Sitting of 17 July 1961

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  STATIONERS' AND NEWSPAPER MAKERS' COMPANY BILL
  Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.
  DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Consideration deferred till Monday next.
  BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION (No. 2) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

    War Pensions (Appeals)
    Miss Herbisonasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will enable ex-Service men, on the question of supplementary allowances, to have the same right of appeal to an independent tribunal as the industrially disabled have.
    The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): No, Sir. The Industrial Injuries scheme, which is a form of statutory insurance, is not comparable with the War Pensions scheme. So far as supplementary allowances are concerned, the War Pensions scheme includes a number for which there is no parallel in Industrial Injuries. I do not think that the introduction of formal
    856
    appeals to a legal tribunal in respect of some or all of these allowances would be in the interests of the war disabled.
    Miss Herbison: Is the Minister aware that the war disabled think that it would be a great improvement if they had this right of appeal, as many of the supplementary allowances which the war disabled receive are exactly the same as those which the industrially disabled receive? Would not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter, because it is a question, not only of justice being done but of the war disabled seeing that it is done, and they do not feel that it is done at present?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am as anxious as the hon. Lady to secure the end which she mentioned in the latter part of her supplementary question. In many ways it would be a considerable relief to me to delegate responsibility for what are sometimes quite difficult decisions, but I do not think that the way in which we have tried to administer war pension allowances would be helped by formalising the system of decision, which would mean that if the decision went against the applicant we should have to follow it strictly in other cases. I do not wish to be dogmatic about this, but at present I am not persuaded that what the hon. Lady suggests would be an improvement.
    Miss Herbison: Since I am not satisfied with the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

    Wives and Widows
    Lord Balnielasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he is yet in a position to announce the result of,his consideration of the recently published Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee on pension increments for wives and widows.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, Sir. I should like, first, to express the gratitude of the Government, and, I am sure, the House, to the National Insurance Advisory Committee for its Report on this intricate subject.
    The Government accept the Committee's recommendation, which, in their view, offers the best solution for this

    857
    problem and will have the further advantage of bringing the incremental provisions of the flat-rate pension scheme more into line with those of the 1959 Act in respect of graduated pensions. The ultimate cost to the National Insurance Fund will be of the order of £2 million a year. Legislation will be required to effect this change, and I can, of course, make no statement as to when this will be possible.
    Lord Balniel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a widespread impression that the existing provisions for wives under the age of 60 and for those widowed before the age of 60 are unfair and that his decision will be warmly welcomed by those people? On behalf of back benchers, may I echo my right hon. Fiend's thanks to Sir Ifor Evans and his Committee.
    Mr. Houghton: Is the Minister aware that there is some disappointment with the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee, whose recommendations deal with widows, concerning the position of younger wives? Will the right hon. Gentleman give consideration to that element in the Report when he introduces legislation, or does he propose to follow quite strictly the recommendatons of the Committee?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Committee had before it the position of wives on the remit which I made to it. It gave full consideration to the position of wives in respect of the earning of increments, particularly when taking into account the position of single people, in coming to the conclusion to which it came. In announcing the Government's acceptance of the Report, I am accepting it in toto and as it stands. In my view, as in the Committee's view, this is a very apt solution of what I think the hon. Gentleman knows to be one of the most teasing problems in this sphere.

    National Insurance Funds (Interest Rates)
    Mr. Hannanasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the rates of interest paid on the National Insurance (Reserve) Fund and on the National Insurance Fund, respectively.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The average yields of stocks held by the two Funds
    858
    at 31st March, 1961, were 3·68 per cent. and 3·73 per cent., respectively, taking the value of the stocks at cost.
    Mr. Hannan: Cannot the Minister do better than this? If it is appropriate that the Government should charge higher rates of interest through the Public Works Loan Board to local authorities for house building and other purposes, why should it not be possible to get a better rate of interest than this for funds which are subscribed by the public?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The investment of these funds was placed by Parliament, under the National Insurance Act, 1946, in the hands of the National Debt Commissioners to invest in the same range of securities as were available to savings banks. I have no doubt whatever that the National Debt Commissioners have discharged their duty conscientiously and well.

    Blind Persons (National Assistance)
    Mr. Hannanasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what adjustment in the National Assistance scale rate for a husband and wife, both of whom are blind persons, is necessary to give that scale rate the same percentage increase over the period from July, 1948, as in the ordinary scale rate for a husband and wife.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: To preserve the same proportionate differential as in 1948, an increase of 18s. 9d. in the special scale rate referred to in the Question would be necessary. In real terms the value of the current level of this special rate is approximately 22s. 8d. above that in effect in 1948.
    Mr. Hannan: Since, in 1948, there was a differential of 62½ per cent. over the ordinary scale and today it is only 41 per cent., is this not a problem to which the Minister should apply greater energy and attention to re-establish the former differential?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, I do not think so. I do not think that the differential as such has any great importance. What is important is to preserve, maintain and improve the actual value of the scales, which, as the hon. Member

    859
    knows, we have done. Indeed, the differential itself is a good deal less significant now that the National Assistance Board makes such full use of its discretionary powers.
    Mr. Hannan: Surely, in these days, particularly in view of the cost of living to an incapacitated blind couple, it is the 18s. 9d. that matters and not the figures quoted so easily by the Minister?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: What matters to them is not the differential but the 26s. increase in the purchasing power of the scale since 1951.
    Mr. Manuelasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many blind persons in receipt of a weekly assistance allowance have been granted a weekly discretionary allowance; what proportion of such blind persons this is; and what is the average weekly discretionary allowance in such cases.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): I regret that no recent figures of the discretionary allowances granted specifically to blind persons are available.
    Mr. Manuel: Does the right hon Lady not think that the number of these discretionary allowances is fairly highly applied over the whole number of blind people receiving assistance? If that is the case, would she not agree that there is good evidence that the basic pension should be increased?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: There are, of course, already the additional special allowances which go to blind people. In the case of a married couple of whom one is blind the rate is 22s. 6d. above the normal rate; in the case of a married couple of whom both are blind it is 37s. 6d. above the normal rate. I do not think the hon. Member can have it both ways. The National Assistance Board exercises, I believe with great humanity, the discretionary allowances, and it is just not fair to say that if they go up then the system is wrong, and if they go down still the system is wrong. I believe that the Board deals with these matters most sympathetically and generously.
    Mr. Ross: Surely the right hon. Lady appreciates why this Question is put down? In answer to Questions about
    860
    the percentage last week the Minister told us that we had to bear in mind that the discretionary allowances were paid by the National Assistance Board. Unless she can provide us with the figures of the number of persons who get this help and the average amount—because the average amount, overall, is 7s.—we can hardly be satisfied with the Minister's answers.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: On top of the fact that the blind receive allowances in accordance with a special scale, there is the fact that they also form a reasonable proportion of those who obtain the discretionary allowances. I think the hon. Member will realise that there are many people on National Assistance who do in fact get discretionary allowances. There has not been an inquiry individually for some years into the proportion of those getting discretionary allowances who are blind.
    Mr. Lawson: How does the right hon. Lady know what people are getting when she has just told us that the information is not available? Is it not a fact that a couple, one of whom is blind, ought to he getting 11s. 3d. more at present and 18s. 9d. more where both are blind? Is not this very substantially more than even the discretionary allowance of which the right lion. Lady is speaking?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: The hon. Member is once again completely overlooking the fact that the present value of the standard rate of National Assistance is far higher in real terms than ever it was before. The additional allowance is paid for those who are blind, 22s. 6d. for one blind person in a couple, 37s. 6d. for a couple both of whom are blind. On top of this, a reasonable proportion of those who are receiving additional allowances—
    Mr. Ross: How many
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: —discretionary allowances are blind people.
    Mr. Ross: It is no good the right hon. Lady saying it is a reasonable proportion when she cannot tell us how many there are. If she cannot tell us how many there are, how are we to judge whether it is reasonable or not?
    Mr. W. Hamilton: Answer.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: Even if I gave the hon. Gentleman the percentage, it would still not necessarily prove possible to judge the merits of the individual case.
    Mr. Manuel: Would the right hon. Lady appreciate that the whole point of my Question is that these amounts being paid in National Assistance and discretionary allowances lead me to believe that the basic pension is too small? I wish she could give us the proportion of blind people getting these allowances, in order that we could build up the evidence to prove very clearly that the basic pension needs some further boost.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: I think the hon. Member is overlooking the fact that the whole purpose of discretionary allowances is to aid people who for various reasons need that additional help. I do not find it a criticism of the National Assistance Board that it is able to find out these cases who require that extra, additional discretion exercised on their behalf, nor do I think it is against the Board's record that the number of discretionary allowances may increase rather than lessen.
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what would be the total cost of raising the National Assistance scale rate for husband and wife, one of whom is a blind person, to such level as would give that rate the same proportionate differential over the ordinary rate for husband and wife, as was established in July, 1958.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: About £500,000 a year.
    Mr. Lawson: Does this not indicate that blind people are in fact being denied the equivalent of the £500,000 which they would have received if they were being paid now on the same differential as they were paid in 1948? Would not the right hon. Gentleman look at this matter again
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The fallacy of the hon. Member's argument is that the same differential would be maintained on the present blind scale rate if the ordinary rate were lower. That, I think, does make it clear that what is important is the actual purchasing power of this particular provision, which, as I told the hon. Gentleman last week, in real terms
    862
    is 24s. 6d. above what it was in October, 1951.
    Mr. Houghton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that blind persons feel and are entitled to feel that by the abolition of the differential they have been written down in the scale of the social services? Does he not realise that the change in the differential is bound to give rise to a feeling of resentment even though there has been an increase in the net purchasing power of the allowance made to them?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There has also been an increase in the absolute amount of the differential itself, but there is certainly no question of the blind people being treated with less care and consideration than formerly. Indeed, the contrary is the case. What, I think, modern thinking in this connection does emphasise is that there are other disabilities of a crippling nature, which makes it impossible to pick them all out for special rates, and that it is much better to leave the Board to deal with each case on its individual merits.

    Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what plans he has to increase the supplementary benefit paid to totally disabled persons who were compensated under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, and benefits paid under the Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Benefit Schemes.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would refer the hon. Member to what I said on this subject on 22nd November during the Committee stage of this Session's National Insurance Bill.
    Mr. Prentice: Is there any justification whatever for the fact that there has been no increase in these benefits since 1956, when these older casualties of industry were brought roughly into line with people under the Industrial Injuries Act, although there have been two increases in the benefits under that Act since 1956? May I appeal to the Minister to look especially at this matter with a view to possible legislation in the next Session?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have expressed my view at some length in the speech to which I have invited the hon. Member's

    863
    attention, and to which I have nothing to add.
    Miss Herbison: Does not the Minister remember that on the occasion of a previous Bill he expressed his view that these people should be on the same scale as the others? Has he changed his mind? Many of these people feel that they are being most unjustly treated by the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, I have never expressed the view as a matter of principle that those in the old scheme should be on the current industrial injury rates. The hon. Lady is confused by the fact that one of those rates—that for certain married people—happened temporarily at one time to coincide.

    Occupational Deafness
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many meetings of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council have been called in the last 12 months to discuss the problem of occupational deafness.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Occupational deafness is one of the topics which the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council is currently considering on its own initiative. But I am afraid that it would not be appropriate for me to seek from the Council the information requested by the hon. Member.
    Mr. Prentice: Can the Minister say, therefore, what was meant by a Written Answer which I received on 16th June stating that the Advisory Council was giving a good deal of attention to this problem? When does the Minister think that any real progress will be made? Will he be able to make a statement in the foreseeable future? Does he know that over 20 countries have legislation which recognises occupational deafness as an industrial injury? Does he not think it time that we began to catch up?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Answer to which the hon. Member has referred meant exactly what it said. It did not mean—the hon. Member knows something of the position and status of this body—that it would be right for me to interrogate the Advisory Council as to the number of meetings on a particular subject, nor would any useful purpose be
    864
    served, as most of this kind of work is done anyhow in the Industrial Diseases Sub-Committee.

    Family Allowances
    Mr. Jegerasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what changes he is proposing to make in the payment of family allowances.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: None, Sir.
    Mr. Jeger: Can the Minister assure us that payment of family allowances has not been the subject of the week-end plotting which has been going on with his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Can he guarantee that there will be no cuts in family allowances tomorrow week?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My Answer was not only brief but clear.
    Mr. Reynoldsasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what would be the cost of increasing family allowances by 50 per cent.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: About £67 million a year immediately.
    Mr. Reynolds: As this is so close to the amount to be given in Surtax relief next year, will the Minister call the attention of his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the fact that if there is to be any major change in social service benefits, the worst impact upon the families with a large number of children could be eased by altering the Surtax relief and transferring the money to this benefit?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There are at least two hypotheses in that supplementary question.
    Mr. Reynoldsasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the estimated cost of increasing family allowances by 5s. per week for all children, at present in receipt of such allowances, over 13 years of age.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: About £3½ million a year.
    Mr. Reynolds: In view of the fact that this is such a small amount and of the ever-increasing cost of maintaining children of this age, as was shown by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he said how awkward it was to maintain

    865
    a family on £5,000 a year, whereas the majority of families live on much less than that, will the Minister look into the matter and see whether something cannot be done on the lines proposed in the Question?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think that this is a particularly useful suggestion, but I can say that family allowances, which were taken through Parliament by my right hon. Friends in the Caretaker Government and which have been increased by my right hon. Friends in 1952 and 1956, are safe in our hands.
    Mr. J. Robertsonasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will state the value of the current family allowance for the second child in terms of June, 1952, values.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: 6s. 4d.
    Mr. Robertson: In view of the cost of living today, would the Minister not agree that this is a completely unrealistic figure? Will he consider the matter with a view to restoring the previous value of family allowances?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is quite unrealistic, to use the hon. Member's own phrase, to take family allowances in isolation. The earnings of the great majority of people who are in work have risen very substantially since the date given in the Question, and for those who are not in work National Insurance dependency allowances, particularly for widows, have been very substantially increased too.

