.
Perhaps when the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, "I cannot afford to reduce taxation, whether it is of the individual or whether it is purchase tax", he may be right. Because if there is one lesson we have learned—I will not say only since this Government has been in power, but since the war—it is that no modern Government has ever proved capable of controlling its own expenditure. While the Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible for the high level of taxation he is also responsible, surely, for seeing that the money the taxpayer pays is spent to the best advantage. I have been studying some very interesting literature which I would commend to your Lordships, a Report from the Committee on Public Accounts. I have picked out an example. There was an estimate for a rocket base which was going to be provided by the Ministry of Works for the Ministry of Supply. The estimate was £11 million; in the ultimate the cost was £24 million, and the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Works was asked why. This is what he was asked—and I am now quoting from page 133 of the Report:
"The estimates you gave to the Treasury, or the Ministry of Supply gave to the Treasury, or both of you gave to the Treasury at the beginning, then, in your view, were rather tentative?"
And this is what the Permanent Secretary said:
"They were, and they were not merely rather tentative—I am quite prepared to say this and have it recorded—they were a wild shot at something we really knew nothing about."
Is that the basis upon which estimates of public expenditure are prepared? Is that the way the taxpayers' money is treated? Then I come to guided missiles. Look at the discussion there has been about this and the colossal waste of public money. The Seaslug now is reported as going to cost 70 times the amount originally estimated. No wonder the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with such profligate spending, cannot afford to look at the other side of the picture, our dire necessity to export.
I listened on the wireless the other night to a sad story about five British
240
soldiers being killed in some manœuvres in Western Germany, and the War Office spokesman was reported as having said, "Let us get this thing in proportion. There were only five, and 50,000 British troops were engaged on this exercise in Western Germany". The thought went through my mind, "What is that costing me as a taxpayer?" I understand the Prime Minister to say that he hopes this year that the Defense Estimate will be contained within £1,600 million, but doubts are being cast as to whether that will be so. What are we going to do? The Public Accounts Committee and Select Committees on Expenditure are all admirable bodies and do admirable work, but they spend their time locking stable doors after horses have bolted. I think that is one of the things upon which the Government are very vulnerable. There does not seem to be any sound policy in Government expenditure, and they have not yet been able to reduce it.
I now turn to perhaps one of the saddest stories of Government mishandling of the economic wealth of this country. Is not the present state of the British Transport Commission a tragic and alarming story? It is now disclosed that to date the total loss on British Railways alone is £541 million. The vast bulk of that has been lost since 1953 by this Government. They cannot say that they did not know, because from this side of the House we have pointed out time and time again where their policy was wrong. With monotonous regularity for these last ten years I have pointed out that the estimates given by the British Transport Commission, endorsed by the Government, were hopeless. I have used the expression that they came out of cloud-cuckoo land. But no! the Government did nothing about it. And on and on it went, deficit after deficit.
After the passing of the 1953 Act, when the Government, to use the expression of a former Minister of Transport "kicked the guts" out of the railways, what did the Government do? Nothing And on and on the deficit went, until they concocted some wonderful scheme of accountancy by opening a Special Account whereby the Commission had to pay interest on the money borrowed to pay the debt on the interest of the

241
money borrowed before. Only one man, the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, who is sitting on the Back Benches opposite, said that he would have no more of this nonsense. He took the deficit and put it, to the extent of £100 million, above the line in the Budget of two years ago. The Minister of Transport in another place said the other day that he calculated that in this year alone he would have to put in a figure of £115 million as the deficit on the working of British Railways. The Government did not do anything about it.
There is worse than that. The facts are here. One has only to read the White Papers. The Government in the preamble to the White Paper on the Reappraisal agreed with the estimates which were given, and that this next corning, year was a year when the British Transport Commission were going to pass out of deficit into the stream of surplus. Instead of that, another £500 million of the, taxpayer's money is involved. I have never weakened in my criticism of the British Transport Commission, but what is the responsibility of the Ministry of Transport in this matter? The Minister of Transport said the other day—and I should like just to quote to your Lordships a few words [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 627 (No. 159), col. 2364]:
"After all, I act as the Commission's banker for most of its investment. I am responsible to this House and to the country for the advances made, and I am responsible through my Vote for its deficit."
What have the Ministry of Transport been doing since 1953—twiddling their thumbs? Where does their responsibility lie? Where does the Government responsibility lie, to allow this thing to go on for year after year? The Government cannot say that they have not been warned. I do not know whether the noble Lord would like me to read out some of the fatuous statements that have been oat into the mouths of Ministers by the Ministry of Transport in the briefs that they have prepared as apologias for all this. Everything was going to be fine. There was only one thing wrong—that was with the spokesmen from this side of the House.
Of course, the real trouble is that the Government have never had a transport policy. The 1947 Act, with all its defects
242
—I have always been prepared to admit that it had some—twas a policy. The 1953 Act was a pure shambles, and it has cost this country £541 million. If one takes the Modernization Plan, what was the evidence given before the Select Committee? It was a hotch-patch—that was the expression used. It was never one real, co-ordinated plan. What has happened? The money has been spent at the rate of £160 million a year, but we as a country have never had anything like that value out of it.
It was admitted by the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Transport before the Select Committee that they had never done anything in regard to looking at the economic consequences or made any economic survey of the proposals made. I indict the Ministry of Transport for their carelessness. No wonder the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot afford to reduce taxation! But I always saw one hope, and I mentioned it in a speech I made twelve months ago. I suggested that the noble Lord should make a personal investigation—that he was the man to do it. Perhaps we are fortunate that, at long last, the Government have taken my advice. He has made it. It has resulted in one thing: that the Minister now says that the Government are, at long last, going to have a policy for transport; and he has set up a study group. I want to ask the noble Lord whether he will give us the names of the members of that study group, because at last they are going to tackle the problem of what part the railways can play in the transport system of this country.
They are going to do one other thing—namely, work out the excess of profit prospects of transport. My word! Sixty-four years ago a gentleman walked in front of a motor car with a red flag—I know the date so well because it coincided with the date that I arrived in this world. We have had all that time to study the impact of the internal combustion engine on the transport of this country, and at last the present Government, after losing £500 million of the taxpayers' money, are going to sort out a transport policy. And we are going to have a White Paper from the Government telling us what their proposals are. I suppose we are going to have it hacked by the proposals of the Stedeford Committee. I do not know why

243
the Government will not publish the recommendations of the Stedeford Committee. Perhaps they will do so in the White Paper.
LORD STONHAM: Perhaps they do not like them.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Perhaps they do not. At any rate, shall be far more interested in the proposals of the Stedeford Committee which the Government are not going to accept than I shall be in the proposals which they do accept. I want to ask the noble Lord one thing in terms. There is so much rumor and loose talk. Every other section of the British Transport Commission is a profitable concern. The road haulage section is a profitable concern, as are the hotels and everything else. I want to ask the noble Lord whether, in the proposals which the Government intend to present to Parliament, it is intended that there shall be hived off or sold, or whatever expression he likes to use, any of the present activities of the British Transport Commission—because I am prepared to still any criticism that I may make until we see what those proposals are. I have confidence in the noble Lord, if he gets his way; but of course he may not, because I do not suppose that the present Government are any more united on what to do with their transport problem than they are upon what to do with a lot of their other problems. But I know that if the noble Lord has anything to do with it, it will have behind it the elementary sound business and commercial principles.
What are we going to do in the meantime? The Minister speaks of an emergency. We are to have a White Paper, perhaps before Christmas, and we have to study that. We are, perhaps, to have legislation halfway through next year. But what is to happen in the meantime? When the house is on fire one does not call the family together and have a meeting to decide whether to write a letter or send a postcard or to telephone the fire brigade. What is the position of the British Transport Commission to-day? Are they caretakers? Are they under notice? What about the 39 part-time members spread all over the regions? Who are they? They are all men with interests outside the British Transport Commission. Are they to be kept on
244
trust? Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to tell me the answers to some of these things.
There is one more point I want to touch upon, because this brings me to what I said in my opening remarks about the specters of unemployment. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, asked whether the shipping industry of this country wanted public assistance. They do, and they will not do without it. The position in the shipbuilding industry of this country is serious. We are to-day the largest net importer of ships in the world. I am glad that the noble and learned Viscount is now on the Woolsack, because I said something similar to this twelve months ago, also in the debate on the Address. The noble and learned Viscount rather questioned it on that occasion, so this time I have come armed with the official figures. I take my figures from Lloyd's Register of Shipping—they are the figures of merchant shipbuilding for the third quarter of 1960. The tonnage under construction in this country for owners registered abroad is 252,637. The tonnage under construction abroad for registration in this country is 537,610; so we are importing twice the tonnage that we are exporting.
I am not going to enter into any discussion on the report to which the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House has referred. I am not going to enter into any discussion as to whether the shipbuilding industry is efficient or inefficient; but I am going to tell the Government quite plainly that they cannot sit down and do nothing until we have unemployment on the Tyne, the Tees, the Clyde and all the other areas of shipbuilding activity in this country. They cannot do that; and they cannot get over it, when it does come, by handing out subsidies. What is wanted in the shipbuilding industry of this country to-day is some kind of rationalization like that which has been brought into the aircraft industry; and that can be done only with Government assistance. But that Government assistance must be on a proper basis and the tax-payers' interests must be properly safeguarded.
There has to be a partnership between the Government and the shipbuilding industry of this country. If there is not, then the shipbuilding industry of this country is going to be a bigger problem

245
to the Government than they dream of at the present moment. Because there is only one thing that can save this Government, and that is to stop the growth of unemployment in some of our depressed areas. That is why I am not quite so critical of the action of Her Majesty's Government over the replacement for the "Queen Mary". But I should like to ask the noble Lord just one or two questions—and here I may repeat something said by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore.
The amount of the taxpayers' money involved is to be £3¼ million and, so far as I can trace, there have been only two reasons advanced for doing this. One is prestige; the other is the ability of a ship of this kind to earn dollars. The second reason does not impress me a hit. If I wanted to earn dollars I could think of a better way of spending £3¼ million of the taxpayers' money. But let us take prestige. What prestige? I would suggest that the British Flag and British prestige need boosting in other parts of the world far more than in North America. What about South America, where the shipping industry of this country is up against a gigantic problem of flag discrimination? There is not a country in South America—Argentine, Brazil, Ecuador, Columbia, Peru, Chile or any of the others—where there is not flag discrimination. Is there any other part of this world where it is more necessary to keep British shipping in use than in South America? And what are we going to do? We cannot give subsidies to one shipping company without giving them to others who can put up just as good a case—and better.
One of the biggest shipping companies whose prestige stands just as high as that of Cunard have just built three ships costing them. I believe, about £18 million. They had to go on the market for somewhere in the region of half that amount, or a bit more, and pay from 6 to 7½ per cent. I do not know whether that company asked for a subsidy, but if we have money available, to subsidise shipbuilding I would suggest that it could be used in another equally useful way. And how are we to resist the arguments that are put forward? Then, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, asked, what about the replacement of the "Queen Elizabeth"?
246
There is another question I should like to ask the noble Lord. Has he satisfied himself that the replacement of other ships in the Cunard fleet is not going to suffer through the building of this new ship? I expect he will be quite prepared to answer across the Floor of the House the other question I asked him: whether he will tell us what was the result of the economic survey which the Chandos Committee had the advantage of having before them but which your Lordships have not. I can quite understand why he cannot produce the Chandos Committee's Report; but at least, he could tell us—and I hope he will—what were the principles Which guided it. My Lords, although I had other questions to raise, they have been put by the noble Lords who have already spoken. I hope that I have said enough at least on the transport position to justify the Amendment on the Order Paper, and I hope that the noble Lord will give me some answer to the questions I have asked.
4.31 p.m.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (LORD MILLS): My Lords, I listened with great interest and. I hope, respect to what the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, had to say on this subject and in support of his Party's Amendment. But I found it a very gloomy speech. I am sure that it was a sincere speech, but he was, I feel, so anxious to support the Amendment that he went rather far in his allegations. He talked about bank rate and the price of Government securities as if they were something new, as if we had not experienced these fluctuations at the time we suffered under a Socialist Government. He said that our economy was going downhill. I can find no evidence of that. It is true that there has been a pause. He mentioned at the same time that there was an expansion to which we are entitled. I suggest that we are entitled to only the expansion we work for and deserve.
I should like to refer to the statement in the gracious Speech:
"My Government will seek to maintain a sound economy",
because that is the fundamental determination underlying the monetary and fiscal measures which have been followed. I say that the success which has followed the Government's efforts is there for all

247
to see quite plainly. In 1957 we had to battle against inflation. The Government then turned their attention, in the middle of 1958, to stimulating the economy by relaxing the restrictions on credit and hire purchase and by expanding the public sector investment, and this was followed by the substantial Budget concessions in 1959.
The result was a rapid expansion in output. The Index of Industrial Production rose at about the rate of 12 per cent. per annum. Unemployment, which in October, 1958, was 514,000—that was 2·3 per cent.—was by October this year down to 328,000 or 1·5 per cent. During the whole period of expansion, while unemployment fell by about 200,000, about 300,000 additional workers were found jobs and about 100,000 were released from the Armed Forces to civil employment. And, as your Lordships are aware, this period of expansion has been accompanied by practical stability of prices for a period of 2½ years. It surely can be said that unemployment has been kept within limits which would have been thought absolutely impossible to achieve by pre-war standards. Investment as a whole has risen substantially in almost every year since 1952 and is now at record levels.
But the increase in employment and the expansion in output was such that it absorbed much of the unused capacity which was available. It became apparent early this year that the growing demands at home resulting from increased prosperity were likely to affect our balance of payments position. The gap between our exports and imports was widening, so the Government decided that it was necessary to moderate the pace of expansion. The measures taken were the two increases in bank rate in January and June and the two calls on the clearing banks for special deposits made in April and June, some adjustment of taxation in the Budget, and the reintroduction of a degree of control over hire purchase transactions in April.
The objectives were to prevent a strain on sterling, of which signs were appearing, and to avoid a return to rising prices which would surely follow an undue pressure on our resources. But, equally, it was desired to slow down the rise in imports for domestic consumption, because the whole basis of our
248
economic life depends on carrying out sufficient exports to pay for our imports. In pursuing measures calculated to limit expansion or the rate of expansion—although these measures are sound and directed against the build-up of dangers to our economy—the Government can expect, and are prepared for, certain criticisms. There is the criticism from those who are directly affected by such moves. There is the view that because expansion does not proceed at the same rate something must be wrong; whereas it is the intention to keep the general atmosphere right, so that expansion can build up in the most favorable direction and can proceed at the right pace within our resources.
I referred to the success which had already followed the Government's efforts to achieve a sound economy. In carrying through their measures to this end the Government have had regard to the other measures mentioned in the gracious Speech:
"…and to ensure a well-balanced growth of production in conditions of high and stable employment. Their aim will be to preserve stability of the general level of prices and to further the expansion of overseas trade and strengthen the balance of payments".
The Government have always to have regard to several lines of economic policy. We want to make full use of our resources, which means a high level of employment and a high level of investment, in order to encourage growth. But, at the same time, we must recognize that a satisfactory balance of payments is essential both for full employment and for growth, since if we could not pay for our imports the economy would eventually run down. We must also recognize that a stable price level is desirable both on economic and on social grounds. Finally, we as Conservatives believe in a free society, and not one in which every detail of economic life is centrally regulated.
The Government have to make the best compromise they can between these various objectives, since from a short-term point of view there may well be contradictions between them. For example, when expansion goes too far, there is an excess of demand and shortage of labor, and these things tend to cause difficulties, both with the balance of payments and with prices. We are

249
always trying to support as much expansion as we can without hurting the other objectives, but it is no good not recognizing that compromise is necessary.
When we were combating inflation in 1957, it was generally understood, and frequently referred to, that we were taking out of the pot more than we were putting into it. I believe we profited from that illustration. We kept our demands for better rewards within the country's earning power: but again we seem in some danger of forgetting our past experiences. Profits, dividends and wage demands are mounting up, and the national position seems in some danger of being overlooked. It surely is the Government's duty to see that demands on the pot bear some relation to what the country is achieving in the way of adding to the contents of it.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if the noble Lord would allow me to interrupt him, may I ask whether it is not also the Government's duty—and he has neglected to tell the House this—not to create inflation, which they did in 1955 and again in 1958? We should not need the measures he has described if those conditions had not been created by the Government.
LORD MILLS: It is always the Government's duly to combat inflationary tendencies. It seems to me that you cannot rightly find fault with the Government in respect of our current situation. But the Government need your support, too, in dealing with inflationary tendencies. Inflation results in general hardships, but most of all it falls on those least able to hear it; and it can be resisted only by co-operation among us all.
Now the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, has said that the Government seems to be willing to support private enterprise in a way which they are not prepared to deal with publicly-owned concerns. In support of that, he instanced the Cunard Company and the measures I announced last Thursday. I will come back to the question of the Cunard Company in a moment, but I should like to answer a specific question which he put to me. That was: were the Government under an obligation to deal with a sister ship in a similar way? It is quite true, as he pointed out, that at the moment one has to think of cross-Atlantic pas-
250
senger trade by these ships on the basis of two ships, but the "Queen Elizabeth" still has some years to go, and much will depend upon the situation in which the industry of the country finds itself at that time. I therefore cannot give the noble Lord a precise answer to his question, except to say that the Government have entered into no commitments to conic to any further assistance of the Cunard Company, or of any other shipping company, in this respect.
The noble Lord then referred to the question of the Common Market and said that much danger had been done to our trading prospects by the present situation—and I should also like to refer here to what the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, had to say in regard to this matter. He instanced a case of four Ministers and said that they were speaking with different voices. That is not the fact. It may have been that the Ministers in question were talking on a particular aspect of the problem, and were dealing with that aspect; but all Ministers are united in desiring to advance our trade and our association with the rest of Europe, and for the rest of Europe to advance it with us, too, provided two things: that we do not disrupt our relations and our trade with the Commonwealth by destroying their free entry, and that we do not put ourselves into a position in which we cannot carry out our pledges and provide support to our own agricultural industry. That is the objective common to us all, and I think that if the noble Lord will be kind enough to look again at what was said, he will find that there is no real difference, the explanation being that the Ministers were dealing with particular aspects.
Now I will deal with a question raised by the noble Lords, Lord Pethick-Lawrence and Lord Ogmore, as well as by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth—that of the new Cunarder. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, suggested on Thursday that it would be a good thing to invite a foreign yard to tender. It would stimulate the British tenders, he said; and he expressed surprise that his friend—or is it ex-friend?—the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition and I seemed to be somewhat united in not favoring that proposal.
The new shin to replace the "Queen Mary" is, I suggest, of great significance

251
to the nation as a whole. It will be a striking example of British engineering and technical skill, and I think public opinion would find unacceptable the idea that its construction should take place abroad. I think we can claim that the United Kingdom is pre-eminent in the building of large passenger ships, and inviting tenders from the six largest of our shipyards will show a competitive tendering of a high order which I doubt could be equaled by Continental yards on equal terms.
LORD OGMORE: May I ask the noble Lord, if that is so, what is the objection to throwing out the tender to foreign yards?
LORD MILLS: I will gladly answer that point. I have said that I do not think it would be favorably regarded by the public as a whole, but we cannot rule out either the possibility that other countries might use special inducements to their builders in order that they might get this job. It is not a risk that I should like to advise should be taken.
Reference was also made by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research examination, and he raised the question of the publication of its report. That matter comes under the æais of my noble Leader, and I am sure he would be doing something he should not do if he promised publication while the report is being discussed between the industry and the D.S.I.R. I have no doubt, however, that in due course the noble and learned Viscount will be prepared to say something more about it.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: If the noble Lord is dealing with the question of the new steamship and the use of a ship like the "Queen Mary", is not the real position this: that the loan and the special grant is to be made to the shipping company, and the shipping company will therefore have to use that loan and grant to build the ship. The Government, as I understand it, are faced at the same time with a growing decline in the British shipbuilding program, so would it not be quite nonsensical for us to give this loan to a shipping company to enable them to build a ship, and then to say,"You must go outside the country, if necessary, on cost"—there by involving the
252
country in greater expenditure in order to meet the position of the shipbuilding industry? Would it not also be folly to say this—a folly matched by the American example, where, whenever the American Government thought their employment was going to be in danger, they went through almost a farce of asking for outside tenders, at the same time carefully safeguarding their employment position at home?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I will not disagree with anything the noble Viscount who has just taken his seat has to say on this matter, but I have not quite finished with this subject. There was the question whether the Chandos Report could be published, and whether we could get some information about the economic survey that was made. I have thought about that request, and discussed it with my right honorable friend the Minister of Transport, as I undertook to do last Thursday. There was a clear assurance given to Lord Chandos that the Committee's Report would not be published. The reason for that was that he could assure all those who gave evidence before the Committee that their remarks would not be published, and thus he was able to get a clearer exposition of the facts than might have been the case if publication was made. However, I can say this. The Committee commissioned surveys by the Economist Intelligence Unit and Research Services, Limited, on the various aspects of future transatlantic passenger traffic. I think it would be quite misleading if only part of the evidence were published on which the Chandos Committee based their conclusions and which the Government considered in reaching their decisions.
My Lords, What were the reasons for proposing the construction of this ship, and why did the Government decide to subsidise it to the extent of some £3¼ million? The reasons were these. There is something in prestige, but that is not the whole story. So far as any calculation can be made ahead, it was felt that ten years was as far as anybody would look in advising about this matter, in view of the changes in the transport field. It is true that air transport is going up at a greater rate—a much greater rate—than sea transport. But sea transport is going up, too. In other

253
words, more and more people are traveling. So far as the next ten years are concerned, one is confident that the business will be all right.
There are some Who think—and I am one of them—that this business ought to prove a profitable venture throughout its life. But the fact remains that ten years is as far as anyone is prepared to look ahead. Therefore the Government felt that, as it was desirable to have this ship, they were not doing bad business and, moreover, at the end of ten years their security position would still be good. Foreign exchange enters into the matter, of course, but what I suggest is much more important is that people wishing to cross the Atlantic quickly by ship should use a British ship and not a ship supplied by someone else.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, also asked if it would not be better to have two ships of half the size. The whole technical and economic evidence was against any such solution. A ship half the size would not give the saving which the noble Lord expects, because such a ship would not be used for transatlantic purposes, whereas the liner which is contemplated will be. The noble Lord also asked: What sort of economy does the country want? and entered into a long argument with my noble friend the Leader of the House.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him? I think that there are Rules of Order in both Houses of Parliament which lay down that a Government speaker is not entitled to quote from a document which is not before the House, and if he does quote from it the Government are liable to be called upon to produce the document. I do not say that the noble Lord has gone all that way, bat he seems to me to be getting near it. If he goes much further in using arguments from a document we are not allowed to see, he may find himself being called to order; and I venture to suggest that he is getting very near that point.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I was trying to be as frank as I possibly could and to give the House as much information as possibly could, having explained why I did not think it was possible to produce the document in its entirety; but I am obliged to the noble Lord.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, the noble Lord is perfectly entitled to say that he thinks it is this, that or the other, but the moment he begins to quote in support of his statement a document we are not allowed to see I think he is getting beyond the point of Order.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I can only repeat that I am obliged to the noble Lord. I was referring to another matter when the noble Lord was so kind as to interrupt me—namely, to the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, had posed the question: What sort of economy does the country want? He did not pursue that except to talk about the statement, "You never had it so good".
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I say that the actual question I put was: What sort of economy do the Government think the country needs?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I think I can answer that by saying that they would always like everybody to be able to say, "You never had it so good".
The noble Lord also referred to stagnation in industry. I suggest that there is no stagnation in industry. There may be places where there is a temporary setback, but in industry as a whole there is no stagnation. There is a high level of production and of sale. The noble Lord said there should be proper consultation on redundancy. I am sure that he would expect me to agree with that. I think that the country is much more aware of the need for consultation on redundancy. Then the noble Lord said that the Government should reorganize their attempt to carry out our export trade. But the Government do not carry out the export trade. They do their best to create an atmosphere in which export trade should flourish. While it is true that many Ministers have been going round pointing out the importance of export trade to this country and the need for export trade, this is not because we are doing so badly with export trade but because we should like to do much better. After all, the export trade has doubled since before the war and has gone up considerably in the last two or three years. It is true that, in the first three-quarters of this year, it was a little down, but it is now tending upwards again, and it

255
may be that exhortation is having some effect, much as some people dislike exhortation.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord how the Government have created the climate for export trade? Would he not agree that the bank rate, in causing a restriction in imports, equally causes a restriction in exports, in the sense that much of the manufacture for exports has to be done on credit and the bank rate falls equally on the export side of industry as on the home side?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, the Government never have this question of export trade out of their minds. In the consideration of every move, the question arises whether it is going to hinder export trade. The fact that any move is felt in the export trade is a very potent factor. Conversely, I have never heard a discussion on economic matters in which it has not been asked, "Is this going to help our export trade?" The Government are continually trying to create the right atmosphere for export trade, as well as pointing out the necessity for export trade to this country, which has no raw material save coal and has to import so much of its food.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord must take it from exporters that we do not share his view.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord is speaking for the export industry or for a particular firm, but it does not matter very much. I can assure him that the desire to foster the export trade is never far from our minds.
Running through the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and even through the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, was the suggestion that the Government are failing to do this, that and the other in trade, as if the Government themselves were the traders. That is far from the truth. Every Government has to look to the industries of this country, large and small, and to the merchants of the country to foster its trade. All the Government can do, as I have said, is to support them in their efforts where it is possible. It may be that some people think that the Government should be doing the
256
trade; but that is not our philosophy. Our philosophy is to aid the traders of this country to do what is required.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If I conveyed to the noble Lord that I wanted the Government to trade, that is far from the fact; I do not. What I want the Government to do all the time is to have in their minds the paramount thought that they not only must help industry to export but must hinder it as little as possible.
LORD MILLS: I am glad the noble Lord has made that statement, because it is just the way we think on these Benches, too. The noble Lord started his remarks by saying two things: first, that taxation is too high; and secondly, that there is a complete lack of incentives. I could not agree more. Taxation is too high; but the Conservatives are the people who have got down taxation and who aim to get it down, in spite of the growth of public expenditure. So the noble Lord certainly gets an echo from me when he says that taxation is too high and that there is a lack of incentives.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I hesitate to interrupt again, because the noble Lord is always so courteous and kind. Technically, if he is talking about the rate of Taxation per head, he is right; but he will no doubt agree with me that from 1951 to the end of 1958 the gross amount of taxation increased by £2,000 million.
LORD MILLS: If we are going to talk in this kind of way, I would ask the noble Lord to have a look at the gross national product and see where the percentage of taxation stands there.
The noble Lord made one remark which rather surprised me. He said that the Government had induced the motor industry to expand. That is not correct. The motor industry, which is one of our great forward-looking industries, has itself made proposals to expand, and the Government have been glad to have the opportunity of supporting that desire on the part of the industry. It wanted originally to expand in places where there was no labor to spare, and where I have no doubt it would have got the labor, but only at the expense of other industries and other people. What the Government did was to persuade the industry