    Social Security Office, Prague (Delegation)
    Mr. Houghtonasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he has invited a delegation from the National Social Security Office in Prague to visit this country; when he expects the delegation to arrive; for what period they will stay; and what arrangements will be made for them to see the working of his Department.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Czechoslovak National Social Security Office has accepted an invitation to send a small party of officials to this country to study the work of my Department. I expect them to come in September for
    866
    about 10 to 14 days. Arrangements will be made for them to visit my Central Office at Newcastle-upon-Tyne and to study other aspects of my Department's work.
    Mr. Houghton: In thanking the Minister for that favourable reply, may I ask whether he will arrange for the delegation to meet hon. Members of this House, on both sides who are interested in social security?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If it is possible, I should like to do so; but the time of year which I have given in my main Answer is not necessarily convenient for all hon. Members.

    Reciprocal Agreements (Czechoslovakia)
    Mr. Houghtonasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how soon he expects to make a reciprocal agreement with Czechoslovakia covering National Insurance and allied social services.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have no proposals for a reciprocal agreement with Czechoslovakia.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the Minister aware that as yet he does not have a reciprocal agreement with any Commonwealth country for giving old-age pensioners living in Commonwealth countries the increases—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not following how this arises from the question of a reciprocal agreement with Czechoslovakia.
    Mr. Houghton: Can the Minister say briefly what impediment stands in the way of reaching a reciprocal agreement with Czechoslovakia, since he has recently reached one with Yugoslavia?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There are profound differences between the schemes in the two countries. As, I think, the hon. Gentleman knows, the Czechoslovak scheme contains features that make a reciprocal agreement with Czechoslovakia very difficult.

    Service Personnel (Insurance Cards)
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what steps he is taking, in consultation with

    867
    the Service Ministers, to ensure that persons serving with Her Majesty's Forces have their National Insurance cards properly and regularly stamped.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Special arrangements have been in existence for a long time for the payment of National Insurance contributions by the Service Departments in respect of persons serving with Her Majesty's Forces. These are perfectly satisfactory. They do not normally involve the stamping of cards.
    Mr. Lawson: Is the Minister not indicating that he made a mistake when he told us last Monday that a man out of the Forces was in the same position as a prisoner from one of Her Majesty's prisons when he presented himself at the employment exchange to look for a job without having a card which had been properly stamped? Was not this an example of one of those smart aleck answers that the Minister is so often apt to give, which means that he does not face up to the kind of problem with which hon. Members on this side are concerned?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No. On the contrary, it shows that, as is so often the case, the hon. Member is chasing a dummy hare. If he studies my main Answer, he will see that a man coming out of the Services is not able to produce a recently stamped card and that, therefore, the example which I gave him last week is perfectly accurate if he is capable of understanding it.
    Mr. Lawson: Is it not unfair to compare the position of a man coming out of the Forces, when it is known perfectly well where he has been and he can say, "I have come out of the Forces", with the very different position of a man who has to stand with a card before some clerk at an employment exchange who asks him "Where have you been all these months and years?" Does not the Minister realise that it is humanity which prompts us on this side to try to get an improvement in this position?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It would be if even 5 per cent. of those facts were accurate, but as in both cases a card without back stamping is issued to the person, either on discharge from the Forces or on release from prison, or in the other example I gave to the hon. Member, there is no question of a clerk demanding
    868
    an explanation of that sort. Really, the hon. Gentleman ought to study the procedure before working himself up into a fantigue.

    Payroll Tax
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will give details of the preparatory expenditure of £30,000 which he estimates as necessary in the event of imposing a surcharge on employers under Clause 30 of the Finance Bill.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: About £25,000 would be for publicity. Miscellaneous additional costs involved in new rates of stamps would account for the remainder.
    Mr. Hamilton: Have any leaflets been printed in connection with this scheme? How much preparatory expenditure has been already incurred? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what proportion this expenditure is of the total cost of the scheme when it is in operation—as it probably will be very soon?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I made it perfectly clear at this Box last week that no such preparatory steps had been taken, and that, of course, covers the subject matter of this Question.

    Long-term Unemployed
    Mr. Rossasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will state the cost to the National Assistance Board of the experimental scheme relating to the long-term unemployed; and what is the estimated likely cost in 1961 of the extended scheme.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: None, Sir. The measures described in the Board's 1960 Report for reviewing the health of certain unemployed recipients of allowances, as part of the process of helping to get them back into work, are producing a reduction in public expenditure which cannot be precisely estimated but plainly much exceeds the cost of the staff time devoted to them.
    Mr. Ross: Does the right hon. Lady appreciate that we certainly feel that this is one of the most interesting things that the Board did last year? Is she aware that we welcome the fact that it is being extended over the coming year to all

    869
    regions and that we trust that it will be administered with that humanity with which we always associate the Board?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: I find myself in full agreement with the hon. Member and thank him for his comments.

    National Insurance Contributions
    Mr. Rossasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will state the time that elapsed between the announcement of the increase of National Insurance contributions and the operative date on the last four such occasions.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Twenty-six weeks, 27 weeks, 13 weeks and 22 weeks. The answer to the second part of the Question is 6th October, 1952, 6th June, 1955, 3rd February, 1958, and 3rd April, 1961.
    Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman told us last week that the same procedure would be followed in relation to the introduction of a payroll tax as with the raising of contributions. Can he say whether these terms and times are likely to apply?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As for the times, if the hon. Member studies them, he will appreciate why I do not think that an answer to his supplementary question would give him further enlightenment.

    Graduated Pension Scheme
    Mr. Smallasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1) how many contributors to the graduated pension scheme will retire in 1961 having contributed insufficient to qualify for any addition to their pensions;
    (2) if he will estimate the aggregate of contributions to the graduated scheme which will be paid in 1961 by retiring contributors who will not qualify for any graduated addition to their pensions.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the Answers will in due course depend among other things on a large number of individual decisions not yet made, I must resist any temptation to prophesy.
    Mr. Small: Can the Minister define in general terms the extraction from the contributor of £3 14s. 6d. and from the employer £3 14s. 6d.? Will not a considerable amount be retained by the
    870
    State? Will there be any remit for those who contribute £7 9s.?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I explained to the hon. Member last night, the principle of the Act as approved by Parliament—
    Mr. Manuel: What sort of dream was that?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In fairness to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small), I must say that "last night" was a slip of the tongue for "last week". As I explained to the hon. Member last week, the principle of the Act as accepted by Parliament is that if one gets as much as half a unit one receives the value of a whole unit and if one gets less than half it goes into the National Insurance Fund. We had this point out very thoroughly when we discussed the Bill and I think that it is a reasonable arrangement.
    Mr. Ross: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that this is not a recurring problem and that it will apply only or mainly in this particular year? Does he not agree that the amount is fairly marginal and that it would remove a strong sense of injustice to people who retire in the initial weeks or months of the scheme if he arranged to repay them?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member is quite wrong. This situation, depending on the particular time at which a person decides to retire, can arise at any time.

  COAL

    Manpower
    Mr. Masonasked the Minister of Power what progress has been made in halting the drift of manpower away from the coal-mining industry; and what success has been achieved in recruitment of young workers.
    The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Wood): Twenty-nine thousand men chose to leave the industry in the first twenty-six weeks of this year. Almost exactly the same number did so in the first half of 1960. Juvenile recruitment in this period was 6,367, compared with 5,888 last year.
    Mr. Mason: Is the Minister not aware that 15,000 who left the industry in the past twelve months were men earning good wages and that it does not seem that we are having a successful campaign to bring them back? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that because of the drift away in manpower, if we cannot get the mechanisation we need this will affect production?
    Mr. Wood: The Chairman of the Board and myself are most concerned about the drift of manpower from the coal-mining industry. The Board is making strenuous efforts to recruit. Restriction on recruitment has entirely come to an end and recruitment should be going forward, but it depends very largely on the use that is made of existing manpower how quickly productivity can be increased so that the objectives which the noble Lord, Lord Robens, put before the industry and the mineworkers in his speech on 6th July can be realised.
    Mr. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend make it perfectly clear that the Chairman of the Board has said that he is aiming for a manpower figure of 500,000 men to produce 200 million tons of coal at an output rate of 400 tons per man-year instead of the present level of just over 300 tons per man-year? Would we not, all of us on both sides of the House, be advised to support such an enlightened objective?
    Mr. Wood: I think that that is a perfectly accurate description of Lord Roben's views.
    Mr. Nabarro: I am grateful.
    Mr. Gunter: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that there is real significance in the fact that 60 per cent. of the men who left the pits in the first quarter of 1961 were under the age of 31? Does this not indicate a real sense of insecurity in that industry?
    Mr. Wood: I think that there will continue to be insecurity until by the rapid advance of productivity, which I hope will take place in future, it becomes evident that the Chairman's objectives are very real possibilities for the industry to reach.
    Mr. Wainwrightasked the Minister of Power if he will state the number of youths who have left their employment in the coal-mining industry for the
    872
    years 1958, 1959, 1960 and up to the last available date in 1961.
    Mr. Wood: The number of miners under 21 who left the industry in 1958 was 12,500; in 1959, 14,100; in 1960, 16,700; and in the first quarter of 1961, 3,800.
    Mr. Wainwright: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that these figures are rather depressing? Is not he aware that faith in the industry is slowly but surely diminishing? What efforts have been made, with the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers, to try to arrest this flow of boys leaving the industry?
    Mr. Wood: I have already expressed my concern, and the concern of Lord Robens, about the drift from the pits; but even during the very difficult times in these past few years, and in spite of the restrictions placed on recruitment, considerably more boys and young men have come into the pits than have left. For the future, it seems to me that the kind of picture that Lord Robens recently painted of the industry of the future is enough to give perfectly reasonable confidence to any young man who wants to enter the industry that there are good prospects for him for the rest of his working life.
    Mr. Blyton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most of the thousands of young men who are leaving the pits are tradesmen—mechanics—and that if there is to be increased mechanisation they are most essential to it? How can we prevent them from leaving?
    Mr. Wood: There is obviously no short answer to this. Very largely it is a question—and here I think I take the hon. Gentleman with me—of creating confidence in the future. I do not believe that that can be done by the methods frequently suggested by Opposition speakers in this House. It will be done much more by the methods Lord Robens suggested in his speech on the 6th July.
    Miss Herbison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House—particularly those from mining areas—will give the greatest support to the policy that has been put forward by Lord Robens? But is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that many of these manpower losses, and also the difficulty of recruitment, are due to the feeling that

    873
    the Government have no fuel and power policy? These young people are scared that there is no future in the industry for them.
    Mr. Wood: I have never been able to agree that a guarantee of a target of production for the industry would result in the confidence in the future of the industry which a great many hon. Members seem—wrongly, I think—to assume.

    Mechanisation
    Mr. Masonasked the Minister of Power what capital expenditure he has authorised for increased mechanisation in the coal mines.
    Mr. Wood: The capital expenditure I have agreed with the Board for 1961–62 includes £8 million for coal-face machinery. I have not yet finally agreed the Board's capital programme for 1962–63, but the Board tells me that expenditure on coal-face machinery is likely next year to be rather more than this.
    Mr. Mason: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in the Yorkshire coalfields and perhaps elsewhere there is a danger that, although power-loading machines are coming off the production line according to schedule, mechanisation will be hold up because of the lack of ancillary equipment such as mechanical chocks, power-loading stage equipment, belts and so on? Will the right hon. Gentleman take that into consideration?
    Mr. Wood: I am sure that that is for the Chairman of the Board to take into consideration, but I will certainly draw his attention to the hon. Member's remarks if he is not already aware of these difficulties.
    Mr. Gunter: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea how much of a cut will take place next week?
    Mr. Wood: I am afraid not.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: If we are to debate the Exchequer's Advances (Limit) Order dealing with advances to nationalised industries on Wednesday, and the coal industry is not included in that Order, could my right hon. Friend publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the anti-
    874
    cipated capital expenditure on coal mines in the forthcoming year?
    Mr. Wood: I will certainly consider my noble Friend's suggestion.

    Production
    Mr. Wainwrightasked the Minister of Power if he will state his estimate of the number of tons of coal that will be produced by the coal-mining industry during the years 1961, 1962, and 1963.
    Mr. Wood: Not far short of 190 million tons in 1961. The Board tells me it expects to produce about the same amount in 1962, but has made no estimate for 1963.
    Mr. Wainwright: If these targets are more than reached, resulting in the need to stock coal, will the right hon. Gentleman recommend to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the financing of that stocking should be borne by the Government?
    Mr. Wood: In the unlikely event of that hypothesis taking place, I would certainly have serious talks with my right hon. and learned Friend. I estimated in February that the Board would lift from stock 7 million to 10 million tons this year, and that estimate probably still remains about the best that can be made.

    Undistributed Stocks
    Mr. Fitchasked the Minister of Power how much coal has been sold out of undistributed stocks to the latest convenient date this year.
    Mr. Wood: In the 26 weeks to 1st July, undistributed stocks fell by 6·2 million tons.
    Mr. Fitch: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this coal was sold without any reduction in its price? Will he convey this news to his hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro)?
    Mr. Wood: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster is probably already aware of that, because he takes the closest interest in these matters, but I do not think that his fears will be entirely removed until all the coal put into stock has been sold.

  MINISTRY OF POWER

    Power Stations (Kuwait Oil Supplies)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Minister of Power to what extent power stations in Great Britain depend upon Did supplies from Kuwait.
    Mr. Wood: It is not practicable to identify the origin of the fuel oil burned at power stations.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it appears, therefore, that it does not matter who owns Kuwait, whether Iraq or the Ruler of Kuwait, we get the oil from there just the same but the Minister will not know the answer?
    Mr. Wood: If the hon. Member is quite certain that we shall get the oil, there may be no basis for his worry. Although I was not able to identify the precise amount of oil than comes from Kuwait and is burned in our power stations, I was able to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) last week that 40 per cent. of our total oil supplies comes from Kuwait. Therefore, we attach quite a reasonable amount of importance to the political conditions there.

  MINISTRY OF AVIATION

    Porters (Tips)
    Mr. Stratton Millsasked the Minister of Aviation what regulations he makes regarding the tipping of porters at airports and air terminals under the control of this Department.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): Ministry of Aviation porters at airports and aerodromes are forbidden to solicit tips from passengers or visitors or to behave in such a manner as to suggest tips are expected, but they are not debarred from accepting tips which are freely and spontaneously offered. Ministry porters are not employed at the air terminals.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him if he does not feel that as B.E.A., particularly, and other airlines have a strictly enforced "no-tipping at all"
    876
    policy, there is considerable confusion in the minds of people using our airports? Will he also bear in mind that, as I once had a tip returned to me by a French porter at a French airport—[HON. MEMBERS: "Was it too small?"] —I admit that this should be considered somewhat unusual—it would be more desirable to have a definite policy of no tipping at British airports and air terminals?
    Mr. Rippon: I am glad to think that my hon. Friend has had such happy experiences. They do not befall all of us. I do not think that it would be sensible to have an unenforceable rule that all tips should be refused.
    Dame Irene Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware that I think our men at our airports are jolly good? Is he aware that they do not let it be known that they would like tips, whereas when one arrives at foreign airports a standard rate is generally demanded? Will he see that our men are put on the same favourable terms, if this decision is an international one, at our airports? Our men have done jolly well.
    Mr. Rippon: My hon. Friend does not bestow tributes lightly, and I know that the porters will be grateful for her observations.