257
to take its expansion plans into areas of high and persistent unemployment. The fact that it has done this has already shown its effect by reducing unemployment in those places. I do not think the motor industry is downhearted; it wants to go on with its plans, in spite of the temporary setback, much of which has come from the reduction in the North American market.
The noble Lord suggested that the hire purchase period should be extended from two to three years, and he also referred to the question of purchase tax. Can we just look at this industry for a moment or two? Car production has more than doubled in the last ten years, and exports have risen by nearly 50 per cent. Cars account for about 5 per cent. of industrial production, and in 1959 the export of motor vehicles of every kind accounted for about 15 per cent. of our exports. I suppose that altogether the number of people dependent on the motor industry is not far short of one million.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: More.
LORD MILLS: It is true that the third quarter of 1960 shows a sharp fall from the high levels achieved in the first half of the year; but, even so, the weekly average in the third quarter is still higher than in the corresponding quarter a year ago. As I have said, there has been a fall of exports to North America. Redundancy is quite small, firms generally keeping hold of their labor, which is another manifestation of their belief in the ultimate expansion of their plans.
I now come to the question of purchase tax. Purchase tax is essentially a revenue instrument. It is not applied to motor cars or to any other commodity for the purpose of restricting demand. If one looks at the figures (I hope that I am not out of order in quoting from something here, too) one sees that the existence of purchase tax has not prevented a substantial growth in the industry in recent years. In other words, there is no reason to believe that purchase tax has kept down output.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am not going to deny one word of what the noble Lord says, but the trouble is that our increase in productivity has not matched that of our competitors. While
258
admittedly our exports have increased, they have not increased at the same rate as that of our competitors; and our share of the world market has gone down and has been going down for these last three years.
LORD MILLS: I think the noble Lord can find the reasons if he looks for them.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I have tried to find them and to quote them.
LORD MILLS: I will tell him one or two of them. In the first place, certain countries are doing export business where they did not do it before. There are certain people who export goods in the way they did not export them before. We and America are two of the old exporting countries, and if you compare ourselves with America you will find that we have done better than they have in exports. We have, in my view, done very creditably—and when I say "we", I mean the industrial firms in this country and all who engage in export business. There has been a large and consistent increase in exports. It might not have been too surprising if we had not done as well as we have, but we must do even better, because our obligations have grown. People want to import things. They want to enjoy things which other countries can give them, and we have certain moral obligations, if not actual obligations, to those countries with whom we have been associated, and some with whom we have not been associated, who have the need. If we have the ability to earn, then we ought to supply their needs.
Hire purchase restrictions have mainly affected the used-car business. Only about one-fifth of new car sales are made by hire purchase transactions. The present arrangements appear to be about right, and a selective relaxation in favor of cars would make it impossible to maintain the remaining restrictions, because the agitation would grow, "If cars, why not something else?" think we have a fairly good level now, and it should be something which is capable of being worked. I do not agree with people who say there should be no hire purchase—and there are some people who say that. It is a fact of life and a way of life, and it is so

259
difficult to save that many people would find it difficult to set up house without the advantage of hire purchase. But I think it is right that we should not let it run out of hand.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, made the statement that no modern Government has ever proved capable of reducing its expenditure.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I said, "controlling expenditure".
LORD MILLS: Controlling its expenditure. I do not know that I would agree with him there. I would agree with him if he said reducing it, and this is why. You and I demand so much, think we are entitled to so much, and in a growing economy that movement cannot stop. The thing we have to do, and the thing we are striving to do, is to build up our production and productivity so that we can afford these things. But that does not mean that Chancellors of the Exchequer, with whom I have been fortunate to be associated, are not always striving to reduce their expenditure.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, then referred to the British Transport Commission. It is quite true that very large sums of money have been lost by British Railways. I referred earlier to the note which has crept into the debate that the Government were doing the trading, and the noble Lord also said that the Government were losing these heavy sums of money. Be that as it may, we are debating the gracious Speech and the Amendment to the Address. The gracious Speech refers to the Government's proposals for reforming the structure and functions of the British Transport Commission. I need hardly remind your Lordships that the present consideration of the British Transport Commission as a whole started with a statement by my right honorable friend the Prime Minister in another place on March 10, 1960. In it, he expressed concern at the state of the Commission and its finances, and particularly drew attention to the problems of the railways. He outlined the main features of the Government's policy for the future. The industry must be of a size and pattern suited to modern conditions and prospects, and the railway system must
260
be remodeled to meet current needs. The public must be prepared to accept changes even if they mean some sacrifice of convenience. The British Transport Commission must accept a radical reorganisation of its structure, including decentralisation of management, so that individual undertakings, including the railway regions, should be made self-accounting and responsible for the management of their own affairs.
The Prime Minister then announced that a special group had been sot up to advise on the application of these principles to Government undertakings. Accordingly, the group was set up early in April to advise the Minister of Transport and the Commission. Its composition and terms of reference were announced by the Minister of Transport in a statement on April 6. At the beginning of October, the Special Advisory Group completed its task, which included taking written and oral evidence from a wide variety of interests, among them, of course, the British Transport Commission, the trade unions and industry generally. They made a number of recommendations dealing with finance, statutory restrictions, modernisation and reorganisation. In the debate on October 26 in another place, my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport announced that the Special Advisory Group had completed their work, and mentioned the broad subjects covered in their recommendations. He said that the recommendations were being considered and that the Government's proposals would be placed before the House as soon as possible in the form of a comprehensive White Paper.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, asked me whether there was any proposal to hive off or to sell any part of the undertakings. I can tell him this: it has been no part of the Government's recent consideration of the affairs of the British Transport Commission, or in their discussions with the Special Advisory Group, to consider the hiving-off of any of their assets and their return to private ownership and control. The Government have been concerned only with the consideration of measures designed to improve the service, efficiency and economy of the organisation and the elements comprising the British Transport Commission.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for making that statement. It will allay rumour, perhaps wishful thinking, and, I think, will prevent a lot of harm being done to the proposals which I hope will be very carefully considered in the coming White Paper.
LORD MILLS: I am obliged to the noble Lord for having raised the question and thus enabling me to reply.
The noble Lord talked a great deal about the money that had been lost—and rightly so, because it is a matter on which I am sure we are all concerned. But do not let us overlook the fact that many of the moves necessary to counteract that loss are very long-term moves, and that the expenditure of money in, for example, modernising the railways, for a time creates charges and expenditures and adds to the deficit, rather than to the revenues.. We must not overlook that fact. But I should like to say a word on the revenue deficit, for the purpose of the Record, as well as for the information of your Lordships. The Commission's deficit on revenue account amounted in 1959 to £74 million. This resulted from a deficit of £84 million on British Railways, offset by a surplus of £10 million on other activities—London Transport, British Road Services, provincial omnibuses, docks, shipping services and so on. The noble Lord said in his statement that all the other sections were profitable. But of course that is not true with regard to inland waterways.
This is not the full story, because under the statutory arrangements, originally designed to tide the Commission over the difficult early years of modernisation to which I referred, certain interest on borrowings is not charged to the revenue at once: it is held in suspense to be charged to revenue later. This interest, which all arises on the railways, amounted in 1959 to £26 million; and when one adds that to the railway deficit of £84 million still in the accounts, as one must to get a realistic picture, the total real deficit is seen to be £110 million, which is about a quarter of the gross takings. That is a very heavy and disturbing proportion.
As part of the special temporary arrangements referred to which were embodied in the Transport (Railway Finances) Act, 1957, the railway deficits
262
for the years 1956 to 1959 have been met by loans from the Exchequer on the basis that the Commission will eventually make profits from which they would pay interest on loans and repay the principal. This year a change was made. In the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech last April [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 621, col. 49]:
"It has become apparent that the prospects of the railways and the Commission are not now such as to justify the continued financing; of the deficit by repayable advances."
Explaining that for the purpose of his Budget calculations the requisite sums for 1960 were being transferred from below the line to above the line, the Chancellor of the Exchequer added that the effect of this is that the amount of deficit will have to be met from the revenue, a sharp reminder of the harsh realities of a disturbing situation. Here, clearly, is the heart of the problem of the Commission's finances and the reasons which led to the appointment of the Special Advisory Group announced by the Prime Minister on March 10 last. The measures which are being worked out in the light of the group's recommendations have as their prime object the relief of this burden on the taxpayer and the creation of an efficient railway system which, by enterprise and economy, can stand on its own feet.
I regret that with regard to the publication of the Stedeford Report I have to say "No". Really, what matters is what are the Government's proposals. Because it is the Government's proposals which the Government will try to get through Parliament, to the extent that is necessary to get them through Parliament. The Government will advise Parliament fully on those measures which do not require legislation.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Could the Minister give the House some idea as to when the White Paper will be available?
LORD MILLS: It is expected to be available before the House adjourns for Christmas.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Thank you.
LORD MILLS: I have dealt as fully as I can with the questions I have been asked, and I have tried to explain the

263
situation to your Lordships. I was a little worried by something the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said. He said that I had considered that your Lordships' House was too dull to understand the Reports and figures. I am sure he did not mean anything by that remark. He knows perfectly well that your Lordships would understand anything put in front of you. What he really meant was that I was too dull to understand the necessity of doing that. I have tried to be as full and frank as possible on these problems, but if I have erred in any way I am sorry.
5.40 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, it is now twenty to six and we have enjoyed a most interesting debate, but I would point out to your Lordships that as far as the Private Members on both sides of the House are concerned I am the first to have the honour of addressing your Lordships, and I think, in the interests of debate, if I may be allowed to say so with great respect to the Government, the debate on the Address should be the occasion on which Private Members have an opportunity of stating their case as well as those upon the Front Bench, whom we are delighted to hear, let us say, fully. However, the late hour cannot prevent me from dealing, with one general point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, last Wednesday, when he made a statement of a kind which I think is said too often and too widely, and one with which I profoundly disagree. I will remind your Lordships of his words [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 226 (No. 2), col. 51]:
"I have the feeling that they are somehow hiding from the people the unpleasant fact that we, as a country, are no longer supreme or in the first rank as a power in Europe or in the world."
We in this country do not travel second-class as a world power to-day. I would say that, both economically and morally. Britain is still a great power in the world.
LORD REA: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, may I say that he quoted my words perfectly accurately, but he will remember that I was speaking in the context of military power; and I went on to say in the next sentence that we do not
264
"have to take a second-rate place, because we have a tremendous opportunity of leading in other ways."
By those "other ways" I meant exactly the way he has just mentioned.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: If by the second sentence the noble Lord meant that he was cancelling out the first, of course I willingly accept it, but I think the first was the governing sentence. I should like to point out that economically this country is great still. We are the sterling area bankers; we are a great trading nation; we are one of the leaders in the development of nuclear power; we are one of the great leaders in the technical development of new aircraft engines—indeed, the Rolls-Royce jet engine is installed in a large and an increasing number of the modern airliners of the world. These are great advances. As the centre of the Commonwealth—which is, after all, the single greatest force for the free way of life in the world, because it is more spread throughout the world than the concentrated United States—morally we are in a position of supreme importance, as indeed is evidenced by the attention which is given to our representatives at the United Nations.
Having made that small refutation of Lord Rea's speech, I come to the gracious Speech from the Throne and to the Amendment to the Address, which I cannot support, for two reasons. The first is that I think Lord Mills deployed very well, if he will allow me to say so, the knife edge upon which our economy rests at all times, and the skilful way in which the Government have managed to keep us on the right side of the knife edge and to maintain the balance just right in circumstances difficult in a world of dis-balance. The second reason is that, frankly, I should be rather horrified if there were an alternative Government to the present one.
The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, in his interesting speech, used these words:
"No one would put his hand on his heart and say he is satisfied with the economy at the present time."
But I do not believe that anybody would put his hand on his head and say that he had confidence in the alternatives

265
advocated by the Party opposite, which have been tried in practice and found wanting, and are still advocated by them in theory. For those two reasons, I certainly could not accept or support the Amendment. Nevertheless, I regret that in the Amendment there was no specific mention of Commonwealth trade, and that when speaking of Western Europe there was an ambiguity in the words of the gracious Speech from the Throne which it is unusual to find in any such (local-I-lent, which is, as we know, prepared for Her Majesty by Her Ministers.
I will read the sentence which has a bearing, upon Commonwealth trade. It is this:
"At the same time they wilt work towards the political and economic unity of Western Europe, on a basis satisfactory to all the Governments concerned."
I emphasise the words "a basis satisfactory to, all the Governments concerned." Does the phrase" all the Governments concerned" refer to the Governments of Western Europe, or does it refer in the wider context to all the Governments concerned, which would of course include the Commonwealth Governments? I trust I have made the point clear to the Minister so that we can have a clarification of that ambiguity. I believe it is of vital importance that there should be a clarification which will give an interpretation in the wider sense of the two that I have submitted to your Lordships.
Until the clear declaration of Lord Mills to-day there has been a good deal of confusion on this matter of where we stand in relation to Western Europe and the Commonwealth. There have been oft-repeated promises that our trade position with the Commonwealth will not be affected by any Western European movement in which we may join. But some of the declarations of the Commonwealth Finance Ministers following the recent Finance Ministers' Conference seem to me to run rather counter to the assurances we used to have, that the Commonwealth countries were in full support of any and every step that Her Majesty's Government might take to consider joining in a closer integration with Europe. Mr. Donald Fleming, the Canadian Minister of Finance, at the end of the Conference, said:
"If there is going to be any tampering with the advantages now enjoyed by Canadian exports in the United Kingdom market we would
266
have to re-examine the terms of access of British goods to the Canadian market."
Mr. Nordmeyer, the Minister of Finance for New Zealand, said:
"We do not like the Six we were unenthusiastic about the Seven; we have an almost superstitious abhorrence about the Thirteen."
The Minister, Lord Mills, to-day made a clear declaration, as I understood, that the Commonwealth position would not be prejudiced, either in its preferential character or as regards the principle of free entry of Commonwealth produce based upon the Ottawa Agreement; nor would British agriculture be adversely affected. Those are important declarations which clear up the ambiguities which were exposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, in the course of his speech. Indeed, your Lordships will be delighted to hear that my few remarks will be considerably shortened because of the assurances given to-day by Lord Mills. We do not want double-talking or double-thinking, although I am afraid that in the gracious Speech from the Throne we have something which might be called double-writing. I believe it is vital that there will be this wide interpretation of carrying the Commonwealth Governments with us, because no less than 41 per cent. of our trade is still with the Commonwealth, although I regret to say that it is declining.
I believe that the pressure on this country, from new members, particularly of the Commonwealth, to take greater steps than in the past to remedy the disparities in the standards of life between ourselves and the more backward parts of the Commonwealth, is going to be increased, as the world is really now so small. In the old days poverty and disparities in the standards of life did not stare us in the face, and were accepted in a way that cannot be tolerated when any part of the Commonwealth is perhaps within twelve hours of the centre. As Mr. Wendell Wilkie said, we are indeed one world, and we are one Commonwealth. It is because of that that I believe that this pressure is going to be an increasing pressure in the years to come.
But investment in the Commonwealth, and indeed outside the Commonwealth, must. I submit, carry with it opportunities for the recipients to be able to carry the burden of the inflow of capital into their countries. It is no good pouring money into a country unless it is for an economic objective which is going

267
to give a return. It may not be an immediate one, but it must eventually give a return. I believe that to enable these countries to give that return, some assured markets for their exports are necessary, because for many years yet several of these new countries are going to have mono-economies, or something very nearly approaching mono-economies; at any rate, they are going to have economies which depend primarily on production of one product, like rubber or tin.
Although undoubtedly industrialisation may go on, the economies of these countries are going to depend for many years to come on the successful export of a particular primary product, and if that he the case I believe it is as much our duty to the Commonwealth to provide markets which will absorb those products as it is our duty to invest in those countries. In the long run, I do not think it is any good to invest unless we assure those countries of some security of market so that they are to some degree insulated from the quick fluctuations of world markets and have some security for their main products.
As the political ties weaken, the future Commonwealth partnership must essentially depend more and more on economic ties, and the partnership must be seen by those new countries to be a worthwhile partnership to keep them, as it were, with us. It is true that the Government have promised what I would term "no sell-out" on the present preferential position. but my plea is that this is not enough; that we ought to have an economic policy that allows us to give some Commonwealth priority beyond the standstill position at present enjoyed
Yet to talk of a Commonwealth policy I believe puts the Government on the horns of a dilemma. On the one side, they sincerely believe that a policy of international multilateralism and nondiscriminatory trade is the best way to achieve a satisfactory balance of payments position which, in turn, would afford us the resources from which we can invest overseas. They sincerely believe in what I call the multilateral non-discriminatory basis which gives us a sound financial position, while on the other hand that very policy precludes us from taking any steps on special oppor-
268
tunities for what I would call "privileged" operations with these new territories. On the one hand, we have the policy which says we must not give discrimination because we should not be able to sustain a satisfactory financial position. On the other hand, by that very policy, we are stopping ourselves from being able `to give any extension of the preferential system.
I believe there are many ways of extending opportunities to the Commonwealth, such as bulk purchase, long-term contracts, guaranteed markets and tariff preferences, and I would not be doctrinaire about holding out any of them as applicable. But all of them require some modification of the present rules of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and particularly the "no now preference" rule. I believe that for the sake of the Commonwealth we should offer to these new countries with what I would call mono- or near mono-economies same kind of preferential benefits without thought of mutuality for ourselves. The mutuality for ourselves would come later.
We have to find a middle course, somewhere between the Protectionism of Ottawa and pure Free Trade liberalism, neither of which are applicable in their entirety to-day, enabling us to fulfil our Commonwealth duty to these new countries with these single, or near-single, economies. That is my plea to-night to Her Majesty's Government. While not supporting the condemnatory Amendment, I would ask for a greater sense of realisation, a greater sense of urgency and for determined action to foster what is, I believe, our economic and social duty to our fellow members, present and future, of the British Commonwealth.
5.55 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, like my noble friend, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, who has just sat down, I am not speaking in support of the Amendment, but we are all grateful to the Opposition for having put down this Amendment which affords more of us the opportunity of taking part in this debate on the gracious Speech from the Throne. For myself, I wish to refer to-day to export trade. It is true that that has already been dealt with at considerable length by my noble friend Lord Mills, but there is an angle to it which I particularly want to bring up.

269
Like many Others, I was at that large gathering of industrialists addressed not long ago by the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister, which he called together to give an exhortation for exports. It was an admirable presentation, as was to be expected, but it fell short of conviction because he offered no intentions of providing incentives. Human nature being what it is there is little doubt that such exhortation will not bring spectacular results. In this matter there are two factors: the cost factor and the human factor. Under the first heading let us take the survey or exploitation of possibilities in North America. That is very costly, and boards of companies must give careful consideration before embarking on expenditure of their shareholders' money on such an adventure.
Then there is the angle of personnel, the need to have the right talent and the time taken away from putting over the home business which, after all, should make the major contribution to profits. Then there is often the unreasonable attitude shown by the Inland Revenue authorities, harassing individual travellers with oppressive interrogations and forfeits, and the Treasury making difficult the provision of adequate expenses. The Prime Minister at that time placed great emphasis on the need for small firms to embark on the export business. I was rather concerned about that. There is, of course, the question of what "small" connotes. There is a difference between the textile trades and the metal-consuming trades. Certainly any small textile firm can export a cloth of imaginative design involving themselves in very little expense; but when somebody is going to embark on the export of lawn mowers, or something of that kind, a lot of expensive presentation is required, and so I doubt the wisdom of exhorting these small industries to do this, which often means squandering money. My Lords, if I may be pardoned for making a personal confession, I have been travelling abroad making sales from this country for over 40 years. I have seen a good deal of the game while travelling in several continents. It is not only the difficulty of presenting the picture as a salesman that is involved: I have also had a goodly experience while managing businesses in overseas countries in noting the type of personnel
270
and method of presentation by salesmen from this country who try to sell products.
But to return to incentives. There are many possible varieties, and it is necessary only to study the practices followed by foreign countries which compete with us to recognise what can be done. It is usually argued by the Government that if we apply incentives such will bring reprisals. Let them bring reprisals. Let us answer reprisals with further retaliation. After all, the British market is a valuable market, and let us exploit our strength. For that reason I strongly urge incentives as the method by which increasing exports can be obtained.
I turn for a moment to G.A.T.T., the General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade, already referred to by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye, who has effectively covered the ground. This country respects Treaties; other countries continually disregard them, and frequently get away with it Therein lies the difference. About this possible Customs realignment in Europe, to which my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye referred, I myself feel that surely many of these proposals are, in effect, tariff discrimination, selected preferences or barter trade. They are all infringements of G.A.T.T. For that reason I am among those who strongly support the plea that we should get free from the shackles of G.A.T.T. And, incidentally, when we emerge from this morass of complexity and kaleidoscopic changes, which bewilder all of us, I am among those who want to trust the undertakings of Ministers that our commitments with regard to Commonwealth preferences will be respected. I believe that it is better to underpin the solidarity of the Commonwealth by Customs aid, because the world needs a strong Commonwealth.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, went to considerable length to explain the apparent differences of thinking of members of the Cabinet. We can only hope that the great assembly in this City at the present time of eminent financiers and members of Governments from the outer Seven will listen to the speech of the Prime Minister with the feeling that there is no longer any confusion. I refer for a moment to the Common Market. Such is understood to suggest freedom of movement, of

271
merchandise, of capital, and of people. I have always wondered how that gets by without resistance from organised labour. We have seen what seems to be unreasonable resistance by the mining unions to the importation of Continental labour. There are other unions too—bricklayers and goodness knows what others who also oppose.
I turn to depreciation allowances. The energetic modernisation or replacement of existing equipment can be greatly assisted by the adding of depreciation allowances; and the existing allowances on depreciable assets cannot fail to be inadequate. They are based on the historical cost of such assets during a period of rising prices. There are various methods of improvement. Of course, these have been continually suggested by the Federation of British Industries, and it is to be hoped that their plea will produce in the future more action by the Government. On investment allowances, these have been more generous, but surely these should wholly take the place of initial allowances, in order to provide a sufficient stimulus both to replacement and to new investment.
I want to decry the disparagement which we often read of British official trade representation abroad. My own experience has been that these officers are bringing devoted and intelligent experience to their work. We have a fine body who often suffer frustrations and insufficient allowances, but who, in spite of that, give a great service to British industry. The Export Credits Guarantee organisation render great service to industry. But I feel by this agency methods of greater assistance lie to the hand of the Government. I have recently had some exchanges of correspondence with my noble friend Lord Dundee, who replies in this House for the Board of Trade, and I am grateful to him for assurance that there is going to be a further consideration of liberality in certain directions. But I would say to him that I hope that the terms of the "Contracts policy" may, without additional cost, be to a greater degree extended to "Shipments policies". This very week in the Economist there is an outstanding article on the question of export insurance. This shows that Germany offers greater facilities than does this country.
272
I just want to refer to the imports from low-wage Asiatic countries. Tariffs alone are inadequate for these, anyhow to preserve industries regarded as expendable, and I want to take this opportunity of quoting a recent statement by the Vice-President of the United States:
"Our diplomatic resources should be used unreservedly to remove remaining 'road blocks' to increasing our exports abroad, to create wider opportunities among other nations for imports from low-wage countries, and to encourage the development of fair labour standards in exporting countries in the interest of fair competition in international trade."
I can only hope that it is not contemplated that the United Kingdom should be among the "donkeys" at the receiving end in this particular case.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Lord permit me to say this? When he referred to the poorer countries does he include the Commonwealth countries, as the appeal was made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye—Hong Kong in particular?
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I said in any industries which might be considered expendable. I trust that no industries are being considered expendable, although there is some concern about the textile industries particularly.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord will recognise that in the case of the cotton industry the Government lent their aid to bring about a restriction—a voluntary restriction it was called—on Hong Kong imports into this country, only to find that the shortage of grey cotton in this country was so large that Lancashire went to Spain and had to import large quantities of grey cotton from Spain, which commodity Hong Kong could well have supplied, and which would have given employment to hundreds of thousands of refugees in Hong Kong.
LORD BARNBY: I find myself sometimes in disagreement with my noble friend. In this particular matter, I am afraid I am one of those who are critics of Government policy, so I will not go on further about that. But, my Lords, diplomacy must always be the dominant protection of commerce, and I should not like to sit down without paying a tribute to the outstanding speech we