    Private Air Companies (Licences)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Aviation what steps he is taking to put into effect the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the assistance to be given to the nationalised air corporations to compensate them for expenditure incurred in initiating air routes which are now available to private air companies.
    Mr. Rippon: There is no such policy.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the hon. Gentleman telling us, despite recent happenings in this House, that the Government do not engage in such a policy where industries require it? Is not he aware that B.O.A.C., having built up these routes, is to be robbed of them with the connivance of the Government? Does not it seem fair and decent, in these circumstances, that the Corporation should have some compensation for the losses which the Government are forcing on it?
    Mr. Rippon: Where the hon. Member is not expressing somewhat muddled views, he is prejudging the issues.
    Mr. Strachey: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the most alarming feature of the recent decision by the Board on this matter is that private airlines are, as a previous Minister of Aviation put it, to be allowed to reap where they have not sown and to take advantage of the pioneer work that the Corporation has done on the public's behalf? It is that which has disturbed many people.
    Mr. Rippon: All these applications now before the Board are sub judice. Its decisions may be the subject of an appeal to my right hon. Friend. In one case, an appeal has already been lodged. It would not be proper for me to comment on the merits of any of these matters.
    Mr. Chetwynd: If the hon. Gentleman cannot comment, will he at least release the Corporation from the obligation of having to run uneconomic services?
    Mr. Rippon: That is another question.
    Mr. Rankin: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise the difficulties that this decision will force B.O.A.C. into? Is he saying that he is giving no thought to the problems that he will have to face because of it?
    Mr. Rippon: I give a lot of thought to problems, but I do not prejudge matters which are sub judice.

    Cunard Eagle (Transatlantic Service)
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the Minister of Aviation whether he has now received the appeal of the British Overseas Airways Corporation against the recent decision of the Air Transport Licensing Board on the Cunard Eagle application for a transatlantic service; and who has been appointed commissioner to hear the appeal.
    Mr. Rippon: Yes, Sir. Sir Fred E. Pritchard has kindly consented to hear this appeal on behalf of the Minister if convenient dates can be arranged.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Will the Minister state the qualifications of the gentleman who has been appointed for this very difficult task? Can he say when the appeal will be heard and whether it will be heard in public?
    Mr. Rippon: Sir Fred E. Pritchard is a retired High Court Judge of great distinction. Under the procedural rules the appeal cannot be heard before the middle of August. A date will be fixed which is convenient to the Commissioner and to the parties, but it may not be heard until the beginning of September. The appeal will be heard in public.

    Supersonic Airliner
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Aviation if he has yet received from the French Government a reply on the possibilities of their collaborating with this country in the production of a supersonic airliner.
    Mr. Rippon: Within the last few days my right hon. Friend has received a reply from the French Minister of Transport suggesting a discussion between them on this subject, as soon as it can conveniently be arranged.
    Mr. Rankin: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether or not any sort of study is going on with the French Government on how we are to achieve supersonic speed without the power which, according to Lord Brabazon, at a height of 20,000 feet may shatter the windows of houses below the machine?
    Mr. Rippon: French firms as well as British firms have been engaged on these studies, which include the sort of matter to which Lord Brabazon referred.

    London Airport (Landings and Take-offs)
    Mr. R. Harrisasked the Minister of Aviation how many landings are taking place daily on No. 1 Runway at London Airport from east to west; whether he will analyse the figures as compared with last year; and if he is satisfied that the agreement with the local residents' associations and the Airport Consultative Committee, relating to the use of No. 1 Runway only in the exceptional circumstances that it is not possible to use No. 5 Runway, is being adhered to.
    Mr. Rippon: The figures are not readily available. In any event, as the number of landings taking place daily on No. 1 Runway from east to west is dependent on a number of factors which vary from year to year, a comparative analysis would be meaningless.

    879
    There has never been a firm agreement with any of the residents' associations or the London Airport Consultative Committee about the use of the runways at London (Heathrow) Airport, which must be used as operational considerations dictate. Recently, greater use has had to be made of No. 1 Runway for landings because of a fault in a navigational aid on No. 5 Runway.
    Mr. Harris: Is my hon. Friend aware that when No. 1 Runway is used for landings from east to west, the run-in has to begin somewhere over Kensington and there is inconvenience to a maximum number of people in London? Is he also aware that the residents' associations in Cranford and Hounslow are under the impression that there is an agreement with the Ministry that No. 5 Runway will be used wherever possible, and that No. 1 Runway will only be used in emergencies and for very short periods?
    Mr. Rippon: As my hon. Friend will remember, we had a meeting with the residents' associations and local Members of Parliament, including himself, in December, 1959, when I made it clear that there never was an agreement in any formal sense, and that I could not commit the Ministry to any preferential use of runways, although it was accepted that, as far as possible, Cranford was deserving of special consideration.
    Mr. Gough: Can my hon. Friend explain why the figures are not readily available for landings daily on No. 1 Runway? Surely a log is kept of all landings on the runway?
    Mr. Rippon: When I say that the figures are not readily available, I mean that a lot of work would be involved sorting them out, and that work would not be very useful. These days we collect statistics rather like children used to collect cigarette cards. I am sure that I could get a set for my hon. Friend, but it would involve a lot of work.
    Mr. Gough: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the terms of that reply, I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible date.
    Mr. R. Harrisasked the Minister of Aviation how many jet aircraft are permitted to land and take off from London Airport between the hours of
    880
    11 p.m. and 7 a.m.; and how many unauthorised take-offs and landings have taken place during these hours in the four weeks ended 8th July.
    Mr. Rippon: The number of jet aircraft permitted to land between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. varies each night with the schedules and with delayed services, but in the four weeks to 8th July the average number of take-offs or landings by jet aircraft was 17 per night. During the period there were three landings for which the necessary prior permission had not been obtained. There were no unauthorised take-offs.
    Mr. Harris: Will my hon. Friend ensure that when a jet aeroplane which is due to take off between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. does not take off at the time it is supposed to, it shall be required to wait until 7 a.m. instead of disturbing an enormous number of local residents who are trying to get some sleep?
    Mr. Rippon: In this case permission is only normally given for a take-off up to 12 midnight if there is a delay. I do not think that this is an unreasonable provision.
    Mr. Hunter: Will the Minister endeavour to keep night flying to a minimum, because it is night flying which causes great annoyance to people living round the airport? Will he impress that on the airport authorities?
    Mr. Rippon: We appreciate the difficulties caused, and we do not increase night flying unless it appears to be absolutely essential for specially scheduled services.

    London Airport (Car Parking Charges)
    Mr. V. Yatesasked the Minister of Aviation why he has increased the car-parking charges at London Airport; and whether, in view of the effect of these increased charges for periods of over 48 hours upon passengers who travel to the airport by road from outside the London area, he will consider reducing them in order to lessen the burden on this class of passengers, many of whom are engaged on export and other business of national importance.
    Mr. Rippon: Charges for long-term car parking in the Central Terminal area

    881
    were increased for the summer months this year because experience showed that about three-quarters of available space was being taken up by cars parked for more than two days, thus limiting the facilities available for other users of the airport. Arrangements are being made to increase the parking space in the Central Terminal area. In the meantime alternative arrangements can be made by travellers who wish to leave their cars for any lengthy period.
    Mr. Yates: I appreciate the difficulties, but is it not rather exorbitant to charge £2 a day in excess of this figure? It is especially hard upon those who come from outside the London area and who are especially engaged in the export business. Is this not a rather undesirable method of excluding people from the car park?
    Mr. Rippon: If people are engaged on export business and they expect to be away for more than two days, it is not difficult for them to make arrangements for their cars to be garaged elsewhere.
    Mr. Strachey: What are these alternative arrangements? There is a great shortage of garage space around here. Would not it be worth while for the Ministry to provide these facilities at more reasonable fees?
    Mr. Rippon: Facilities are available at a number of local garages. Garages will collect and return the cars to the airport. As regards the future, I think that the multi-storey garage which is being built will go far to ease the position.

    Biggin Hill Airfield (Accidents)
    Mr. Sumnerasked the Minister of Aviation how many accidents there have been to civil aircraft using Biggin Hill airfield; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Rippon: Since February, 1959, when this airfield was opened to civil aircraft, eleven accidents have been notified. Eight of these occurred on the airfield itself and were not serious. All but one involved light aircraft. Of the serious accidents, a report on one will be published shortly, and the recent accident is under investigation. In the third case, the pilot flew unexpectedly
    882
    into fog. No pattern emerges from these accidents calling for any special action.
    Mr. Sumner: One's sympathies go out first and foremost to the relatives of those who have been killed flying these aircraft. Will my hon. Friend say whether he is satisfied that everything possible is done to reduce danger to lives and property of residents in what is a very highly populated district?
    Mr. Rippon: I appreciate the concern caused by these accidents. As I said, they do not follow any particular pattern, and there is nothing to suggest that the airfield or its facilities are in any way inadequate.

    Blue Steel
    Mr. Stracheyasked the Minister of Aviation whether he will assure the House that Blue Steel will be available to the Royal Air Force for an adequately long period before Skybolt.
    Mr. Rippon: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Strachey: Cannot the hon. Gentleman comment a little more on the rather disturbing reports that these two weapons will now be available at a very short interval? Is not there a real danger of duplication here, and is it not the function of his Ministry to avoid this?
    Mr. Rippon: Press reports do not cause me to change my Answer.

  HOSPITALS

    Migraine Clinics
    Mrs. McLaughlinasked the Minister of Health if, in view of his responsibilities for the health and comfort of patients, he will now consider the need for migraine clinics as part of the hospital service, so that the 5 million sufferers from migraine may be provided with satisfactory treatment.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): Medical staffs have the means to treat migraine in whatever way they judge best.
    Mrs. McLaughlin: Surely my hon. Friend is aware that this is a growing national disease and that there is no

    883
    adequate migraine treatment available under the National Health Service, as has been proved by a number of writers who are always saying that they cannot get a satisfactory cure but only some sort of minor remedial and old-fashioned help? As there are already clinics in hospitals which could be extended to help migraine sufferers, surely something could be done in this matter?
    Miss Pitt: Facilities for the treatment of migraine are available in the National Health Service. I doubt my hon. Friend's statement that the number of cases is increasing, though I would wish to look into that. Certainly no one need go without treatment for this complaint, and if any doctor who specialises in this disease chooses to set up a clinic, it is up to him to do so.
    Mr. Rankin: Can the hon. Lady tell me of any hospital in Scotland where, under the National Health Service, there is recognised therapy for the treatment of migraine?
    Miss Pitt: My right hon. Friend is not answerable for the Health Service in Scotland.

    Mental Patients
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Health what was the total number of mental patients at the latest convenient date; how many are compulsorily detained; and how the number detained compares with 1959 and 1960, respectively.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Enoch Powell): I will, with permission, circulate the most recent figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the figures:

    —

    1959

    1960

    Average daily occupation of National Health Service psychiatric beds

    199,998

    197,779

    Number of patients detained in National Health Service Hospitals on 31st December

    73,904

    (see note)

    NOTE: Not available, owing to the effect of the transitional provisions of the Mental Health Act, 1959.
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Health what was the number of applications made up to the latest convenient date to mental review tribunals; how many cases have been dealt with by tribunals; and what have been the results.
    Mr. PowellAs the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Dodds: Is the Minister aware that he has got off with it until next week?
    Mr. K. Robinson: In view of the high proportion of cases which have not been heard, on the last lot of figures he produced, can the Minister say what is the average length of delay between the application being made and being heard by a tribunal?
    Mr. Powell: Not without notice, but if the hon. Gentleman looks at my answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT he will see that there has been a very large increase in the number of cases dealt with.
    Following is the information:

    Applications to Mental Health Review Tribunals 1st November, 1960 to 7th July, 1961

    Number of applications

    …

    477

    Applications considered by tribunals

    …

    274

    Directions for discharge

    …

    27

    Applications rejected

    …

    239

    Consideration adjourned

    …

    8

    Midlands Hospitals
    Mr. V. Yatesasked the Minister of Health what consideration he has now given to the official report by Dr. Sheldon about the conditions in certain Midlands hospitals; whether he will hold an inquiry into the matter; and what action he proposes to take to remedy these unsatisfactory conditions.
    Mr. Powell: The Birmingham Regional Hospital Board has taken this report into account in preparing its building programme, which I am now studying. I see no need for another inquiry.
    Mr. Yates: I can appreciate that, but is the Minister aware that this report has been given premature publication and has obviously given rise to great anxiety about some of the most alarming conditions in Midlands hospitals? Does he intend to publish the report or make it available to the public so that the facts

    885
    can be known? What action will he take to remedy the worst faults which are brought out in this report?
    Mr. Powell: On the first part of the supplementary question, there is, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows, a copy of the report in the Library, and I understand that the Regional Board is making the report available. The remedy to the deficiencies to which the report draws attention should be in the building programme for the region.