273
heard in the earlier part of this debate from the noble Earl who was until recently our own Leader, and who is now the Foreign Secretary—an impressive presentation in a resolute manner of our mission in the world, and of the robust intentions to carry it out.
6.13 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye in some of the propositions he put forward, for I have long believed that, for political and economic reasons, it is vital that we should be able to guarantee markets for some of the commodities produced, particularly by the emerging countries—and when I. say "we", I mean that it would be preferable that we ourselves should do a large share, but we may need help from others, too. I am not frightened of the name earned by long-term contracts. Why long-term contracts got a bad name in this country was because there was too much "Government" muddled up in them. The Treasury tried to beat down the producers to such a degree that the producers ceased to produce, and we therefore nearly starved. That is how long-term contracts got a bad name.
There is great anxiety in many quarters about the balance of trade of this country at the moment. The figures are not comforting. On visible account, in 1958 we ran an average monthly unfavourable balance of £36 million; in 1959, it averaged £44 million; in the first quarter of 1960 it averaged £55 million, in the second quarter of 1960 £69 million, and in the third quarter £90 million. The negative balance has been remorselessly creeping up. But, of course, one has to throw in and examine the invisibles, too. The figures for invisibles have been published only up to the end of June, but if you add together the figures for the last complete twelve months—that is, from July, 1959 to June, 1960—of both visibles and invisibles and compare them with those for 1958 (which, incidentally, was a good year), you will find that our current account balance deteriorated by no less than £287 million, from a plus of £345 million to a plus of £58 million. Of these, £181 million were visibles and £106 million invisibles.
274
The major items of deterioration in the visibles—that is, actual trade—were £83 million deterioration in the dollar area and £148 million deterioration in the rest of the sterling area. Of the invisibles, there was a large item in South America, oil, of £129 million, and travel in Europe amounted to £40 million. So that these four categories more than accounted for the total deterioration. But at the moment the position is undoubtedly considerably worse. On visible account, we are running at nearly £100 million a month deficit, which must far outweigh the figure for invisibles, which were running at an average of only about £12 million a month in the last period for which we have the figures. In fact, if we were to compare the year 1960 with 1958, we might well find our position deteriorating by as much as £450 million to £500 million.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I am not sure whether I have got his figures right. He is saying that we are at present running at about £100 million per month deficit on visibles, and he estimated the earnings on invisibles at about £12 million a month, which would leave a net deficit of £88 million a month. Is that right? Because I understood that in the first half of the year the actual surplus was £35 million. Are we now losing £88 million a month?
LORD HAWKE: On invisibles, the last published figures, the January/June provisional figures, show that the total—that is not monthly, but the total—was £62 million.
What have apparently hit us chiefly are: too many imports from the dollar area, too few exports to the sterling area and a catastrophic blow in connection with oil in South America—which, from inquiries, I have tracked clown to be, I believe, a "once and for all" blow, in that the present Government of Venezuela, when they came into power, found that the late President was no longer in the country and that a large sum of money which they had expected and hoped to find in the Treasury was not there. They therefore sought to replenish this by a very heavy retrospective tax on the oil companies, and I am informed, on good authority, that this

275
particular item, which s a very large sum of money, represents that figure.
The other item is the ever-increasing and excessive travel in Europe. The extra dollar imports and the travel in Europe are, of course, the logical results of greater freedom, but unless we can improve our exports we shall have to back-pedal on that sort of thing. Her Majesty's Government have rightly launched a great drive, exhorting manufacturers to export more, but it is right that we should examine how far the situation is our own fault and how far we are caught up in the action of others. The world situation at the moment does not seem to be particularly favourable for British exports.
The purchasing power in overseas markets has been affected in several ways. First of all, commodity prices, if anything, tend to be a little lower than they were a year ago. There has been a general drive against inflation throughout the world, and as overseas buyers particularly tend to spend the top slice of their income on British goods, that naturally acts discriminately against British goods. The production of raw materials has more or less caught up with manufacturing capacity, and has certainly overreached purchasing power in the world, so that the incentive to invest in more oil production and more mining production is somewhat less; and both these fields, of course, are very good fields for British exports.
Germany has been running a large surplus on exports which she has not in any way re-lent to the world, nor has she made any attempt to increase her imports, though there are signs that some effort is now being made, particularly in Ghana and in the Argentine. Moreover, confidence in the future is impaired, or has been impaired, by the United States Election, as well as by events in the Congo and the general white fear of black domination in Africa. The result is that there has been a diminution in the ability to buy and in the confidence to buy, with the result that there has been less buying. Moreover, there are larger sources of supply to fill the lesser demand, sources created by the world boom in productive investment over the last few years. Some of these sources, too, are backed
276
by cheap Oriental costs, and some sources are willing to meet overseas customers' credit needs more than we can. Altogether, the general atmosphere for British exports is pretty grim at the moment.
A lot of this atmosphere is not of our creating, but if we are to overcome it, we want to make quite sure that all our methods are of the best, whether we are hunting new trade or whether we are looking after what we have already got. In the days when I was engaged in world trade, I was much struck by the system that some of the Continental firms used to employ for the export markets. They would form a cartel of manufacturers of similar goods, a cartel large enough to be able to employ a first-class overseas representative. They would appoint their agents in the various markets, firms of substance, but the king-pin of the organisation was the German, Czech (or whatever he was) sales representative who travelled round in his area doing the hard work while the agent provided him with a base, introductions, and so on.
That was most effective, but it was effective because it was possible for firms making the same things to come together. The noble Lord, Lord Barnby, was talking about the difficulty of exporting lawn mowers. I agree. But supposing all the lawn-mower manufacturers in this country formed a lawn mowers' export cartel, they could afford to employ a first-class salesman in every big market in the world.
LORD BARNBY: Restrictive trade practices!
LORD HAWKE: I agree. But I do not entirely agree with my Party on restrictive trade practices.
The only difficulty, which the Continentals were able to overcome somehow or other, was how to apportion the orders when they got home. They did it all right, but I admit that it must have proved difficult, particularly when some of the orders were taken at a loss, as undoubtedly they were. But I am perfectly sure that that is a far better method than banding together a miscellaneous bunch of manufacturers whose sole object in coming together is to see that no one of them competes with any other. They can then produce only a salesman who cannot possibly be an

277
expert in all of the goods he has to sell. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will try to knock this idea into some of our British manufacturers.
Whenever manufacturing capacity exceeds purchasing power, we are going to run up against the question of credit. I do not believe that we can rely on other countries not to get round any agreements on credit that we choose to make. In any case, however wide the facilities the City of London can offer, according to The Times Supplement on the City of London published quite recently, the City does not appear to be able to offer credit to overseas buyers, as contrasted with British sellers. I believe that we shall have to commit some of our foreign exchange reserves to the setting up of a British Export-Import Bank to enable loans to be made to overseas buyers to buy British goods. No doubt loans would have to be partially undertaken by indigenous banks, or even by the Government of the country concerned, to see that the risk was properly spread. But the Americans do it, and I am sure that we shall have to do it.
I hope our measures succeed. I welcome this great exhibition in Moscow, and I hope there will be a good display of goods, even of those goods in which there is very small chance of our doing any trade. Millions will come and see the exhibition, and it will be one chance of showing behind the Iron Curtain what exists on this side of the Iron Curtain. If we do not succeed in our measures to increase our exports, we shall undoubtedly have to cut down imports and other expenditure abroad, as others have done—Australia, for instance. I know that sterling launched into the world always comes home to roost, but it may come home as hot money from the Continent or in the buying of shares in 13ritish industry. Personally, I do not regard it as good business for Britain if a holiday on the Costa Brava is paid for by selling I.C.I. shares to a German national. That is living on the nation's capital, and that is what we have been doing this last year.
In my view, those who believe in freer and freer trade, without any question, should remember that there have been very considerable changes in society since the days of Cobden and Bright, Gladstone—and even, for that matter, Marx.
278
We had a new deal in this country, and a great deal of the purchasing power is now in the hands of the masses and is no longer confined solely to the middle and richer classes. That means that when we exchange greater freedom of markets with other countries, we are offering them a very great privilege and in nearly every case a privilege greater than we can receive in return. After paying for food and shelter and the essential overheads of life in this country, our people have a higher purchasing power than anybody in the world except, perhaps, the Americans. Moreover, we have a very strong leaning towards American gadgetry and Continental artistry. To take an instance, the Italians seem to be able to make ladies' shoes much better than we do but they cannot make woollen cloth so well as we can. If we throw open our market to Italian shoes, there are millions of our people who can afford to buy those shoes. But if they throw open their market to our woollen cloth, far fewer Italians have money to buy it. For centuries the Northerners have always searched for the sun, so we are inveterate holiday makers in the South; but the Southerners do not reciprocate.
I should like to say one word about our old friend, monetary policy. Nobody can ever suggest that I have not backed Her Majesty's Government 100 per cent. on the use of bank rate. That was so long as I believed that bank rate was the decisive weapon, the heavy cudgel. But is it any longer so? Has its place not been taken by special deposits and by the fact that money-lenders have found that people are willing to pay far higher rates than bank rate for personal loans and hire-purchase contracts? I believe that special deposits and hire purchase controls are the weapons of control today in the home market. Bank rate may have some effect, but it is not nearly so effective as it was. Bank rate is, however, highly effective in attracting foreign money to this country. Keeping bank rate above that of our neighbours means that hot money flows in here and our reserves bound up, masking the true position on current credit account. Moreover, Her Majesty's Government give the Opposition a stick to beat them with the whole time, because the Opposition insist on bemusing the public by mixing up short-term and long-term rates

279
and pretending that bank rate has a decisive effect on rents, which obviously it cannot possibly have.
I would say a final word about the motor industry, which tends to expand and contract violently with the season. I hope that we shall manage to find the means of keeping a steadier rate of employment in this industry. Last season, we had cheap credit at the peak of the seasonal buying. The result was that we had a wild boom, and credit controls had to be imposed more or less as the seasonal buying spent itself, so we got something of a depression. Why could we not try for loose credit in the off-season and tightened credit in the buying season? Indeed, why cannot manufacturers have winter and summer prices for cars, as the Coal Board has for coal? At present, the vagaries of the motor industry make the situation for other employers of labour in the Midlands most difficult. I hope that the Government will try to pursue this matter with the trade, to see whether something cannot be done, otherwise they will be forced to relax hire-purchase restrictions just at the moment when next he seasonal buying comes on the market.
6.34 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, only short references to agriculture have been made so far in this debate, so in entering the field on behalf of the farming community, I am raising the expectation that to-morrow we may learn something more of the Government's intentions regarding the industry. Sometimes it is entertaining to refer to arguments or events of the past, and in discussing the present and future position of agriculture, it may be well to look back upon references to agriculture in the gracious Speeches of recent years. For my purpose, I need take only those of the last three years. I am not troubling about previous years, but I expect that the references to agriculture in those years would be in the same strain.
In 1957, we were told that:
"My Ministers will continue to give support to agriculture and fishing".
In 1958:
"A healthy and thriving agriculture will remain among the principal objectives of My Government".
280
In 1959:
"The wellbeing of all those whose living depends upon the land will remain one of the first cares of My Government".
And in 1960, we have these words in the gracious Speech:
"At home My Ministers are resolved to maintain a stable, efficient and prosperous agriculture".
These statements of policy might have been written by the same pen. This year, just fourteen words, and not two lines of the gracious Speech, are devoted to agriculture. I think that we might have been entitled to something better and more illuminating. Those are the platitudes we are becoming accustomed to, and I wonder whether next year we shall be treated to "the same medicine as before."
The resolutions and intentions of the Government are thin and meaningless, and I hope that the farming community will soon wake up to the fact that it cannot live on words and phrases, even though they come from the high authority of Her Majesty's Government. Those whose living depends upon the land—and I use words which appear in one of the references I have made—are entitled, whether they are farmer or worker, to fair rewards for their services to the nation. They are not getting these, and for that reason alone, apart from any other, I feel justified in calling the Government to book. A prosperous and expanding agriculture could play a supreme part in reviving our declining economy and also in reducing our rising import liabilities. If agriculture collapses and the purchasing power of its people continues to diminish—it has already started on a downward trek—then other industries will not survive in the ensuing distress. That is a hard but true fact.
The services which farmers and their workers render to the nation are unequalled in any other walk of life. In this I must particularly praise those who are active in their work on the land in all weathers. That statement cannot be contradicted. If anyone considers that I am wrong., let him go now and do a week's work on heavy land, pulling, knocking, topping and loading sugar beet under the conditions which have prevailed during the last few days. I have seen the men doing this in the rain, and I was very thankful that my way of life has taken me along easier and more