RAILWAYS (ACCIDENT, WEETON)
Mrs. Castle(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement on the crash of the 8.50 a.m. Colne to Fleetwood boat train yesterday.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): Yes, Sir. At 10.25 yesterday morning the 8.50 a.m. diesel boat train from Colne to Fleetwood ran into the rear of a stationary ballast train standing on the down line between Weeton and Singleton signal boxes. I regret to inform the House that the driver of the boat train and five passengers were killed, 115 passengers were taken to hospital, and 18 are still detained there.
The boat train was travelling at speed round a sharp right-hand curve when it hit the ballast train. The leading coach leap-frogged across a number of wagons of the ballast train and was hurled down a 14 ft. embankment. The next three coaches jack-knifed and came to rest in a precarious position with the ends of two of them high in the air. The fifth and sixth coaches remained on the line.
At the time of the accident the up line was closed. Replacement of ballast and sleepers on this line had been completed and arrangements were being made to resume normal working on both lines. It is not yet clear why the boat train and the ballast train were on the same section.
London Midland Region is holding an inquiry today. My Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways will open the Ministry of Transport inquiry next week, probably on Tuesday, 25th July.
I should like to express my sincere sympathy with the bereaved and with
886
those who were injured in this tragic accident. I should also like to thank all those who came to the assistance of the injured.
Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole House will join him in expressing sympathy to the bereaved and injured and to all the passengers who suffered shock and strain, and also in expressing our appreciation of the work of the rescuers?
May I ask the Minister whether, when his inquiry is conducted, it will, among other things, take into account the extent to which the number of casualties has been affected by the type of coach used on this diesel train, so that we may increase our knowledge of all the factors making for safety on the railways?
Mr. Marples: I will draw that point to the attention of the inspecting officer.
Mr. S. Silverman: While joining the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) in the condolences and the expression of appreciation of all the help that was rendered at short notice, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that according to workmen who were working on the line at the time assurances had been given that both lines, the up line and the down line, had been closed and that they were taken completely by surprise that there were any trains there? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there are some rather extraordinary features of this accident? May I also ask whether his inquiry will be held in public?
Mr. Marples: The inquiry will be held in the usual way, and, if necessary, the report will be published. I think that it would be wise of me not to comment until the inquiry is held.
Mr. G. Wilson: Can my right hon. Friend say whether this section of the line is subject to automatic train control?
Mr. Marples: I could not say, without notice.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Wigg: Mr. Speaker, on 12th July I asked for your Ruling on a statement which had been made by the Minister of Defence in which he had found it convenient to circulate about some 2,000 words in the OFFICIAL. REPORT. On examining the Minister's statement with closer attention, I discovered that his opening words were:
"Following General Qasim's announcement on 28th June, 1961."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th July. 1961; Vol. 644, c. 214.]
I endeavoured to trace this statement. Although General Kassim makes lots of statements, it is perfectly clear that he made no statement on that day.
I therefore put a Question on the Order Paper, addressed to the Minister of Defence, asking him to give particulars of this announcement, and my Question made the reference to the fact that the statement had originally been made by the Minister of Defence. This morning I discovered on the Order Paper—again, for reasons of which I do not complain—that the reference to the Minister's statement had been deleted from the Question.
I telephoned the Minister's private office and drew the attention of his private secretary to the fact that my Question was related to the Minister's statement. I now find with some astonishment that the Minister of Defence has found it convenient to transfer the Question to the Foreign Office.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, in what way an hon. Member can have some protection? What I am challenging here is not the content of the Question, but the fact that, once again, the Minister of Defence has made a statement which, on investigation, proves to be incorrect.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman says that he is not complaining about the change in the form of the Question. I know nothing about that; I should have to find out, if need be. The hon. Gentleman also knows, I am sure—and I have maintained the principle, which I must—that transfer is not a matter for which the Chair can accept responsibility.
Mr. Wigg: May I then address my question to the Leader of the House [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—as this is a matter which concerns every hon. Member? May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will be good enough to use his influence with his right hon. Friend to ensure that the Question is answered by the Minister of Defence?
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have an irregular question asked at an irregular time. I hope that it was possible to hear the hon. Gentleman, and that perhaps that will suffice.

BILL PRESENTED
  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (No. 2) BILL
  Bill to make amended provision with respect to weights and measures, and for connected purposes, presented by Mr. Reginald Maudling; supported by Mr. Niall Macpherson, Mr. Vane, Mr. George, and Miss Pitt; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 1521

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [22ND ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1961–62
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a further sum, not exceeding £30, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1962, for the following Services connected with Education, namely:—

  Civil Estimates, 1961–62

  £

  Class IV, Vote 1, Ministry of Education

  10

  Class IV, Vote 12, Universities and Colleges, &c, Great Britain

  10

  Class V, Vote 3, Exchequer Grants to Local Revenues, England and Wales

  10

  Total

  £30

EDUCATION
3.38 p.m.
Mr. Frederick Willey: Some of the more cynical among us may question the effect and purpose of these debates when the result is predetermined by the cold efficiency of the Whips, but some of us were encouraged last week, when we debated shipping and shipbuilding, because when we saw the Division lists we found that only one of those who spoke in the debate voted with the Minister of Transport and his Parliamentary Secretary at the end of the day. This was a clear verdict that the speeches from the Government Front Bench did not match the arguments.
I propose this afternoon to follow the same course and to endeavour to isolate the broad issues which, I believe, face the Minister of Education. I am not particularly anxious to score any party points, though I will accept any, of course, as bonus, I am not especially anxious to attack the right hon. Gentleman personally, though, as we have him with us. I would say that I feel that I am of a more generous cast of mind than the Home Secretary and would concede that the right hon. Gentleman is the best Minister of Education the Conservatives have had. But I doubt whether
890
the right hon. Gentleman will accept that as very commendatory if he thinks of his predecessors; he would hardly feel that such a comparison would elevate him.
At any rate, let us start with the proposition that there is no question about the priority of education. Surely we can accept that as common ground. Indeed, our pre-war inefficiency of education is the basic reason why we are now losing the battle for exports. How far have we learned the lesson? Today, this country has a lower proportion of its population in universities than any other highly developed country. Worse still, by comparison with the United States or Germany, our education is definitely inferior. The right hon. Gentleman will not quarrel with any of those statements, because he will recognise that they are quotations from a speech which he made earlier this year. We would not deny the priority of education and, like him, we would be ashamed of the pre-war Tory neglect of education.
Sir Kenneth Pickthorn Sir Kenneth Pickthorn (Carlton) indicated dissent.
Mr. Willey: Perhaps the hon. Member dissociates himself from his own Front Bench. If he cares to do so, that is his own affair.
My first complaint is that, under the Tories, education has obtained its priority at the expense of the other social services, largely at the expense of housing and health. The difference between the two sides of the Committee is that we believe that the social services generally should maintain their priority.
My second complaint is that as soon as a priority is recognised, it is sabotaged by the Government and their supporters. The right hon. Gentleman has said that, without undertaking any new commitments, the cost of education will rise to £1,400 million a year by 1970. Is that necessary increase of £600 million a year made any the more attainable by Tory back benchers' constant denigration of public expenditure? It is far more than denigration. The Government themselves have made it more difficult to support an expanding education service.
My argument against the block grants is not that they were designed to reduce educational expenditure—which would

891
have been madness in present circumstances—but that they cannot serve to accelerate expenditure on education but only as a brake. They are a built-in moderator of educational expenditure. That is why, as we all know, the right hon. Gentleman's Department resisted their introduction at the time.
The Government accept minimal targets, unavoidable targets, and then shrink from paying the bill, deliberately making it more difficult to meet the account. With the present pattern of general grants, not discounting the possibility that they may have started on a more open scale than that on which they will continue, and accepting the present objectives as defined by the night hon. Gentleman, there will have to be an increase in rates of between 6d. and 8d. in the £ every year. The night hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that that is not practical politics. Finance through rates is wholly unsuited to and undesigned for supporting an expanding service, as I remember telling the Parliamentary Secretary some time ago. The Government are fully aware of that and know that it is an excuse far not doing enough to expand our educational service.
It is now quite clear that unless we are prepared to devise a new means of financing education, educational growth will inexorably slow down. Having accepted, as I believe we should, the common purpose of expanding our education service, the first test of the Government's sincerity is whether they are prepared to expand and to provide the money for that expansion. This is clearly something which has worried many Tory policy makers. It was that reason that we had the Bow Group's proposal to introduce school fees. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has twice denied any such intention on behalf of the present Government and that this debate will give him an opportunity to deny it thrice.
Sir K. Pickthorn: Do not crow before the third time.
Mr. Willey: The hon. Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn) did a singular disservice to education by enjoying junior office as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry.
I remind the Parliamentary Secretary that when the Bow Group's proposal was
892
made, he did not take an opportunity to deny that that was the purpose of the Government. In any case, whatever the right hon. Gentleman says, we know well enough that those proposals were not made without the cognisance of the Conservative Central Office, and, for that matter, the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman looks surprised. We were surprised when the Home Secretary repeatedly denied that it was his intention to cut food subsidies and then did so without any shame or embarrassment.
It is important to know and appreciate what the Bow Group's proposals were. The Bow Group said that within the education services there were some which were not educational, but welfare —provision of school meals and school milk, and so on. It concluded that those services could obviously be cut, if not removed. When the right hon. Gentleman made his party political broadcast before the local government elections, he denied that it was the Government's intention to cut those services. I invite him to take the opportunity of today's debate to deny that the Government still have any such intention, and to give us an assurance that during the lifetime of the present Government those services will not be touched.
The Bow Group's second proposal was that grammar school education was something different from, and something additional to, the ordinary provision of education, and, for that reason, might well be supported by fees. It said:
"Now there is a demand for the grammar school, people may be expected to pay something for it."
That is orthodox conventional Tory philosophy.
On that ground, the Tories have sounded a retreat. When the Minister intervened in the Small Heath by-election; he appeared to be equivocal, but the retreat was sounded later, not on the merits of the case, but because such a proposal would be electorally disastrous. It has been only a tactical retreat. In the spring issue of Crossbow, we find the proposal put forward in an alternative form. The proposal is to extend direct grant schools and in that way to provide for fees. I quote again:
"Clearly, it would be perfectly possible to multiply the number of these schools if you could persuade local education authorities to allow some of the best"—

893
I emphasise "best"—
"grammar schools to become direct grant schools."
I challenge the right hon. Gentleman and offer him the opportunity of this debate to deny that any such steps will be taken during the lifetime of the present Government.
It was after those two proposals that the Tory intellectuals suggested that we should provide for fees in our secondary and primary schools. They made the interesting reservation that it would be important not to create too direct a disincentive to having children, which would weigh closely on the birthrate. Having seen what the Tories have done to the National Health Service, we are at risk with the education service when hon. Gentlemen opposite are confronted with the unavoidable necessity of finding finance for an expanding service.
If we seek to test the sincerity of the Government in pursuing what are common objectives, we have to pay attention not only to finance, but to the supply of teachers. We can have as many White Papers as the right hon. Gentleman cares to produce, or as many committees as he cares to appoint, but we will not get a sufficient expansion of education unless we get a sufficient number of teachers. Behind all the right hon. Gentleman's flamboyancy, there is a crisis of teacher supply. I shall not press the right hon. Gentleman about the present deadlock in the Burnham Committee, but generalities about the improving status of teachers will not succeed in attracting sufficient teachers. We have substantially to increase their pay if we are to get the numbers we want. That will cost money and that money will have to be provided by the Exchequer.
That is one of the difficulties that the right hon. Gentleman faces, when his back benchers are moaning the whole time about public expenditure. Another difficulty which faces the right hon. Gentleman is that obviously, when one is to tackle a problem such as teacher supply, one has to resort to some measure of long-term planning. Again, I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's difficulty. These are dirty words in the Tory vocabulary. It is for these reasons that very little has been done, certainly nothing done in time, and nothing, in fact. clone for the right reasons.
894
In November last, when we debated education on the Address, the right hon. Gentleman asked himself why nothing had been done earlier. He graciously said to himself, "That is a fair question to ask." Then he gave what I thought was a rather stupid reply. He said that the reason was that more candidates of the right quality were not to be found. That was not only stupid; it was untrue. The right hon. Gentleman should apologise to himself for the reply that he gave to himself.
The right hon. Gentleman had every right to ask himself that question, because he had been in office twice and he was in office at the critical time. There was a time when there were large numbers of students knocking on the doors of the training colleges. So clamant was the demand to get into the training colleges that this was raised in the House of Commons and with the Prime Minister.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) begged the right hon. Gentleman to increase training college accommodation, and the right hon. Gentleman refused, for all the usual Departmental reasons. As late as July, 1956, the right hon. Gentleman told the House that
"It is now too late to build any more training colleges. They would come into service only in 1958 and their first students to enter the schools would pass out of those colleges only in 1960, by which date the school population will he declining. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th July, 1956; Vol. 557, c. 445.]
So, in a very particular sense, the right hon. Gentleman cannot escape responsibility for the position with which we are now faced.
I know that he will be briefed to again ask himself and us questions. I know that he will ask: how was he possibly to forecast the increase in the birthrate? How was he to forecast the increase in the wastage rate of teachers? I know that he will say this, because he has said it before, but I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that these are rather dangerous things to say.
If the right hon. Gentleman had been right and not wrong in his calculations, and if we had trained more teachers, those teachers would have contributed and done no more than contribute to reducing the oversize classes in our schools. I regard the confession of the right hon. Gentleman as another mark

895
of absence of sincerity, because if the Government had really been sincere in their endeavours to reduce the size of the classes, that was their opportunity. I would certainly concede to the right hon. Gentleman—I have some sympathy with him—the difficulty of forecasting that position, indeed of forecasting anything. Many of us have just received from the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee a paper on Research in Education. At a time of a national expenditure of £800 million we are told that the decisions taken on the spending of this money, and the decisions taken on estimates of future need are no more than "informed guesswork".
On this occasion, the right hon. Gentleman, so advised, guessed wrong. We are told that against the background of expenditure of £800 million a year that the expenditure by Great Britain on empirical research into education is £125,000 a year. It is quite fantastic that we should have such an unscientific and unscholarly approach to the problems of education itself.
To return to the cardinal question of teacher supply, I would say that, quite apart from these massive miscalculations, when the Minister was previously in office he worked on an estimate of the rate of growth of the teaching establishment. It was an estimate which went until 1960. We reach 1960 several thousand short of the estimate. On top of that we are facing a year of intermission. We have, very properly—this was first recommended as long ago as 1919—extended the course of the training colleges from two to three years. This means that in 1962, next year, we shall have a loss in the intake of teachers of 10,000. Even if we disregard the miscalculations, which I will come to in a moment, the right hon. Gentleman will be facing further real difficulties. But, in reality, the position is worse than this.
I have been trying hard during the past few weeks to discover what is the position. I gather that the right hon. Gentleman's figure of recruitment for the latest available twelve months' period is 27,000 teachers. I have been trying to examine that figure, and the more details I get, the more misleading the position. I have now the breakdown of the figures. I find that within the figure of 27,000 there are 3,000 who are described as tem-
896
porary teachers, that is unqualified, untrained people, who have been recruited into our schools over the past twelve months. Presumably these consist largely of pupils who failed to get into training colleges and have been allowed to stay on and teach.
This is a sorry reflection upon the state to which education has been reduced. To estimate the question of teacher supply properly we must take this 3,000 from the strength of the teaching establishment. The alarming fact is that within the figure of 27,000 no fewer than 8,000 untrained teachers are coming into the profession each year. I am trying to go beyond the figures, and to check them against the figures relating to teachers' superannuation. I realise that this is an operation which must be carried out with the greatest reserve, and I am greatly obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for writing to me before the debate and explaining some of the difficulties.
In his letter he says:
"We do not normally attempt to keep figures of the teachers who join the teachers' superannuation scheme: teaching is such an 'in and out' profession."
I can think of no more serious reflection. The right hon. Gentleman now recognises that teaching is an in and out profession. That is a sorry commentary on what has happened to teaching.
In his letter the Minister further states—and this is a qualification in respect of the figures he has given—that the figures which I had obtained about teachers joining superannuation
"take no account of teachers employed for very short periods …"
In other words, we cannot make a comparison because the figure of 27,000 includes teachers who are engaged for a very short period.
Mr. J. C. Jennings: Have these figures been broken down in respect of men and women?
Mr. Willey: The in and out figure is an explanation by the right hon. Gentleman of the difficulty of marrying the figures for teacher supply which I obtained the other day and those which have been obtained under the umbrella of the teachers' superannuation scheme.
Mr. Jennings: If we were to break these figures down into the categories of

897
men and women it would probably be found that the in and out figures would relate predominantly to women who married and left the profession and presumably, at some future date, may come back to it.
Mr. Willey: Obviously, that is one explanation for this being an in and out profession. But what concerns me is that the right hon. Gentleman should describe it as such.
Even if we approach this matter without paying attention to the miscalculations we can see that we are confronted with a difficult position in getting sufficient teachers for our education services. But we know that the position is a thousand times worse. There have been two massive miscalculations. The first concerns the wastage of teachers. That is an inelegant term, largely meant to refer to marriage and maternity.
I recently obtained from the Minister the figure for wastage in the last twelve months, and I was told that we lost no less than 22,000 teachers in that period. That is serious enough, but I am sure that the Minister will agree that more serious even than that is the fact that the wastage of teachers has increased by 4,000 in the last few years.
This is a serious aggravation of a serious problem, and as far as I can see the position will become worse. In the near future not only shall we have these losses among the new entrants, but we shall also have substantially heavier losses among the teachers who retire, because many of those who joined the profession during what the Crowther Report describes as the golden years are now reaching the age of retirement.
This is an aggravation of a serious problem which now confronts the right hon. Gentleman. It is made worse by the fact that whereas the right hon. Gentleman has anticipated a decline in the birthrate—and I have said that he has been unnecessarily complacent in his anticipation—we have the second bulge, to use another inelegant term, coming into the schools. Last year, the right hon. Gentleman estimated that there would be an increase of 351,000 children in our schools by 1970. I do not know the right hon. Gentleman's latest estimate; all I know is that he has revised his estimate and that his new one is appreciably greater. Some
898
authorities put the increase as high as 600,000.
Against this enormous problem, and these massive miscalculations, no one in the Committee can accept the present steps which the right hon. Gentleman is taking as adequate. Against these demands, the eventual increase of 4,000 coming from the training colleges will be quite inadequate. Against these new factors what the right hon. Gentleman hopes to glean from graduates will be quite inadequate. If he is serious about attracting graduates to the teaching profession, when will he make his statement about teacher-training?
Taking into account the fact that married women do return to the profession, and appreciating the steps that have been taken, the numbers involved are quite out of phase with immediate demands. Unless this overriding problem is tackled the education of the new generation coming into the schools will be irrevocably impaired.
What chance have we, against this background, of carrying out the improvements which are desperately needed? The other day I asked the right hon. Gentleman about the number of teachers required if primary classes were to be reduced below 40 pupils per class by 1970. He told me that 25,000 would be required. The Ministry also estimates that to eliminate oversized secondary classes will require an extra 48,000 teachers. For those reasons alone we require 73,000 additional teachers.
The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to add a qualification. He said that new calculations are now in progress, and that these suggest that the provisional total will need to be revised upwards by between 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. According to the Crowther Report, if we are to implement its recommendation to increase the school-leaving age we shall need between 15,600 and 21,300 additional teachers. More alarming still, if we disregard the Crowther recommendations and adhere to the present plan, whereby children stay on at school regardless of the school-leaving age, we shall still need 14,000 additional teachers by 1970.
On top of this we have the right hon. Gentleman's immediate objectives concerning technical education, further education and special schools. All these proposals demand teachers; in fact, all

899
these proposals will be so much waste paper unless the Government are prepared to revise their present plans and take the necessary steps to obtain additional teachers.
The shortage of the supply of teachers is aggravated by geographical differences. Some parts of the country are far worse off than others. Many directors of education are seriously perturbed and worried, and are taking emergency steps to try to attract sufficient teachers merely to make do. This will disturb the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) as much as it does me. There is an additional distinction between the North and the South. From the right hon. Gentleman's statistics it is plain that we can draw a line across Britain, with the position in the South and in Wales being far better than that in the Midlands and the North.
A child has a far better chance of getting a good education in the South and in Wales than in the Midlands or the North. I am certain that this is occasioned largely by teacher supply. It is not only a question of numbers. It is also a question of quality. As long as there is a shortage of supply, teachers will not be prevented from seeking employment in London and what are regarded as the more attractive parts of Britain. It is not only aggravated in the geographical sense to the prejudice of the North and the Midlands. It is aggravated in the sense that there are particular shortages in the profession as a whole. These shortages are very much to the detriment of those now being educated.
All the shortages were highlighted by the Crowther Report. They still persist. Hundreds of workshops, some of them new, are still empty for the want of teachers. The right hon. Gentleman has forborne our persistence on the shortage of mathematics and science teachers, but at the end of the day he has admitted that the position is not specifically better than it was three years ago. That means in plain English that it is no better than it was three years ago. What does he mean to do about it now? A conference is to be held in September, but these years have been wasted. We cannot go on wasting precious time and material. By "material" I mean the children in the schools.
900
I was horrified at the complacency the right hon. Gentleman displayed in last week's debate on science. I was horrified by the almost flippant way in which he referred to Dr. Crank. He did not reveal that it was Dr. Crank who said:
"We are faced with a crisis, which, if not resolved, could have catastrophic consequences for the nation."
Professor Thwaites said that in mathematics teaching we may already have passed the point of no return. Against a background like this the right hon. Gentleman comes to the House of Commons and airs his complacency.
What is lacking more than anything else in education is a sense of urgency. No one would accuse the right hon. Gentleman of being guilty of leadership, but we want drive and vigour here. We want more than an eloquent soporific. I am not complaining that nothing is being done. I am complaining that not sufficient is being done to meet the demands of the times in which we live. We cannot help but be prejudiced in education, as we have been prejudiced in every other field, by the myth that we have never had it so good.
The right hon. Gentleman has gone up and down the country creating the impression that in education we have never had it so good. A close study of the problems reveals that all that has happened is that the weight of the school population has forced the Government to take action. When it has relaxed, Government action has relaxed also. No attention has been paid to the urgent overriding needs of the individual child and, through the child, of the nation.
I will conclude with a few illustrations. The Government have a programme to expand our universities by the early 1970s. This will provide for only 4 per cent. of those now going to school to go to universities. This is less than the percentage of young people attending university today. The Minister himself told us that we had the lowest proportion of young people attending universities of any highly developed country in the world. After we have expanded our universities in this way, the proportion of people attending universities in this country will be only one-fifth of the proportion attending universities in the United States and less than one-half those attending universities in France and Russia.

901
I advise the Minister not to be flamboyant, but to pay heed to what Sir Geoffrey Crowther said. Speaking of the programme for university expansion, he said this:
"Looking forward as best we can to the society of the twenty-first century, to its economy, and, above all, to its technology, can we conceive that it will be adequately run by a generation of whom only 1 in 25 will have reached even a first degree? Is not this in fact a formula for national decline?"
Turning from our universities to technical education, we have another White Paper before we have met the targets of the first White Paper. I do not complain of that, because today we have to run very hard to stand still. I appreciate the Minister's difficulties, but we cannot afford to be complacent about this, as the right hon. Gentleman was last week when we debated science. The United States has two to three times as many highly trained technologists as we have. Russia has more than five times as many. I am not dealing with absolute comparisons. This is per head of the population. It is not only Russia and America, but France. Germany, Sweden, Switzerland and other of our competitors.
I was rather complacent when I spoke about standing still. We are not even standing still, because the pace of advance over the past few years and the steps being taken to meet the needs of the next few years mean that we are being further jeopardised in comparison with the United States and Russia. Again, it is not only these two great countries. We are being jeopardised also by our other competitors—France, Sweden and other industrial countries. I emphasise that this is not only a matter of technology and technicians. This applies to the professions.
People are entering our professions much less mature and well educated than many other comparable countries. It applies also to commerce and to management. In last week's debate on shipping and ship-building I mentioned that one of the disturbing things was the D.S.I.R. Report's revelations about lack of research into management in the shipbuilding industry. In none of these fields are we doing enough.
I found perhaps the most revealing figures when I recently asked the right hon. Gentleman a couple of Questions about grammar schools. I had always
902
understood that the Minister was the champion of our grammar schools. This is what I found. In 1959, 5,000 fewer children were admitted to grammar schools than in the previous year. Last year, 17,000 fewer children were admitted. It is estimated that this year 22,000 fewer children will have gone to grammar schools. The Minister estimates that next year it will be 27,000.
Mr. R. P. Hornby: Can the hon. Gentleman state that in percentages of the number of people becoming of secondary school age?
Mr. Willey: The total figures were given in the Answer. The figure for 1958 was 147,000. These are substantial proportions. The hon. Gentleman can work out for himself what 27,000 is as a proportion of 147,000. It is an appreciable reduction in the number of children attending grammar schools. It means that over this four-year period 70,000 fewer children will have gone to grammar schools. It is fantastic.
I know the explanation. I was so amazed by the figures that I followed it up with another Question. The Minister pointed out that, by and large, the authorities are taking the same proportion of the age groups. As the number in the age groups has fallen, the numbers going to grammar schools have fallen, also. He asked me, a little nettled, was I not aware that there were 11,000 oversized classes last January in grammar schools? I was aware of it. I regard that as a cardinal indictment of our present educational policy. We cannot afford to permit it to continue.
But I am aware that there were also 11,000 oversized classes in our grammar schools the year before. I am aware, too, that if we are in earnest in tackling our educational problems we cannot say that we are satisfied if we achieve a better teacher-pupil ration in our grammar schools by reducing the number of boys and girls going there. We must get more teachers into the grammar schools. Unless we do that, the years are wasted.
I have been talking about teacher supply. How many of these 70,000 children might have been potential teachers? This is the vicious circle which we must break in education. This is the heart of the problem.

903
We are back where I began—that the essential problem in education is that of providing the money which is necessary to expand the educational service and of spending that money in seeing that we have a sufficient number of teachers to ensure that our children are educated as well as children are being educated in other countries.
I know that the Minister will entertain us with some of the achievements in education. He will speak with justifiable pride of some of the skirmishes which he is winning. I do not blame him for that. But we are concerned with the course of the battle, whether we shall emerge as a sufficiently well-educated country and whether we shall make sufficient use of the wealth of our people—this is the overriding problem,—or whether, as Sir Geoffrey Crowther said, through failure we shall slide into a national decline. I believe that we have to underwrite bold educational programmes with a sufficiency of teachers and a sufficiency of resources to back the supply of teachers. The right hon. Gentleman some time ago, speaking of technical education, said—as though it were an adequate excuse—that it was a pity that we awoke very late. I am afraid that if we do not take immediate action we may awake too late.
4.23 p.m.
The Minister of Education (Sir David Eccles): I want to begin with an apology. I am very sorry that the Ministry's Annual Report is not in the hands of hon. Members. All my efforts to bring it out before next week were unavailing. That is all the more regrettable because it contains a major section on teacher training and supply which I am sure, having listened to the interesting speech of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), would have been of great value to the debate.
These education debates always present Front Bench speakers with a difficult choice. The subject is too wide to cover in one speech. Today, the Parliamentary Secretary, who will answer points raised in the debate, hopes to deal in some detail with teacher supply, the building programme and special schools. I have selected the Youth Service and three points dealing with the secondary schools he structure of secondary edu-
904
cation, the Beloe Report, and discipline and behaviour in these schools. However, in his interesting speech the hon. Member referred to teacher supply and to the finance of education in such a way that I should say one or two words on those subjects before I come to what I had in mind.
The hon. Member observed, quite rightly, that we are again in the process of modifying our estimates of teacher requirements. It cannot be otherwise. I know of no way in which, by educational research, we can forecast the birthrate. I know of no way in which, by research and surveys, we can forecast haw many young women will get married and will wish to leave the schools. In 1955, when I was in this office before, we were given the estimate, from the right quarters, that ten years later, in 1965, there would be 6 million children in school. We know now that there will be 7 million. It may be said that we ought to have forecast the upsurge in the population more accurately, but I do not know how it could be done.
At the moment, it is true, I am provisionally advised to increase that estimate of 73,000 teachers, required to get rid of all oversized classes, to a figure nearer 80,000. I expect that the hon. Gentleman will be only too pleased to hear me say this. But I expect that this estimate, in its turn, will prove wrong. The birthrate can surprise us again. The rate of wastage can change. The campaign to persuade women to return to teaching will continue, with what results I cannot tell. It is safe to say that, in any case, we are likely to need more rather than fewer teachers, and, therefore, it is certainly right to have another look at the prospects of supply.
Quite apart from the economic difficulties which face the nation, I cannot see how, in the immediate future, we can go faster in the programme of expanding the training colleges than we are going today. It must be well known to many hon. Members, from their constituencies, that this programme, particularly the planning part of it, is putting great strain an local authorities and perhaps even more on the Churches. We shall press on, and in the meantime we shall get the Robbins Report. Hon. Members will see how important it is