281
congenial paths. I could also suggest to noble Lords, as a cure for complacency, other methods of employing their spare time on the land. I have seen the sugar beet on its way to the factory, and here the farmer suffers, as in a few days the factory's statement of weights and condition will come back to him showing a heavy dirt tare and lower sugar content. It cannot be otherwise under present conditions.
To make matters worse, 2s, 6d. per ton was knocked off the price he might otherwise receive by the action of the Government at the last February Review, simply, we were told, because the contract acreage might be oversubscribed—a penalty for over-production. It will be interesting to know who has benefited and into whose pockets that 2s. 6d. a ton has gone. Perhaps the noble Earl the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to toll us tomorrow. On the basis of an estimated tonnage of 5 million tons of sugar beet passing through the factories this season the loss to the farmers on this item alone by the reduction of 2s. 6d. a ton will be no less than £600,000. The Government tell them: "Your wellbeing will remain one of our first cares". Or the farmers may hear that worn-out exhortation that they can make good the reduction by greater efficiency. It cannot be made good under existing conditions and under the present prices necessitated by the sugar content that £600,000 cannot be made up. To be quite fair, I know that in previous gracious Speeches other matters have been referred to and have since been brought into operation. I expect the noble Earl will enlarge upon these and seek some praise for the Government; and he is entitled to do that. However, financial palliatives, in the form of loans or grants which cannot be obtained or enjoyed by all in the industry, are quite incapable of stemming the general decline.
Perhaps by accident, the Government this year have made reference to the three roots upon which alone a flourishing agriculture can grow: efficiency, stability and prosperity. The noble Earl may disagree with my interpretation of what these really mean in the agricultural industry. The Government said that they will maintain these things, and we are entitled to ask: at what level? That is a most material point. They cannot main-
282
tain something which the industry has not got. It is clear, I think, that farming practices and operations are more efficient at the present time than ever before. All concerned have gained in knowledge, and scientific, mechanical and technical skills have been readily acquired and used to the advantage of the industry. These can be maintained.
But the essence of stability in agriculture lies in assured markets and guaranteed prices. The first of these has now become a figure of speech; it is an unreality and a delusion. It cannot be otherwise when harvested cereal crops cannot be absorbed into the markets and when combined barley cannot be sold, as the merchants cannot buy except at low prices. In many instances prices do not cover production costs, and it is now often the case that lower prices are offered by merchants in the knowledge that the farmer will receive a subsidy from the Government. This is an evil practice and may give the merchants two profits, one at each end of the transaction.
It has come to my knowledge that the following statement was made a few days ago, and it is a complete echo of what I have said many times in this House. I must apologise for a somewhat long quotation, but it bears materially on the points that I am trying to make. This is the quotation:
"I am not at all satisfied with the way in which some of the subsidies at present being administered to agriculture are working. For instance, I feel that a lot of the subsidies on barley and wheat, in particular, are going into the wrong hands. The middle men, or the brewers in the case of barley, as well as the feedingstuffs merchants, are, I think, tending to talk down the price of corn, and particularly of barley, in the knowledge that the farmer will obtain a deficiency payment which will make up to him the difference between the realisation price and the guaranteed price. Much of the subsidy, therefore, does not go to the farmer, who should be getting it, but goes into the hands of the brewers and of the compound feedingstuffs manufacturers.
"The time is fast approaching when we must look at some of our deficiency payments schemes again to see whether we cannot devise a system which will put a minimum price on these crops, which will have the effect of raising the price which the farmer is paid and reducing the difference between the price which he receives and the guaranteed price for those crops."
I could not have said it better myself.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): Would the noble Lord tell us from whom he is quoting?
LORD WISE: It is Mr. Prior, the Conservative Member for Lowestoft, who is a farmer, speaking on November 1 in the debate on the Address—it appears in Hansard for that day, at column 127. Now the noble Earl has chapter and verse. In this quotation deficiency payment schemes are mentioned. The very words and the uncertainty of the amounts payable do not suggest an industry abounding in stability and security. Farmers do not want deficiency payments and subsidies if schemes can be devised—and this is quite possible—whereby they can receive fair, remunerative prices for their products. Under present conditions without subsidies farming would become a distressed industry; it would soon collapse. Even with subsidies, I doubt whether it is solvent at the moment. It is degrading to any industry to be told that it cannot pay its way without Government aid. Such a state of affairs vindicates our view that the fetish of free enterprise is a failure. It has brought no financial gain or stability to agriculture. The farmers are told in our February Reviews what their incomes would have been under normal weather conditions, but not what they are according to the value of the pound in comparison with previous years. The first is wishful thinking, but the second can be calculated accurately.
What I have said about cereals can also be related to livestock prices. Up and down they go. Farmers who cannot sell their cereals cannot find the money to buy store stock for wintering. The demand therefore decreases, and prices fall; and graziers and others who purchased stores in the spring may lose money in the autumn. Fatstock prices fluctuate also according to the size of the weekly purses or demands of housewives. Guaranteed payments for stock by the Government are thus increased on falling markets and a greater burden has to be borne by the taxpayer. This all seems an irrational system to attach to a great industry. But the Government are convinced that this can be termed "stability". And so it goes on, to the
284
detriment of those who get their living on the land.
Now I want to say a word or two about prosperity. The noble Lord, Lord Brocket, told your Lordships on Thursday last that farmers are becoming depressed and that the catch-phrase about "having it so good" is worn out. I can tell your Lordships that East Anglian farmers, large and small, fear an agricultural depression and are always talking about it. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary, in order that we may know what is happening in other parts of the country, will tell us what the small farmers in the South-West area are thinking and talking about.
It is obvious that the writing is on the wall, and can it be wondered that this is so? One side of the account shows decreasing incomes, and the other rising costs in everything a farmer is called upon to buy or pay for in running his farm. These costs are not stable, are not subject to any Government control or restriction of price, but just mount up with frequent changes of the upward movement. Repairs, replacements, spares, feedingstuffs, transport and all tradesmen's and contractor's bills show increases. It is ironic that the farmers' incomes are lower, yet the profits and dividends of those who supply him rise. Some of these reach astronomical heights. One well-known firm—and I know the noble Earl saw it in the Press—which has close connections with the farming industry, announced with wide publicity last week that its profits had risen, I believe, by £1 million. I have already in past speeches told your Lordships about high milling and other profits.
In farming, however, money is running short; profits become lower, and the red figures in bank statements grow larger and larger with increasing charges. Costs rise by high percentages. I know of a 10 per cent. increase in certain feeding-stuffs within two or three months. Standards of life naturally become lower. Bankruptcies still persist. Workers leave the land in their thousands annually, and those who remain have to wait a further two months for a rise in wages already agreed upon, because the farmers cannot afford to pay until the additional millions of pounds involved can be included in the consultations which will take place in February. Is this a sign of prosperity? Cottages on farms are becoming vacant,

285
and many of our smaller villages show no signs of development or social advancement. How can the Government be satisfied with such agricultural tragedies?
On Thursday, the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack referred to the meeting between the Prime Minister and the President of the National Farmers' Union. He may differ with me as to the outcome of that meeting. However, the reason for that meeting endorses my case. It was obvious that farmers were doubtful as to the substance or the so-called stability and prosperity, and wanted an assurance as to the future of their industry. The leaders of industry do not seek a meeting with the Prime Minister unless there is something drastically wrong with the industry in which they work.
My Lords, I hope that the conclusions arrived at at that meeting so far as agriculture is concerned will stand the test of time. "Stability" and "prosperity" are both idle words, so far as agriculture is concerned. We do not want to stand still or suffer from lack of a genuine prosperity. We on this side of the House invite the farming industry to proceed by way of an ordered and expanding economy. This involves planning our movements, our activities, our daily engagements of hand and brain, our markets, our financial obligations and, last but not least, increasing our production. Only by this expansion and order can we have any hope of overcoming the days of anxiety and disappointments which seem to loom ahead. Farmers and workers are entitled to reap fair arid unsubsidised rewards for their labours, and I am sure are hoping for an ordered and expanding economy.
6.55 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Wise, will excuse me for not following him into the realms of farming, I wish for one moment to get back to home affairs. Reference is made in the gracious Speech to the Transport Commission and the proposals for reforming the structure and functions of the Commission. I welcome (hat statement, because I think it is one of the most important things in Her Majesty's Speech. The noble Lord, Lord Mills, told the House this afternoon that the Transport Commission made a loss of £110 million in 1959. As
286
the gross receipts of the railways last year were £457 million, the loss represents a quarter of their gross receipts. In 1953, when the Act was going through quite a number of us on these Back Benches begged Her Majesty's Government to see whether it was possible, when they set up the area boards, to have area accountancy and to give each area board a capital structure, so that they knew what their capital structure was and also their profit and loss. I well remember my noble friend Lord Swinton, in answering, saying that they had given most careful consideration to the proposals which we put forward, but that it would mean setting up the cumbersome system of the old clearing house, and that it would not be possible. In a statement in April, the Prime Minister—this was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Mills, to-day—said that earnest consideration must be given by the Stedeford Committee to the possibility of setting up area accountancy.
If I may quote, as I think I am entitled to, a Minister's speech in another place made on October 26, 1960 [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 627 (No. 159), col. 2484], I would point out that the Under-Secretary, in winding up the debate, said:
"May I say a word about regional accounting? I know it is anathema to many in the railway industry, but I urge those who had experience of the old railway clearing house system before the war to remember that accountancy and accounting have undergone a complete revolution since those days. To-day electronics and computers make simple the task which previously had to be carried out by a building full of clerks…"
That is all I want to say on that point. I think it is vital, and I hope that the White Paper will say something about it. At the moment we do not know at all.
I have studied some of these figures over the week-end. There has been a lot of talk about whether the London-Midland-Scottish Railway electrification should go on, because now the estimates are something in the neighbourhood of £160 million. I think myself that, a section of it having been completed from Crewe to Manchester and Liverpool, it would be tragic if it could not be finished in the next seven, eight or ten years. To have to change engines from diesel to electric traction halfway means that you cannot have non-stop through trains. In

287
the Modernisation Plan of 1955, which the Transport Commission gave to Parliament, they said—I am quoting page 18—that the structural alterations to do with the London Midland Region would cost about £40 million, and the locomotives £35 million, making a total of £75 million. Then there was an asterisk against locomotives, and it was said that multiple unit vehicles, electric and main diesel, were taken into account under passenger carriages. They have allowed £285 million in the scheme for passenger carriages.
Delving through this most interesting Report of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of British Railways, one finds that it is said that this scheme, which was going to cost in 1955 £75 million, does not include signalling, which is a vital point. The signalling in the Plan of 1955 for the whole of the modernsiation of the railways was to cost about £210 million. On top of that I read another paragraph saying that of the £160 million it was going to cost, £40 million would have to be spent, even without electrification, on renewal of ordinary plant. It is a very large sum of money. We have no idea at all on what basis income could be earned on that particular line. The Minister has asked the Commission to stop further contracts until we get the Stedeford Report or the Government White Paper. Unless some form of regional accountancy can be done, I cannot see how the Ministry of Transport are to know at all whether a particular line is going to pay or not. In the Report of the Select Committee, it is stated that during their examination of the chief civil servant of the Ministry of Transport he said:
"We find one of the most difficult things in the Ministry is to discover where the money is actually being lost in the Commission, and it is very difficult to get an answer to that."
If the Ministry cannot find out where it is actually lost, how are we to be able to find out? I hope earnestly—and I do not expect an answer to-night—that the Minister will seriously consider, when they bring the Report out, having some form of regional accountancy.
7 4 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, we are reaching the end of the discussion of a vital subject this afternoon. It could, I
288
think, be fairly said that we are dealing with the economic state of the nation. The subject was introduced by my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence, in a most informed and penetrating speech, a speech which was also powerful, and the more powerful because of its moderation. The questions which he propounded concerning the economic state of the country were not in any real measure answered by the noble Lord, Lord Mills, notwithstanding a rather long speech. He said that in his opinion Lord Pethick-Lawrence had taken a gloomy view. Well, that may be so. Certainly there is no reason why any of us should be other than concerned, and gloomy if you please, as to the situation which confronts the nation. When figures which I shall give are considered—figures as regards exports, production, investment, share of the world's trade and similar figures dealing with similar subjects—it will be difficult even for the noble Lord, Lord Mills, to be other than concerned as to the situation. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, said that as regards exports in his view the figures were pretty grim, and that undoubtedly is the case.
My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth indicted the Government for wasteful expenditure and then criticised the Government forcefully, as is his custom, in regard to the transport policy which has been and is being followed by the Government concerning the financial and the operational activities of the British Transport Commission. The real trouble, of course, with transport is that since this Government have been in office from 1951 they could not leave transport alone. They have been continuously, and usually wrongfully, interfering with the operations of the British Transport Commission—and that notwithstanding the fact that When the 1947 Act was going through as a Bill, both in the other place and in your Lordships' House, the representatives of the Government, who were then in Opposition, were very concerned that steps should be taken to see that the Government did not interfere in the operation of transport. At that time, certain Amendments were put—and I believe two of them were accepted—designed to prevent the Government of the day, of whatever Party it might be, interfering in the operations