905
to look at the total provision of training places for teachers. Let us see the universities and training colleges together. On the basis of the recommendations of the Robbins Report I am certain that some big fresh decisions will have to be taken.
I fully accept that we are short of certain specialist teachers. The Parliamentary Secretary will give the Committee some very interesting figures showing how the supply of those teachers from the training colleges has been improving and will further improve. Our great difficulty is the supply of graduates. We are doing all that we can to impress on universities the need for more graduates in mathematics and science, but nothing spectacular can happen until the number of university places has been substantially increased, and for that we shall have to wait a little while.
The hon. Member also raised the question of educational finance. As he said, the present policies will cost more—a great deal more—year by year. Is the country willing to pay the bill? I think that it is, provided that we can always show that we are getting value for money and that we are choosing our priorities wisely. In one way or another we are all rate-payers and taxpayers, so the argument is about the means and not the end—from which pocket should the money come?
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North forecast that the rates could not support this burden. I do not know. The finances of local government are outside my Department, but it is of great importance to us whether or not local authorities continue to administer the service with as great a sense of responsibility as they do today. Most hon. Members will agree that they should, and that for this good reason the rates must continue to bear a substantial proportion of the cost. That proportion today is about 45 per cent., which may be thought too much or too little. That can be argued about, and as expenditure rises we shall hear more of that argument. But let us hope that no changes will be advocated which could have the effect of weakening the electorate's support for education in general.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North, mentioned the Bow Group. I asked the members of that Group to
906
invite me to talk about education after I had read their views. At a well-attended meeting I took them to task and told them, on the subject of milk, meals and fees, that I thought they were wrong.
Having spent a few minutes on these points which the hon. Member for Sunderland, North raised, I will refer briefly to the Youth Service. It took some time to change the atmosphere and to get expansion going after the publication of the Albemarle Report. At first, I was disappointed at how slowly new projects came forward, but now there is a big increase in activity. The Youth Service Development Council very much hope that soon every area in the country will have, in good working order, machinery for consultation and joint action between the local education authorities and the voluntary bodies. We hope, too, that the number of part-time workers—both paid and voluntary—will increase to match the growing demands for their services. There is now a great fund of good will towards the Youth Service and I take this opportunity of thanking the many hon. Members who are helping us to make progress in this work, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers).
Now I come to secondary schools. The organisation of secondary education has often been a subject of debate in Parliament. The Committee may think it right to ask whether the policy the Government have been pursuing for ten years now needs to be changed in any fundamental way. I happened to be thinking about this a couple of Sundays ago, when I heard a snatch of the weekly B.B.C. programme on gardening. The questioner was very worried about a lilac tree that had grown in most unexpected ways.
What was he to do about it? There was quite a pause and then a countryman's voice said, "I should leave it alone." I hope to show that this is the right answer to give about the structure of secondary schools, now growing in many unexpected ways. This growth has had to be much greater than could be foreseen in 1944. One of the major reforms envisaged in the Education Act was the transfer of pupils over 11 in all-age schools to separate secondary schools.
There were, at that time, nearly 400,000 pupils in unreorganised primary schools

907
and 1,300,000 pupils in secondary schools. Now the 400,000 has been brought down to 100,000—but the 1,300,000 has grown to 2,800,000. To accommodate the additional 1½ million we have built 2,000 new secondary schools, and when the present five-year reorganisation programme is completed, all children in England and Wales over 11 will have a place in a secondary school.
Fifteen years ago no one supposed that it would take so long to reorganise the all-age schools, because no one realised how great the expansion in total numbers would have to be. There has been time for second thoughts about the tripartite system. Often Ministers have been pressed to intervene and insist that the local education authorities should build a uniform structure according to this or that theory. But the gist of their reply has been, "I should leave it alone".
The policy has been to allow local education authorities freedom to experiment, subject to the Minister being satisfied that the educational needs of the children come first. For instance, many comprehensive and bilateral schools have been authorised, but we have airways insisted that no good grammar school should be destroyed for the sake of establishing a new school of another kind. We have also insisted that where a child is qualified for a grammar school place he should not be compelled to go to a comprehensive school merely to suit an educational or social doctrine.
This is still our policy and we shall adhere to these conditions. Nevertheless, the comprehensive experiment is having a good run. Some of these schools are doing well, but we have enough experience now to know that the large comprehensive school puts an exceptional strain on the teachers. The more time that teachers have to give to organisation the less they have for teaching. This is an extra burden with unwelcome consequences.
While these schools are few in number and the apple of the eye of the local education authority concerned, naturally they are given the best possible staff, and help. I have no quarrel with that. But I doubt whether enough head teachers and senor staff with the capacity and
908
resilience to stand up to the strain of very large schools could be found if such schools were the rule and not the exception. It would certainly be an uneconomic way of using our teachers and one wonders whether the tradition of leaving the head teacher to make the school in his or her image would not have to give way to an imposed pattern of organisation. A proposal to reorganise the whole maintained system on comprehensive lines raises much wider problems and nobody has yet explained what this would involve for the existing schools.
If parents then had a choice at all it would have to be between comprehensive schools. What would have become of the denominational schools? What would have happened to all the grammar schools, whose tradition of service brings such intangible benefits to pupil and teacher alike? I should be surprised, knowing as we do the strength of feeling on this issue, if any House of Commons in our generation would accept the restrictions on parents' choice which would follow the destruction of the grammar schools. Surely we ought rather to look forward to the time when, all the unsatisfactory secondary school buildings having been replaced, we can make parents' choice even wider than today. This is the objective for which we on this side of the Committee are working.
We can claim that real progress towards this goal is being made. As the years pass since the Act came into force the secondary modern schools are developing their own personalities. Probably every hon. Member can think of at least one secondary modern school in his constituency which is doing really well and winning the affection and respect of the neighbourhood. I can tell the Committee that the number of such schools grows all the time in England and Wales. Every modern school that achieves this distinction is one more proof that there is no need to sacrifice education to a doctrinaire social policy.
We have still got a long way to go in the secondary schools. Some of them are still struggling with severe teething troubles, and there is a good deal yet to learn about what to teach children of such varying ability. The Central Advisory Council for Education in England, under its new chairman, Mr. John Newson—who has taken the place of Lord Amory, who I regret very

909
much has had to resign—is now studying this very problem and, with its help, we can confidently look forward to a good deal more variety and advance in the tops of our secondary modern schools.
Anyway, if one judges by two severe tests: first, the feeling about the 11-plus, which is strikingly less than it was say five years ago—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and, secondly, the number of children over 15 staying on in secondary modern schools, it is impossible to deny that the secondary modern schools are coming into their own. "Coming into their own" is the central problem for most of those children who are not on the route to the university or equivalent higher education. This is the challenge of the 1960s: how are we to make all secondary schools such lively and vigorous places that the average child looks forward to further education as eagerly as boys and girls who have their eyes on the university?
That leads me to the practical question of haw to strengthen the links between the secondary schools and the technical schools so that they will be as strong as the links which have persisted for so long between grammar school sixth forms and universities. Her Majesty's inspectors are now making a very wide survey of this problem. They are collecting information from the whole country and they are making intensive studies in eleven areas in England and Wales. We can already see that many schools and colleges are working well together and that in most areas some sensible measures have been put in hand which it will pay us to make known to all local education authorities.
Her Majesty's inspectors are also finding that the grammar schools have not normally as good connections with the technical colleges as the secondary moderns. This is a gap which must be filled, because in the 1960s it is most important that many more grammar school children should go to a technical college just as a few—I hope increasing in number—secondary modern children will find their way to a university.
In the context of the secondary moderns, I must say something about examinations below G.C.E. level. The Committee will know that strong and deep feelings are aroused on this subject, on which the public discussion
910
has been unusually intense and widespread. I have now to make a decision which will leave its mark on the education of millions of boys and girls who will not be up to the G.C.E. I will try to put the arguments as concisely as I can for both sides.
The Secondary School Examinations Council, in its Fourth Report, published on the 7th of this month, put to me its considered proposals. It wants a new school-leaving certificate below the G.C.E. level.which it would call the C.S.E.—the Certificate of Secondary Education. It would be designed for pupils who completed at least five years secondary education, but were not able to tackle "O" level G.C.E. The Council proposes that the examinations for C.S.E. should be "subject" examinations, organised on a regional basis largely under the control of teachers, but centrally supervised, and that they should be run by examining bodies recognised by me on the advice of the Council; and, lastly, the Council wants special provision for research into examination techniques.
The Council's main arguments for this scheme are as follows. It says that the demand for these examinations from teachers and parents, from technical colleges and from employers, is very widespread indeed; that the great majority of the teachers' and local authority associations also support these examinations, believing that they provide a stimulus to the schools and an encouragement to the abler pupils to stay on a fifth year. At present, it is said, the demand for an examination of this kind is largely being met by independent bodies some of whose examinations are of indifferent quality and are doing harm to the teaching in the schools.
In the other cases the Council says that children are being put in for the G.C.E. when they are not really up to it. The Council concludes that what is going on now is unsatisfactory and that if I leave it alone it is bound to get worse. The Council wants me to step in and, with its help, to see that the examinations for this very large group of children are rationalised and centrally supervised.
These are cogent arguments, but there is another side. Some of our best teachers do not believe that new examinations will help their work. They see

911
the danger of an examination-ridden country, with all the children labelled. They fear that they will become less free to teach children below the G.C.E. standard in the ways they think best. They are confident that their pupils will work well without the carrot of an external examination, and they are afraid that the less able children who cannot tackle a certificate of the G.C.E. type would have a sense of double failure.
Further, they doubt whether their pupils' most important qualities can be effectively measured by examinations. They ask, "How can you examine common sense, kindness, perseverance and industry?"—qualities they seek to develop in all children. They conclude that the proposed new examination will put too great a premium on too small a proof of ability.
I have been much moved by the ideas and the faith behind these criticisms, but, however valid they are, they must apply to all external examinations. The worse the examinations, the more strongly they apply, and we cannot escape the situation that exists. As the Council point out, we already have examination at this level in a large and growing number. This, then, is the choice: either I must veto the lot, which would be exceedingly controversial and difficult to explain, or I must try to improve what is going on now. I have reluctantly decided to do the latter.
This will not be easy. For one thing, very little is known about examining at a level below G.C.E. Experts in this field are very few and far between. So, acting on the advice of the Council, I shall set up inside my Department a research and development group to go into the problem in the fullest detail. I shall ask the Council itself to work out how the general principles of such examinations can be applied. On this aspect, I have some reservations about the recommendations so far put to me. I doubt the wisdom of setting up at once a network of regional bodies to cover the whole country.
I think that we should reconsider the advantages of making a pass in one or two basic subjects, say, English or mathematics, a condition of obtaining a certificate. I hone that particular attention will be paid to the views of those teachers and local authorities who fear
912
that the scheme will cramp their freedom. There is, I am sure, more room for internal examinations externally assessed. I shall have to insist on flexibility and experiment.
Dr. Lockwood and I will have to discuss how to strengthen the Council to take on this big new task. I pay a warm tribute to him, to the Council, and to the Committee presided over by Mr. Beloe. They have investigated this very difficult problem with much care and insight. As I said earlier, what we shall now do will leave its mark on the schools for years to come.
Hon. Members will agree that examinations cannot measure all we want our children to learn in school. Many people—an increasing number, I believe—are anxious about the conduct and behaviour of boys and girls of school age. This I can say: the great majority of British school children are behaving well, and Her Majesty's inspectors tell me that never in their experience has discipline in the primary schools been better than it is today. The same cannot be said of a small minority of teenagers attending the secondary schools.
The figures for juvenile delinquency grow every year. The peak is reached among the 14-year-olds, that is to say, in the last year of compulsory school attendance. These are very distressing facts. We cannot ignore them. Searching questions are now being asked with greater frequency about what is done or left undone in the schools to combat this wave of juvenile crime. Am I sure that slack discipline is not a contributory factor? Would firmer handling produce better behaviour in and out of school?
The old tradition was to leave the head teacher a free hand in the choice of methods of discipline. For many years now, local education authorities and the governors of some schools have set limits to punishment, especially corporal punishment. In my view limitations of this kind should leave the teachers wide discretion. It is quite another thing to order a teacher to use a form of punishment in which he or she does not believe. That would never work. I could not recommend such instructions to local authorities.
I hope it is common ground between us that the teacher who deals reasonably but firmly with a pupil ought to be supported by the general public. We all

913
have an interest in discipline, and we should remember the difficulties under which the head teachers in the maintained schools are now working. They cannot expel, or threaten to expel, pupils who may be doing harm to the whole school. They have to deal with boys and girls staying on in greater numbers after 15 who are more mature than their parents were at their age, who have much more pocket money, and who have, in consequence, more temptations.
What makes discipline today particularly difficult is that the teachers themselves are subject to the standards of the age in which we live, an age in which it is widely believed that a decline in Christian morality is a fact and is a main cause of the growth of irresponsible behaviour, especially among the young. So it is not surprising that I am frequently asked what, if anything, the teachers are doing to remedy the uncertainly of moral issues and the absence of faith in many homes.
For example, what are the values that the teachers are trying to hand on, and how seriously is religious instruction taken in the schools? These are questions often asked and seldom answered. But they go to the root of our present discontents. If we concern ourselves solely with vocational education, then, vital as science, technology and foreign languages are to the economy of the nation, we shall be like men who build a great ship and forget the compass and the steering gear.
Is there any comfort to be given to those who are anxious about discipline and behaviour in the schools? The Committee can be sure of one all-important fact. Every head teacher in the country wants the pupils in his or her school to behave well, to prefer honesty to dishonesty, truth to lies; and, what is more, they know that the great object of education is to teach children not to be neutral on moral issues, but to take sides, to distinguish beauty from ugliness and good from evil.
But we ought to recognise that in the schools today there are reasons why it is difficult to do this. The past twenty or thirty years have been years of disillusion, of war, of dishonest propaganda, and we all share, every one of us, in the responsibility for the uncertainties and the relaxed standards we see around us.
914
This is why thoughtful men and women are turning to the schools, feeling that the schools ought to come to the rescue of the child in whose home there is no religion and much downright bad behaviour. These people know very well that the home is the foundation of character, and yet they are now asking, indeed expecting, the schools to do more than ever before for the children in their care.
I wish that it was better appreciated just how tough this demand is on the schools, and how remarkable it is to be able to tell the Committee with some confidence that many—a growing number—of the maintained schools are quietly leading children back to the belief that the riches of nature and the benefits of science are not theirs by right, but things for which they should thank someone else.
If, as I believe, hon. Members want the teachers to make good conduct the centre of education, they will then wish to know how seriously religious and moral instruction is given in the schools. The denominational schools are committed in this respect, and much fine work is done by their teachers. In the undenominational schools, where a head teacher is sympathetic and there is a good specialist teacher in divinity on the staff, these two, between them, can usually organise a team of colleagues who will make religious instruction a living subject. An atmosphere is then created in which it becomes easier to have serious discussion of moral issues.
In the teacher training colleges, the great majority of students take courses which include religious instruction, though not necessarily at the specialist level. All students take a course in the principles of education, which by their nature are concerned with questions of morals and discipline. All students therefore have a chance to hear about and discuss the relationship of psychology to discipline and of both to ethics and religion.
This is, by definition, true of the colleges provided by the Churches, but I believe that the Committee will be interested to hear that it is also true of local authority colleges, to which the students themselves may come committed to a Church, or indifferent or hostile to religion. None the less, these local authority colleges are not shirking

915
their responsibilities, and, with possibly a few exceptions, one can say that moral and religious issues are arousing greater interest among students in training than for many years past.
The position is different for a graduate who goes direct to teaching from a university. The universities have no formal responsibility to teach him anything about discipline, morals or religion. He may or may not be interested in those subjects. If he takes a year's course in a university department of education, his study of the principles of education will confront him with moral issues, but, unless divinity is his special subject, he may well not choose to take any course in religious instruction. How serious that problem is and what should be done about it is outside my responsibility. It is a matter for the universities themselves, and I will leave it there.
It is often asked what good can come out of religious instruction if it is given undenominationally, and I very well understand the force of that question. But let us consider the background of a large number of the children in the schools today. Their parents may be decent people, who behave well to each other, keep their promises and help their nighbours, and they do all this because their own parents handed on to them the tradition of Christian morality. But they may not be members of any Church. They are simply living on the capital of those who were. These children see the parents behaving well, but no one tolls them why, and it seems to me that religious instruction can make explicit to these children why such good behaviour is right and why the contrary would be wrong.
Of course, when a child comes from a home where selfishness. dishonesty and unkindness are every day in evidence, moral and religious instruction in school is much harder to make effective. We must accent that, but go on trying. We can only make the journey back to sound morals by small steps, taken with faith and resolution.
The Committee has been good enough to listen to an unfamiliar aspect of education, but it is one which should command more of our attention. Indeed, precisely because, in the national interest, we must now use the educational
916
system to entice and cajole young people to acquire more money-making skills and to undergo vocational training, a corresponding effort is needed to strengthen their moral purpose. I believe that many people outside this House would be glad to see Parliament give a stronger lead in this direction. I do not think that our constituents sent us here to be neutral on issues of public morality. It is often difficult, but surely our real purpose is to identify the great issues of the day. Too frequently we seem to think that it is the first task of the educators today to reconcile the sciences and the arts.
It is not so. Our chief duty is to reconcile both the sciences and the arts with that great fund of wisdom which we have inherited from the Jewish and Christian religions. We are much better informed than our fathers, we make much more powerful machines, we travel faster and we communicate with each other more easily and more quickly, but all that will turn into disaster if we have not learned to use these new powers aright.
I can but repeat my conviction that in this generation, when we have somewhat lost our faith, we must turn to the schools and ask them to accept the challenge, and, enjoying the fullest support of this House, to become the instruments for recovery and renewal.
5.8 p.m.
Mr. Ede: We have listened to a remarkable speech from each of the Front Benches. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) on the devastating analysis he made of that part of the education service to which he directed his main attention.
The Minister, certainly in the closing passages of his speech, put before us a series of observations on matters of the highest importance in language which was a challenge to the Committee, to the religious bodies of the country and to all who are interested in the development of thought among the younger generation on the great issues with which he dealt.
Do not let us think that there was ever a time in this country, during the last 200 or 300 years, when the mass of the people went regularly to church. After all, one has the example of the description of John Wesley of the country in

917
the time in which he lived and of the state of mind and morals of the ordinary working people in his day. His great achievement was to be able to make these people, who were living lives that were almost entirely pagan, believe that there was something in the Christian religion which would make life better and sweeter for them and safer for the community as a whole.
In fact, some of the real history of the country which was written by people who were living in close touch with the great mass of humanity proves that the matters about which we hear today have been pretty constant in the history of the country. After all, there was a time when we thought that education would lead young working-class people into ways of depravity. Let me read to the Committee the following extract from the history of the Borough of Reigate:
"The first Sunday school to be established in Reigate was started in the Congregational Chapel by a Miss Apted and two other enterprising ladies about the year 1803. This unorthodox attempt to educate the children of the working class so alarmed the magistrates that they caused their clerk to write to the ladies 'telling them that the magistrates had discussed the fact that they were teaching reading and writing as well as religious knowledge and the clerk begged to inform these ladies that such proceedings were most dangerous and that the magistrates would not be answerable for the peace of the town if they continued in these ways'."
This egregious epistle, said the local historian, failed to daunt the ladies and the school grew and flourished under their management.
I suppose that a development of that deplorable enterprise was once when the return of two Members to this House of Parliament was contested in a petition. The Tory agent said, "We are not very corrupt. There are forty Whigs and forty Tories out of the ninety electors. You only have to worry about the other ten." I mention that because we want to be quite certain that we must not regard our present age as being the most deplorably wicked in the history of manners in this country. There has always been room for improvement. The House has to accept this.
For the first time under the Act of 1944 we made it compulsory for every school to open with a collective act of worship and to have religious instruction. When the Act of 1870 was passed, Joseph Chamberlain was then, as a Radi-
918
cal and Nonconformist, leading civic affairs in Birmingham. Birmingham adopted the secular system, and it was not until several years afterwards when he had become both less Radical and less Nonconformist that a religious syllabus was introduced into the board schools in Birmingham. But, by and large, those were the exceptions. There were a few Welsh authorities, who took the American view with regard to the relation of religion to the State, who thought that the State ought not to interfere in religion, and they also for a few years had a purely secular system.
I am bound to say that I regret that some of the agreed syllabuses being taught do not seem to me to take a very enlightened and modern view of the place of formal religion in the life of the community. I could wish that some of them were rather more liberal in their outlook in that respect.
It was impossible prior to 1944 for a minister of any denomination to be a teacher in an elementary school. In fact, when I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Board I once had to deal with this amazing problem. There was a teacher who was a lay leader of some obscure Nonconformist denomination in a particular town. When he was called up for military service he said that he was the minister of a church and so claimed exemption. But when it came to wanting to earn his living as a teacher he protested that he was not the minister of an organised denomination.
I know that a number of people who have actually taken orders, not merely Church of England orders but orders of other denominations, are actually on the staffs of grammar schools and other secondary schools, and I can only hope that they will bring to the teaching of this subject the kind of reinforcement that the right hon. Gentleman said had been needed in the past. I see no objection to that. But I implore the House not to believe that either discipline or religious instruction in the schools is such as to merit some of the condemnation that we sometimes hear.
After all, I imagine that most of us in our early youth had to listen to wonderful speeches from our elders which began with the words "When I was a boy." What paragons of virtue they all were. I have lived long enough to hear

919
some of my contemporaries repeating those speeches almost verbatim to their grandchildren. I do not believe that there has been such a deterioration in either manners or morals in the seventy years that have elapsed since I first heard and comprehended that speech to justify its repetition at the present time.
I hope, however, that the Minister's speech, by bringing in the subject, has made us give some attention to the problem of the relationship of the child to the school, which is the first community outside the home into which he enters. It will be mainly his reaction to that community and the influence which it has on him that will determine his attitude to the issues which the Minister has raised.
I believe that every normal child—and in that description I would include a great many children who are now too readily labelled educationally sub-normal—has a desire for two things. The first is recognition of himself or herself as an individual when he or she is in company with other people. A child is not many weeks old when it first asserts that desire, because, when the mother is showing her first offspring to a number of her lady friends and they congratulate her upon the fact that he looks so little like his father that there is some hope that he belongs to the intelligent side of the family and they then, in the same room, have a few cups of tea and forget the child for only a few minutes, it generally immediately makes its presence felt by making such a noise that they are compelled to give it attention. That may be a very primitive form of the desire for individual recognition, but it is there. I believe that the second thing that every normal child has is a desire for a sense of achievement out of its own actions.
I go back to the bad old days in the elementary schools when we had the Scripture lesson first every morning and then arithmetic. During the greater part of my life in an elementary school for the second lesson I had to do four sums. We always knew that the first would be addition, the second subtraction, the third multiplication and the fourth division. In a town which has to be as mathematically alert as Epsom, there were some boys who never got a sum right. They always had a haunting
920
dread that one day they would get one right by mistake. When I think of the punishment which they received every morning far having got four wrong, I can well understand their added dread of the far more terrible punishment which would fall on them if they were accused of the moral turpitude of having cheated in order to get a sum right. Those boys never got a sense of achievement out of their school life except when the school was in a somewhat riotous state and they managed to hurl an inkwell at the teacher and hit him.
The Minister drew attention to the fact that the curious thing about juvenile delinquency was that as the school-leaving age was raised it went up a year each time. When I went to school the leaving age was 10. Now it is 15 and there is a general desire among people, I think, that it should be raised to 16 very shortly. The more we raise the school-leaving age, the more human we have to make the school so that every child can get a sense of achievement out of his work there.
That was one reason why under the Education Act, 1944, we put a new duty on the parent that he should cause his child to receive full-time education suitable to his age, ability and aptitude. I have always believed the last of the three to be the most important. The school must be related to the individual needs of the child. No matter how one might expect to find children very similar in aptitude coming from the same family in which heredity and environment are exactly the same, it is astonishing to discover the differences of aptitude which can be revealed in any one family. The school's duty to the individual child is to watch for such talents as he may possess and to have some arrangement in the school to cater for him, subject to the necessary limitations which there are on the range of knowledge within the staff in any particular school.
I am convinced that it would be quite wrong to add to the sense of failure which now comes from being a few marks short in the 11-plus examination by having too rigid a system of subsequent education in the schools whereby children continue to register a sense of failure in formal education That would be quite disastrous. At the same time, I believe that children in secondary non-grammar schools should be given the opportunity,

921
subject to the opinion of the staff and the wishes of the parent, to be regarded as suitable to take such examinations as those under the Royal Society of Arts and others which are prepared with a more local knowledge of the school so that they can get some sense of achievement.
I congratulate the Minister on having the courage to avoid answering my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North by bringing forward a very pleasant red herring in order to divert attention from the failures to which my hon. Friend pointed. I wish the right hon. Gentleman every success in any effort that he may make to get for the children a more individual approach to their needs in schools. Although it is denied by some psychologists, I am sure that confidence obtained in a certain subject which appeals to a child can give that child confidence in tackling other subjects which present difficulties to him. I hope that greater opportunities will be afforded to teachers, parents and children to spot the particular gift with which the Lord re-endows the earth in the birth of every child who comes into the education system.
I was interested in one thing which the Minister said. Like myself, he deplores what he described as the gap between the grammar school and the technical branches of education. I deplore that anyone should think that any useful education given to a child needs an adjective in front of it to describe a particular social group or category into which a child falls. The right hon. Gentleman does not like the comprehensive school, apparently, because he thinks—what was the wonderful phrase he used?—that it is a doctrinaire social policy. There are two doctrinaire social policies. I hold one, the right hon. Gentleman holds the other. He has given his a brilliant but disappointing run this afternoon. Is there any greater failure than that people whom we "kid" ourselves have the best brains and therefore pass the 11-plus examination and go to grammar school should find at the end of that course a gap, almost unbridgeable for many of them, between the grammar school and what we call technical education?
922
There was a reference in the 1943 White Paper to the position, when we killed the tripartite system. I had not heard of it for a good many years until this afternoon. We drew attention to the fact that the narrow curriculum of the grammar schools of 1944 seemed to many people of high intellectual gifts to lead along a road which was narrow, which followed the ancient paths of learning and which had no place for the children whose gifts were what we now call practical. By that process we denied to the manufacturing and productive sides of national life the possibility of recruitment from the best sources of intellectual activity. Bad as that was in 1943, it is a great deal worse today.
I deplore the fact that we should still think that we can have two kinds of education, one leading to the universities based on the gift of words and a gift for mathematics and another in which people who are supposed to be skilled with their hands and not very strong on thought can get educational satisfaction. I do not believe that mankind is divided into two such divisions, for the craftsman who does not exercise a considerable amount of thought will never be a very useful craftsman and the man of words and figures who thinks that he dwells in some isolated world to which only a few have access will not play his full part in the life of the complex community of today.
Most of the problems which we shall discuss tomorrow and on Tuesday of next week are concerned with the problem that arises through that dual conception of human nature. When we talk about the dollar gap and the balance of payments, we are not really talking about £ s. d., although it is generally in terms of £s that we collate them. We are dealing with a deficiency on the part of this country temporarily to be able to get, to produce and to carry goods to exchange with other countries. On that great problem, we hear from all the people who ought to be expert, like the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others, that it is exports we want.
Exports are the gifts to the economy of creative designers in one form or another who have been able to inspire craftsmen to get, make and carry goods. To think that in some way the education