289
of the Transport Commission. Immediately the present Government came into office in 1951, however, they started to interfere; and on this Q can speak with some knowledge, because at that time I was the Chairman of the London Transport Executive.
In 1952 the Railway Rates Tribunal authorised certain increases of fares, both on the railways and buses of the London Transport Executive and upon certain lines owned and operated by the British Rail ways Executive. We put these alterations of fares, mainly increases, into operation. There were certain proposals which we also put into operation for the reduction of certain fares. Unhappily for the finance of the Commission, there was pending an election for the London County Council. Accordingly, in breach of every understanding reached when the Bill was being considered by both Houses, and, notwithstanding that the fares had been approved by the Tribunal and by the Consultative Users Committee to whom the matter had been submitted at the instance of the Government, the increase of fares which had been put into operation was revoked on the order of the Government.
That action cost the Commission, principally the London Transport Executive, nearly £2 million a year. And where the fares had been reduced, they were left. Ever since then, with a succession of Ministers, two of whom I met and had a good deal of negotiations with, there has been a steady policy of tearing apart the integrated system of transport by road and by rail for which the 1947 Act provided and which, if the undertaking had been left to do its job, would have been a success and would have been profitable. The one thing the Government did not want was that the big nationalised railway transport undertaking should be successful. I witnessed some of this interference. There was the sinister Act of 1953 which handed over the profitable element of the road service to private enterprise, and dismantled the coordinated machine for public transport.
What this country needs, my Lords, is not a system of transport that provides a series of facilities, but one which provides a national service of transport, which is something entirely different. That cannot be achieved, is not being
290
achieved, and will not be achieved, unless we have a co-ordinated system which includes with railway transport also road transport. That is a point of view which was accepted before the last war by several independent Commissions or Committees which inquired into the question of transport in this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Mills, was asked by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, whether he agreed that the deficit on the Special Account of the Transport Commission would amount at the end of this year to no less than £541 million. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, who is to reply to the debate, will be able to say whether that figure is a correct one or not. The noble Lord, Lord Mills, found some difficulty, I gather, in answering the question, or, rather, in agreeing to the proposal made that the Report of the Chandos Committee should be published. Sooner or later, of course, the substance of the Chandos Report will be made public. Sooner or later, the matter of this expenditure will go before the Public Accounts Committee, if it does not go before a Select Committee earlier; and at the Public Accounts Committee full information can be demanded and, as I understand it, must be given. It seems to me to be an indefensible attitude for the Government to take up: that the nation can know after the thing is done, after the nation is committed and some of the money provided, what the Committee reported, but it cannot know beforehand. That seems to me to be a state of topsyturvydom and it is to be hoped that the representations by the noble Lord, Lord Mills, to his colleagues may result in this information being made available.
My noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence mentioned the bank rate, and again expressed his objection arid opposition to the use of the bank rate as an instrument for monetary control. I share the same view. It is indiscriminate in operation. It does not prevent the antisocial or the non-social expenditure of money; but it can, and does, prevent the expenditure of money on social and desirable objects, especially in the field of local government. For instance, the Metropolitan Water Board engage in a good deal of capital expenditure which is unavoidable, and upon their estimated

291
capital expenditure of £3 million a year—and expenditure on water undertakings has always been exempt from any restrictions upon capital expenditure—a 1 per cent. increase in the rate of interest involves an additional expenditure of £21,580 per annum for 30 years.
LORD HAWKE: May I interrupt the noble Lord, by asking him over what period they expect to borrow that money? Are they going to borrow for 30 years, or is this day-to-day money? The noble Lord knows that the bank rate affects only day-to-day money.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, the bank rate does not affect only short-term moneys. The London County Council has just borrowed at 6 per cent., I think at 99, for, I believe, very nearly 20 years.
LORD HAWKE: But does the noble Lord really think that the supply of long-term money would increase if the bank rate were lower?
LORD LATHAM: I was seeking to show how indiscriminate the operation of the bank rate is as regards controlling expenditure. The "wide boys" can always get round the question of the bank rate; but honest people, performing a public service and providing social capital which is urgently needed, cannot. The London County Council spends something in the region of £27 million a year, and an increase of 1 per cent. means an increase in expenditure of £221,000 per year for 40 years. If we take housing and reduce it to the increased cost per room—and there the financing is on the basis of 60 years—it is £9 per room per annum; and as regards the cost per school place for 30 years, it is£2 5s. 0d. per place for the primary and £3 12s. 0d. for the secondary. That shows how unfair and ineffective is the use of the bank rate as a means of controlling expenditure.
The noble Lord, Lord Mills, offered no hope and no comfort whatsoever. There is nothing in the gracious Speech which shows that Her Majesty's Government have a policy for dealing with a situation which really has become alarming. The use of a number of controls and restrictions has proved to be quite ineffective because they are isolated and are not part of a long-term plan designed to increase the economic health
292
of the nation. We are behind almost every economy anywhere. If we take investment, upon which all our expansion depends and on which the maintenance of even our present unsatisfactory state depends (as does, of course, our efficiency and competitive power) we find that our investment has been smaller than that of any other country within the European Economic Community, and has been smaller than that of most other countries. Public investment this year, for instance, is down by £40 million; and public investment is the keystone of our economy. In 1959, 40 per cent. of all new plant and machinery and more than 50 per cent. of all building was for public authorities, and the nationalised industries in 1959 accounted for 40 per cent. of all investment; and this is largely spent through private enterprise which it fertilises and fructifies. That is the situation as regards investment, which is the basis of all economic development and progress.
When we come to production, we find there has been no rise in output this year since the Spring. In short, for six months in the field of production there has been stagnation, which is due mainly to a drop in investment in the manufacturing industries after 1957. In this matter of production we are not keeping up with other nations. Since 1951 our record is the worst in Europe, and we are still falling back. In 1953 the Index of Production—that is, the share in the world's exports—was, as regards, the United Kingdom, 21·2 per cent., and as regards Germany, 13·3 per cent. At the end of 1959 Germany's figure had gone up to 19·9 per cent., and we had fallen behind to 16·7 per cent. And that is not because the German worker worked longer hours than the British worker. Quite the contrary is the case; he works less hours. According to an article in The Times of December 31, 1959, the German workman works on an average only 41·5 hours per week. That compares with 45·1 in France, 45·3 in Britain and 50·2 in Japan: The article says:
"These averages were arrived at by including summer holidays and sick leave, an average of 15 and 19 days respectively in West Germany."
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether they also include tea breaks and knocking off to wash hands?
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, if I may say so, that is a little unworthy when we are discussing an important matter of this kind. The noble Lord might equally ask me whether they are allowed to stop to blow their noses.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, it is a perfectly relevant question, because I believe that in German factories they do not have those breaks.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I have quoted these figures because it has so frequently been said that the difference between Germany and this country was because the German worker worked longer. That is not the case and these figures prove it not to be the case. The article goes on to say:
"Order books are full but overtime pay cannot keep West Germans at the bench after five. The trade unions regard a short working week as an objective more important than higher wages. On Saturday daddy belongs to me is one of the trade unions slogans."
Then we come to the question of exports. There the situation is very serious indeed. It affects the balance of payments, which in turn affects the bank rate, which fixes interest rates and the cost of money. For the first six months of this year the decline has been very grave and disturbing, and I cannot understand why Her Majesty's Government and the noble Lord, Lord Mills, representing the Government in this House, should be so complacent about the situation. For instance, in the first eight months of 1960 Western Germany increased its trade with France by 64·1 per cent. and we by 12·4 per cent. Western Germany increased her exports to Holland by 21·6 per cent., and the United Kingdom by 6·1 per cent. Even when we get to the Commonwealth, we find that Western Germany increased her exports to Australia by 32·3 per cent. while the United Kingdom increased hers by 19 per cent. To Pakistan Western Germany increased her exports by 37·6 per cent. while the United Kingdom's increase was only 20·1 per cent. Are not there grounds for being gloomy in the presence of this sombre picture of our economy?
Our complaint is that, faced with this situation, there is no long-term policy, but only a sort of hand-to-mouth series of devices and expedients in fits and
294
starts. Controls are on; controls are off. The bank rate is down; the bank rate is up. The brake is on at one time, and the accelerator is on at another: the credit squeeze; expenditure encouraged, banking facilities enlarged, controls on hire purchase taken off. A boom, convenient of course from an electoral point of view, is engineered; and then, without any notice whatsoever, the Government impose restrictions, raise the bank rate, first to 5 per cent. and then to 6 per cent., without regard to what is in the pipeline, as it were, and to what stocks are being held, and pass the burden of facing the balance of payments situation mostly upon selected trades which come within the restrictions of hire purchase and the like.
Moreover, of course, these restrictions and these controls work most unfairly. Capacity has been increased under the stimulus of the boom, and when the increased capacity is available it cannot be used because the demand is not there; the demand has been cut off by these suddenly imposed restrictions. Whereas, if controls are to be effective they must be part of a pattern which is planned and which takes into account, appraises and assesses, the requirements of industry as a whole, including export industry.
The Tory Party is always, it seems to me, hesitant about expansion. I sometimes think they are afraid of expansion. They are scared, even with free enterprise, under conditions of full employment. I sometimes think that the mentality of the nineteenth century, the arid inhumanity of the economics of that time, are still dominant in the minds of the Tory Party. They do not know what to do without the sanction of unemployment. They do not know what to do with an expanding economy based upon full employment and the Welfare State. If full employment and the Welfare State are to be preserved, my Lords, there must be expansion, otherwise there is no such thing as full employment, and the Welfare State will, as it were, dismantle itself. Let us face the fact that it is no good tinkering with controls: on to-day and off to-morrow. What is needed from the Government is a plan, an economic plan, based upon full employment, based upon the Welfare State, based upon doing what we can by way of investment in the under-nourished

295
and under-developed countries, and doing what we can to maintain and to raise the standard of living of this country. In that way the Government could regulate the course of events much more successfully than they are doing at the present time.
There is, of course, an enormous increase in purchasing power which has stimulated an increase in the manufacturing industries, stimulated an increase of capacity. Forty per cent. of the people of this country are now employed in what are known as the service industries, not in manufacture but in service and distribution, and a very large proportion of the investment at the present time is investment in the service industries. That, of course, merely reflects the operation and the movement of the increased purchasing power which is in the hands of the people of this country as a result of full employment. This Amendment has been put down in order to enable the Government to say what is their policy, not on snippets of controls and the like, but their global policy, of regulating, as we must regulate, the economy of this country in order that we may avoid booms and slumps, recessions and the like.
7.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, it is always a great delight to me to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Latham, on this or indeed, on any other subject. Some of the things which he has said this evening had a familiar ring about them, and I have no doubt that he will notice the same in the few remarks which I shall now try to address to your Lordships. But, if I may say so, I think I have been equally interested by everything which has been said by all your Lordships both from the Front and from the Back Benches. I thought it was very sporting of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye to make so mild a protest as he did against the fact that the first three hours of our debate were occupied by four successive speeches from the Front Benches, averaging 45 minutes each—
LORD HAWKE: Forty-seven and a half minutes.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE:—which were, perhaps, more conducive to an ordered and expanding economy than to an ordered and expanding debate.
296
My noble friend put to me a most intriguing terminological conundrum arising out of the gracious Speech about the word "concerned". My Lords, I can only say that I have looked at it and it seems to me that grammatically, in that particular context, the word "concerned" applies only to the Governments of Western Europe. But, my Lords, the Governments of Western Europe include the Government of the United Kingdom, which has declared that it does not intend to abandon our obligations towards the Commonwealth; and in pursuing, as we shall pursue, our endeavours to find some solution of the question of European trade, it will always be a condition that the solution must be acceptable to the Governments of the British Commonwealth as well as to those of Western Europe.
My Lords, I am perhaps even more grateful to those of your Lordships who have attacked the Government than to those who have supported, partly because I always like to hear what we are doing wrong. It is usually a great help. And it is also a particular help in this sense: that it is often very difficult to get the people of this country to appreciate any difficulties and dangers which may be inherent in our present economic situation when they are experiencing an unprecedented prosperity. Your Lordships may have noticed the employment figures issued by the Ministry of Labour last Thursday. We have now reached a record figure for all time—23,809,000 in civil employment. At the same time, wages have risen. Real wages rose in value last year by 3 per cent., and there have been further rises this year. We have therefore now got in this country more people earning more money and enjoying greater wealth than has ever been the case in Great Britain before.
It is the continual duty of the Government, aided by your Lordships on all sides of the House, to try to persuade the people that this prosperity must not be undermined, either by inflation, or by importing so many things from abroad which are not essential to our economy that we cannot afford to buy the imports which are essential to it. When we discussed this subject on the debate on the Address last year, there were then two

297
matters about which everybody was principally concerned. One was the local employment question, the maldistribution of employment, which had, of course, been even heavier at the beginning of the year. The other was the comparatively small amount of capital investment in relation to our gross national product. Those were the matters, I think, which gave us most concern a year ago.
The first one, the local employment question, is, of course, a long-term question. It has been with us a long time. We have been fighting maldistribution of employment, more or less, ever since 1934, and it must still be a few years yet before we can hope for a complete and final victory. But during the last twelve months we have made very substantial progress towards our goal. The new factories which have been approved so far are estimated to provide employment for 90,000 people, of whom 50,000 are in England, 10,000 in Wales and 30,000 in Scotland. It looks as if two areas, Merseyside and South Wales, will very soon cease to be in need of help under the Local Employment Act. Ulster, of course, is the place where the problem is most acute, where there is the highest percentage of unemployment; and Scotland is the place where it is on the largest scale.
In Scotland, both under the Local Employment Act and by other means, we are endeavouring to build up a better distribution of industry. We now have the B.M.C. Works at Bathgate, the construction of which began some months ago, and the even greater project of the Rootes Group at Linwood is now approved, to our great satisfaction. It is of equal satisfaction, as my noble friend Lord Mills pointed out, that, in spite of the temporary recession in the motor trade, the trade is confident of the future, and is proceeding with these new schemes for expansion.
Parallel with that, one has the strip mill now being set up in Lanarkshire, the graving dock and a large number of important industries which have been introduced during the last twelve months. I am not going to talk about the particular figures of employment which they are expected to provide, because they are all part of a long-term policy, the object of which is to provide a far greater diversification of industry.
298
Many of them will draw ancillary industries to them. The object of that policy, which we shall steadily try to pursue, is to take Scotland out of the category of development areas, so that eventually people who live in Scotland will have as much chance of full employment as those who live in any other part of the United Kingdom.
LORD LATHAM: Will the noble Earl forgive my interrupting him? Would he admit that most of these new subsidiary industries are industries engaged in the consumer durables affected by these controls and hire-purchase restrictions which are suddenly imposed?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I do not care what branch of industry they are in, provided that they give employment and provided they tend to lead to a better distribution of industry, light as well as heavy.
The other matter, capital investment, is a short-term problem, because over the years the rate of capital investment has been increasing. But last year, at the end of 1959, it seemed to be disproportionately low, and your Lordships will remember that that was one reason why the Government authorised in that year very large increases in the public sector of investment, which is for this year limited to £1,730 million. That figure is nearly £200 million higher than the figure in 1958, but one reason why that was done was because the prospects of investment in the private sector of the manufacturing industry at the end of last year did not seem very good. We were very doubtful about them. It was not until the beginning of this year that an investment boom in the private sector began.
At first, the estimate was made, on the basis of Board of Trade inquiries, that there would be an increase of 14 per cent. in the private sector over the previous year and your Lordships will remember that my noble friend who is now Lord Amory (whose retirement we regret, though it is of some compensation to us that he has become a Member of our House, and who I understand is making his maiden speech to-morrow) said, when he introduced the credit restrictions last April, and again in June, that one of the chief anxieties was that these credit restrictions would nip in the

299
bud this promising boom in capital investment in the private sector. He gave as his opinion that it. would not have more than a marginal effect; and when I spoke to your Lordships in the financial debate on July 26 I gave the Board of Trade's estimate which had then gone up to 16 per cent. It now appears that the actual increase in private sector investment over last year is going to be at least 20 per cent. Indeed, it may be as high as 25 per cent; and it is expected that there will be another large increase in 1961. That has created, of course, a very severe load on certain sections of our economy, particularly civil engineering and building.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Could the noble Earl (I thank him for giving way) give us some idea of the basis of calculation of this increase in investment; and does it, in the private sector, include the raising of capital in take-over bids?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No, my Lords. It includes works of a capital nature, but it does not include Stock Exchange purchases, or anything of that kind. It is based on inquiries made by the Board of Trade to a large number of representative firms. I have not given your Lordships the estimate for next year, because the estimate for next year is always rather conjectural; but by now, by November, the Board of Trade is able to get a pretty good idea of what the amount of capital investment has actually been. As I told your Lordships, we think there will be at least a 20 per cent. increase in private sector investment over 1959.
My Lords, I think it is worth mentioning these two matters with which we were principally concerned a year ago when we discussed this subject. In both of them, considerable progress has been made. I hope that equal progress may be made in a year's time in those things which are chiefly worrying us now. Our present anxieties are not new. None of them is new. They are all old and they are all familiar. High wages and great prosperity lead to a demand for greater domestic consumption. That is apt to result in excessive imports, which means depletion of our reserves, a less favourable balance of payments than we ought
300
to have, and a serious risk of inflation. That position was foreseen by the Government at the beginning of this year when the various measures which we have often discussed—and I will not go over them again—were taken in the hope of preventing inflation and of modifying the adverse trend in the balance of payments.
I should like to emphasise that this unsatisfactory position in regard to our exports is a matter of proportion rather than of absolute decline. There has been a reduction in the volume of our exports in the third quarter of this year compared with the peak reached at the beginning of 1960; but we are still above the level of exports for the corresponding period of last year. As my noble friend Lord Mills said, the decline appears now to be levelling out again. I think we should also take account of the fact that we are now exporting in a period of slightly, and we hope temporarily, diminishing world trade. There has been this year a decline in world trade. We do not yet know whether there will be a temporary recession in the United States of America; some people expect that there will. If there is, I do not think that it will be a severe recession or that it will last for a very long time. But even a mild American recession lasting for only a short time has a very considerable effect on buying and selling all over the world. That has happened with every American recession since the war.
Every time we have discussed the economic situation in your Lordships' House over the last year, I think some of your Lordships have expressed apprehensions that there might soon be some rise in commodity prices which would alter the terms of trade to our disadvantage. I think I have usually replied to that by saying that, if there were such an alteration in the terms of trade, it would, of course, temporarily add to our balance of payments difficulties, but that, on the other hand, in the long run it might be an advantage to us since it would mean that the primary producing countries would have more money with which to buy our exports.
At the moment, the indications are that instead of having a rise in commodity prices it is possible that there may be a further fall in them. And

301
should that happen, although on the one hand it will temporarily ease to some extent our balance of payments problems, on the other hand, on a longer view, it may be a disadvantage because it will mean that our purchasers who live in these mainly primary producing countries will have less money with which to buy our exports. Not only that, but they may—in fact, would, in these circumstances—be in even greater need of aid from the highly-developed countries than they are now.
That is of great importance to our economic position here because, as your Lordships know, it is one of the main Objects of our policy to help underdeveloped countries, particularly in the Commonwealth, by grants or loans or investments, on which we do not receive, as a rude, any immediate return. If it were not for the money which we spend every year on foreign aid and foreign investments, we should not have this balance of payments problem. At the present time we should be accumulating a considerable balance and adding to our reserves every year. But all of your Lordships will agree that this is an object of policy which we must maintain; and indeed we must try, if possible, to increase the amount of help which we give abroad, mainly to Commonwealth countries. That is of very great importance indeed to the whole of our balance of payments problem.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, as the noble Earl is making a very interesting speech, with which I find myself much taken in places. But when he talks about underdeveloped countries, is it necessary for us to make large investments in places like Now York and Toronto, such as in building new skyscrapers? Is that the sort of investment we can afford?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The noble Lord would have to give me particular examples if he wants an opinion on any of them. Perhaps it may be that some of the investments he has in mind give us a quicker and more immediate return than those which we spend in underdeveloped countries, and therefore before very long it may be of advantage to our balance of payments. I do not know. It was most kind of the noble Lord to say, as he did, that he is interested in
302
my speech; but I see, to my regret, that it is lasting a very long time and that I have been up 25 minutes already, so I must try not to keep your Lordships very much longer.
My Lords, the Amendment regrets that our policy "is not conducive to an ordered and expanding economy" think we all want an economy with some order, and I think we all want an economy with as much expansion as we can have without inflation. I think your Lordships will probably agree that if we want to maintain order, sometimes we must have a little less expansion, at least in some sections of the economy. On the other hand, if we want a great deal more expansion, sometimes the best way to do it is by having a little less order. If we had no order at all, there is no doubt that for some time we would have an enormous expansion leading to a roaring inflation, which would ultimately end in disaster. However, if we have too much order we may not have enough expansion, so we have got to try to get the best balance between them.
It seems to me, my Lords, that you cannot have an ordered economy without some element of restriction in it. Even though, on balance, your overall production may increase, any kind of order, whatever method you choose to adopt, must have the effect of restricting something. If you have building controls, as was suggested in another place—it was the only control which I think was suggested by the Opposition leaders, in present circumstances, to deal with the existing economic situation—then that means you stop people from getting a license to do something which they would have done if there was not this control. So that you are restricting the expansion of our economy in one place possibly in order to expand in some other direction which you think is more in the interests of the country.
It seems to be the fashion in your Lordships' debate to-night to quote Front Bench speakers in another place. One Front Bench speaker in a debate on the Address in another place last week, to whom I listened with great delight, said that this country at the present time was dedicated to striped tooth paste, chocolates, soft inside, and fabulous pink soap. I do not know whether that is an accurate description of British industry at the

303
present time, but your Lordships may remember the play by George Bernard Shaw in the thirties called The Apple Cart which depicted British society in the 21st century. In this play the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer congratulate each other upon the great expansion of industrial production in Great Britain. It has gone up thousands of millions of pounds. When the President of the Board of Trade asks what is the nature of this production, they have to tell him that it consists of nothing but chocolate creams. Whilst your Lordships would not want unduly to restrict the production either of chocolate creams or of anything which gives anybody any pleasure, there is a case for preserving some balance and for making restrictions on the production of chocolate creams so that some other kind of production would go up to give a better balance in the economy. But our critics would then accuse us of creating stagnation, as they always do when we are trying to introduce a little more order into our economy.
I do not think that stagnation is the right word to describe our unprecedented high production which has increased by 15 per cent. in the last two years and which has stuck to this high level for the last two months. It does not seem correct to describe as stagnation a condition of booming industry, full employment and hardly any overcapacity at all. What I would ask your Lordships to consider is what method we want to control and plan our industry, and what alternative method you would suggest which would have the effect of stopping everything we want to stop and encouraging everything we want to encourage. I wish we could find some method of planning and control which was so perfectly and delicately adjusted to the circumstances of industry that it could always be relied upon to have that effect.
The noble Lord, Lard Pethick-Lawrence, complained about the uncertainty of monetary policy, and said that it was very upsetting to business men not to know whether the bank rate would be the same, or whether monetary credit restrictions would be the same, for the next three or four years. But let us suppose that we had some other method of
304
Controlling our economy and planning. Should we avoid uncertainties of this kind? One alternative which many economists favour is the fiscal method, for which, in theory, there is a great deal to be said: taking off taxation when economy needs to be stimulated in order to increase the purchasing power, or putting on taxation to a greater extent than actually needed for revenue when the economy is in danger of inflation, when there is excessive consumption, in order to restrain that consumption.
I think that perhaps the only consideration which deters more people from advocating that course of action now is, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, pointed out (having remarked that he was going to try to make up for the deficiency of the Opposition and then proceeding to make a speech which I think would have been loudly cheered at any Conservative Conference), the fact that all taxation is far too high. I do not know if we should all go so far as he did, but of course taxation in this country is so high that it does not give much room for manœuvre. We have a higher taxation than probably any other big industrial country in the world, and if we get it down to about the average of other countries, there might be much more to be said for putting a shilling on the income tax one year, simply for the purpose of checking consumption, or for stimulating the economy by taking off a shilling in different circumstances. But would any Chancellor of the Exchequer be justified in saying, in order that business men might be absolutely certain of being able to plan their business without disturbance for the next three years, that the shilling must stay on for the next three years? That would be a very foolish commitment to give. Next year there might be a recession in America, and then one might want to stimulate the economy and possibly the right thing then would be to take two shillings off income tax. Then we should be accused, as we are accused now, of chopping-and-changing, or of not having any consistent policy or plan. It seems to me that to put on a measure of control which is going to be exactly the same for the next three or four years really is stagnation and that any dynamic method of controlling our economy must be continually changed to adjust it to changing circumstances.

305
The noble Lord, Lord Latham, devoted a good deal of time to some comparisons, which have often been given, between this country and Germany, Germany having excelled our production by such a spectacular amount. The noble Lord said that long hours in Germany were not the reason for this high rate of production. It would have been more interesting, I think, instead of telling us what was not the reason, if he could have told us what was the reason. There are probably many reasons, but I should like to know a little more about them than I do, and perhaps the noble Lord could have enlightened me. Perhaps he may attribute this to the brilliant economic policy of the German Government but he might not go so far as to denationalize the whole of the public sector of our economy, as the Germans have now clone, including even Volkswagen. I do not want to denationalize all the public sector of our economy in Great Britain, but if the noble Lord took this line, he, with the support of a number of Conservative Backwoodsmen, might be so effective that I might be overwhelmed by sheer weight of numbers.
Whatever we do, whether we have physical controls or fiscal controls, cat monetary controls, which are the Government's main instrument (though not their only one) at present. or whether we have a mixture of all three, we are hound to have to adjust these controls continuously to the changing circumstances of the economy and we are bound always to be open to the accusation by our critics of being inconsistent, of putting the brake on at one moment and accelerating at another, although, in fact, that is what a good driver does all the time. I think that what we really want to do is to get people to understand—and I believe that they are coming to understand more—about our mid-twentieth century economic problems, and get their support in what we are all really agreed should be our aim. I do not think that we ought to blame people, when they are getting higher wages and are more prosperous, because they want to spend more. We ought not to be surprised at the increasing demand for consumption, inflated as it often is by our hire-purchase system, which sometimes is to the advantage of our economy and sometimes to its dis-
306
Advantage. It is one of the controls which acts most quickly on the economy.
My noble friend Lord Hawke described it as a physical control, although I think that economists usually classify it as one of the monetary controls. We ought not to be surprised at this desire for greater consumption. We do not want to stop it altogether. We want only to hold it within limits, so that it will not cause a revival of inflation and divert too much of our effort away from exports, so that it will not promote, as excessive home expenditure does promote, an adverse balance of payments.
As for the aids which are given to exports, I believe they are the best provided by any country in the world—by the Board of Trade, the Federation of British Industries and institutions like the Scottish Council, Chambers of Commerce and, of course, our commercial representatives and our Trade Commissioners abroad. I am sure that whatever may happen about the Common Market or about world recessions or world recoveries, there is an enormous field for increased exports, both by small firms and by large, for those who take the trouble to find out what kind of goods are needed and what is going to sell best. But these efforts which we make in helping people and in encouraging them to export more must be balanced by a check on excessive consumption at home. That is, I think, absolutely necessary. The export drive is now taking place in circumstances which are not altogether easy—many of the difficulties have been underlined by your Lordships—and it may be, perhaps, that the difficulties next year will become even greater than seems likely at the present moment. Nevertheless I believe that we shall succeed.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Lord Silkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past eight o'clock.