923
of those people's talents and aptitudes is inferior to the gift of being able to write a Greek epigram is to have a quite false sense of what social values are today.
If it is a fact, as I fear it is, that the Minister of Education is justified in saying that there is a gap between the grammar school and technical education, all I can say is that we may have to have a complete change in social values, but we will never be able to solve our economic problem all the while it is believed that there is this social discrimination between the people who work in the office and the people who work on the floor of the factory or in the fields.
The Prime Minister told us just before the General Election that we are one nation. When I hear of this sharp division into various sorts of education, all I can say is that we are a long way off it yet. May I read to the Committee from J. L. and Barbara Hammond's Town Labourer this statement of the way in which that division began:
"If you turn from the language of the Declaration of the Rights of Man to the language of magistrates' letters"—
of which I have read one to the Committee this afternoon—
"or to the speeches of Pitt and Wilberforce, you realise that the war between England and France, which developed or degenerated into a war for power in Europe, corresponded to a deep and vital spiritual struggle within the nation. At the time when half Europe was intoxicated and the other half terrified by the new magic of the word 'citizen', the English nation was in the hands of men who regarded the idea of citizenship as a challenge to their religion and their civilisation; who deliberately sought to make the inequalities of life the basis of the state, and to emphasise and perpetuate the position of the workpeople as a subject class. Hence it happened that the French Revolution has divided the people of France less than the Industrial Revolution has divided the people of England."
I believe that to be a profoundly true social analysis.
The education of the children of this country must ignore any such outworn conception of the structure of the society of this great country. I sincerely hope that when we hear from someone in reply to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North, we shall be able to get an assurance that the problems that he posed are known to the
924
Ministry and that the Ministry is seeking to solve them.
When I was in America in 1956, I was asked by a gentleman who was interviewing me on the radio what was the cause of the problem that confronted both of our nations—the shortage of teachers. I said, "The problem is solved by simple arithmetic. We are trying to educate the children of the years of highest birth rate by teachers born in the years of the lowest birth rate in the history of our countries. You cannot reduce the size of classes or recruit an adequacy of teachers while those conditions remain."
We are passing out of that condition. In a few years' time, we shall be recruiting from the years of the highest birth rate the teachers to educate the children in years of high birth rate, but not as high as in the years in which the teachers were born. That will be the great opportunity for the Ministry to be able to give us, for the first time in history, schools adequately staffed by teachers adequately trained.
I emphasise the word "adequately" because I am a trained teacher. I have never stood in front of a class who seemed to be anything like the children who were talked about to me when I was in the training college as if the teacher had some form of magic and there would be no trouble at all. But it will still be the duty of the teacher to interest the child in the world around him and in his own development, and to inspire the child with the belief that he or she has a part to play in the world that only he or she can. All the moral and ethical influences that can be brought to bear can do no more than make that thought in the child's mind remain and grow and make him a citizen worthy of the part he will have to play in the distressed world that we shall leave to him in which to carry on that life.
5.40 p.m.
Mr. Philip Holland: I found myself at the beginning of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) in agreement with him when he said that we should not denigrate the modern age and modern youth. I found myself differing from him as he proceeded to denigrate the efforts of my right hon. Friend and

925
the Ministry in what I believe to have been the highly successful implementation of the Education Act, 1944, an implementation which has taken place while the school population has been rising very sharply since the war, and yet it has taken place without its being at any time necessary for us to have a shift system in the use of our buildings in order to accommodate all the children.
If I do not proceed to talk about the many things Which have been achieved and are being achieved, about staffing and buildings, in the main it is because I am well satisfied with what is being done and with what is proposed, and not because I am in any way in agreement with the remarks made by hon. and right hon. Members opposite in their dissatisfaction. I want to confine my remarks to two matters Which give me concern.
The first of what I think are two of the real problems in education today, the first of the two things on which I want to touch today, and which was touched on by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields, is how to provide a liberal education in a society which is demanding ever narrower fields of specialisation. Undoubtedly we are now in an industrial revolution based on atomic energy and the development of automation techniques, and we already feel the increasing pressure of specialisation on the colleges of further education and the later years of grammar school life. The problem is equally arising for another and slightly different reason in pure and applied science as well as in the arts. As the sum total of knowledge of each subject widens, so we tend to sub-divide the subjects, and there is pressure here to limit the number of subjects in the university curriculum and for pupils who aim to continue after leaving school with further full-time education.
This is necessarily a bad thing, because it is by no means enough for an engineer or a scientist to be merely a first-class research worker or craftsman or designer within the bounds of his own specialisation. This point was raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields. To establish himself, and to add something to human life and human knowledge, he must have a facility for the communication of ideas,
926
and not necessarily solely in his own language; he must have flexibility of mind and an imaginative approach to his work unbounded by the limits of his specialisation.
In my view, he needs to be informed in other subjects, such as economics, history, English literature, and current affairs to ensure that his contribution to society can be fitted into the general pattern and to make that contribution most effective. Nor should the arts graduate be overlooked in this context, for a leavening of scientific knowledge is necessary in these days for the archaeologist and the historian. I think it has got to be a two-way thing, and not just for the scientist. I know a difficulty arises when we attempt to provide too many subjects in the curricula on which a liberal education necessarily is based. We need to indulge in a little more pure educational research into the possibilities of liberalising the presentation of the specialist subjects to set them in their proper context without necessarily increasing the number of subjects from the examination point of view.
I believe that the problem is now sufficiently urgent to warrant the setting up of a study group consisting of people involved in industry, commerce, and in the social changes which are taking place in our society, as well as those directly involved in education, to explore these possibilities. I know that, in the last analysis, curricula are the concern of those directly concerned with education, but I think that leading members of other professions may well have pungent views on the demands made on children when they leave school; and those views will be helpful to educationists in their researches.
I am aware, of course, that the Robbins Committee is looking at the whole question of further education, and we hope soon to have its report on this, but it does not seem to me to meet the problem involving curricula and the presentation of subjects to combat the pressure of specialisation already being felt, according to my information at least, as far down the academic scale as the fourth form in grammar schools. I hope that my right hon. Friends will not dismiss this as a gimmick suggestion, for it is intended as a serious proposal to remove the conflict between the demands of a specialist society and the need for a

927
liberal education. I believe that this pressure will intensify over the next few decades. I think the time has come to recognise and to tackle this problem.
Last week I visited the Russian Exhibition at Earls Court. I have got an interesting book on it here. There, I was particularly interested to learn that in the U.S.S.R. they have the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of the Russian Federation which devotes its work to developing the principles of teaching and education, and to studying ways of improving teaching methods. Also in each teacher training base school there is what they call a pedagogical department to carry on experimental work on problems of training and education. I have, of course, no means of knowing how effective those academies or departments are, but it may well be that we want an educational research department at a university or a teachers' training college and that that may be a better answer to our problem than a once-for-all special study group. I am not wedded to any particular solution. I am only gravely concerned about this problem.
The other problem I should like to talk about was raised by my right hon. Friend, and that was the question of discipline in schools. I should like to look at it as a question of what can be done in schools to combat juvenile delinquency, which he mentioned. I think that I am probably in agreement with my right hon. Friend in this, that to make this merely a question of to cane or not to cane is to over-simplify the remedy and to ignore the cause. In any case, I think that the decision—and here I agree with my right hon. Friend—as to the type of punishment which should be administered to any child for any misdemeanour must be left to the teacher on the spot whose responsibility it will be to administer the punishment. I agree with my right hon. Friend that it is not practical to instruct teachers to use a form of punishment in which they do not believe. Equally I think it is wrong to prohibit a teacher from using what he considers to be the right punishment in the circumstances.
As we know, there are, unfortunately, in some local authorities' areas instructions given to teachers as to what punishment they must not inflict. I am told
928
that these are comparatively few in the country as a whole, but, nevertheless, there are some, and till all these kinds of restrictions are removed from the teaching profession I think we shall continue to create the controversy—to my mind, an unnecessary controversy—about the use of the cane or corporal punishment in our schools.
If we leave it in the hands of the teacher during that part of the child's life when the teacher is in loco parentis, if we take it out of the hands of elected representatives, the politicians who, after all, in this aspect axe laymen, I believe that the controversy will very largely disappear. I am arguing neither for nor against the use of the cane. I merely say, "Let us leave it to the teacher and the teaching profession who should be trained to know what is the right sort of punishment for a particular child for committing a particular misdemeanour."
As my right hon. Friend indicated, the peak age for criminal offences by boys and girls under 21 in England and Wales is 14. The significance of that, as the right hon. Member for South Shields has pointed out, is that it is the last compulsory year for education. We must attempt to tackle this problem in the same sort of way as I suggested for tackling the problem of the pressure of specialisation, namely, by looking at the curriculum, in this case of the final compulsory year in a secondary modern school. I use the term "secondary modern" for convenience to include all schools where the school-leaving age is 15. In other words, I include high schools and the secondary modern stream of the comprehensive schools.
We must inject a good deal more realism into that year's studies and relate what is to be taught more closely to the life that awaits the boy and girl on leaving school. The Crowther Report had some useful observations to make on the subject, but unfortunately that part of the Report did not attract as much attention as did the proposal to raise the school-leaving age by a certain date. That is a pity. We must get the study plan for the final year right before we raise the school-leaving age if we are to curb the tendency to rebellious restlessness in the 14-year olds.
The most heartening sign of a progressive advance in this direction that I

929
have seen is the experimental series of programmes inaugurated during the current scholastic year by the B.B.C. Schools Television broadcast team. During the spring term ten programmes were presented on two consecutive days a week for 14-year-old pupils in secondary modern schools under the title "First Years At Work." These programmes showed the sort of work done by young people in their first jobs and the sort of problems they have to meet when starting work for the first time.
These programmes were followed in the current summer term, and completed at the end of June in time before the examinations to begin, by a series called "Your World". This was designed to stimulate discussion among school-leavers so that they could crystallise their ideas about the situations which they might have to face when leaving school and starting work. The first series was divided into four parts dealing with the problem of work, leisure, family relationships—because there are certainly changes in family relationsihips at this time of the child's life—and early marriage. I should like to pay tribute to the B.B.C. for the excellent lead that it has given in this important matter. This year it was in the nature of an experiment, but I understand that it is intended to improve the nature and presentation of the programmes in the light of experience and of opinions received from the teaching world.
I am quite sure that this final year at school could be more profitably used than it is at present to stimulate children's interest in the new life that awaits them when they leave school and to arouse in them an inclination to use their leisure more profitably. More automation and mechanisation will lead to everyone's ideal of shorter hours and better pay, except, of course, in the case of Parliamentarians, because we cannot mechanise our speeches. Undoubtedly this will mean more leisure and earlier retirement, and at the most pessimistic estimate I believe that this will come within the life of children now at school.
This brings me back to my earlier plea for a more liberal education in all grades and types of schools, that is, a more liberal education to develop the imagination not only to enable the individual to see his place in society and to get his own job and his contri-
930
bution in their right context but to enable him to make imaginative use of his leisure and to enjoy his retirement eventually. This reminds me again of the Russian Exhibition at Earls Court and prompts me to say that I do not think that in solving this problem of the final year at the secondary modern school we need to go as far as the Russians did in 1958 when, on 24th December of that year, they passed a law on the establishment of closer links between school and life. Nevertheless. I am sure that this end must be regarded as an urgent objective.
I therefore make two pleas to my right hon. Friend. First, I ask him to encourage the setting up of some form of study group or research department to tackle the problem of marrying specialist requirements with a liberal education. In other words, to engage in pure educational research into the presentation of specialist subjects in grammar schools, universities, and further education colleges. Second—to consider urgently the need to inject a sense of realism into the study course during the last year at secondary modern schools and similar schools for 14-year-olds. I am quite sure that education must not be regarded as merely a means of acquiring the knowledge to earn a living. In the fullest possible sense, it must mean learning for living.
5.56 p.m.
Mr. William Ainsley: I assure the Minister of Education that we on this side of the Committee had no difficulty in selecting the subject of today's debate as one of the subjects to be discussed on one of our Supply Days. We feel that education is the basic problem that we are facing nationally and that this is a subject which will affect all our economic, social and industrial problems not only now but in the years ahead. We therefore regard an education debate as one of the primary and most essential debates from the national point of view that can be held in this Chamber.
I was shocked at the Minister's complacency and evasiveness when he came to face the issues put forward and the challenge made in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate

931
and I do so mainly with one specific object. On 9th May, 1960, we had half a day's debate on primary education. The Minister, in winding up that debate, said:
"The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) referred to the problem of reorganisation in his county. It is about the worst in the whole country. I do not know the reason for that but, if I remember aright, I think the county council has been fairly consistently in the hands of one political party."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th May, 1960; Vol. 623, c. 95.]
The Minister was introducing party politics into a debate on education. We have been told over the years that party politics should be kept out of local government, but the party opposite has been engaging in party politics in local government for centuries, and in that debate the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to admit that party politics do enter into local government. I can assure him that there would have been a debate on that statement of his had not he hastened to add that we were all involved in solving the problem.
Soon after that debate, the Minister received a telegram from Durham County Education Committee, and he agreed to receive a deputation. My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) and I came with that deputation, but many of our friends on it were not aware of the background against which the Minister intended to deal with the problem. However, in a joint statement he came half-way towards us, and admitted that education was a two-way partnership and that he himself was half responsible for the County of Durham. I reminded the right hon. Gentleman then that I would be reporting back to my colleagues. I have waited for one year to reply to the right hon. Gentleman's slanderous statement, which I feel I must remove from my honourable colleagues in Durham, many of whom have served the county for many years.
I was serving on the county education committee even before my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland joined it. Over the years I have brought deputations to see the late Miss Ellen Wilkinson, the late Mr. George Tomlinson, Miss Florence Horsbrugh—as she then was—and also the right hon. Gentleman in his first term as Minister of Education. I have thus met Ministers of Education
932
from both sides of the House, and I can understand why the Minister in the 1951 Conservative Government left County Durham facing problems which are still affecting it today.
Our own educational expenditure was limited in the bad old days because of the public assistance which had to be paid out—and here I pay tribute to the work of the county treasurer, who is second to none. After the beginning of this century, we established twenty-two grammar schools in the county. Early directors of education were art masters, and, although we in Durham were dependent entirely on the mining industry as an outlet for the aptitude and ability of our young people, it was only through the grammar schools' stream that they could find further education, and after receiving it, many left the county. That is why we find Durham men and women in prominent positions not only in this country but in many others. Their success is tribute to a generous education authority in Durham.
In those days, however, the grammar schools were unable to take all those of ability, and thus a trickle of boys and girls who wished to take up even technical education had to find their opportunity in Darlington or Sunderland or Newcastle. Yet it was the Ministry of Education itself which was stopping the development of technical education in the county, despite the changing circumstances of industry, which was demanding more technical education.
I remember meeting the Ministry's regional officer in Newcastle. He was anxious to open a building in South Shields with the aid of students from County Durham. I said, "Not on your life will I sell the birthright of the county any longer." That was why we were able to start technical education, on condition that we gave it a mining bias.
The first college was in Stockton, and I remember Mr. Tomlinson asking the education committee, "Another authority has fallen down on a project. Can you take a second college?" That is why we added Billingham during that same financial year. We built Stockton and Billingham, and although we also built Hebburn, further developments in technical education were in the face of objections from the Ministry.
Immediately after the 1951 General Election, there was a standstill for three

933
months in education and industrial building. The Prime Minister, who was then Minister of Housing and Local Government, carried out his election promise to build 300,000 houses a year, at the expense of schools and other social development. Education building was brought to a standstill for three months to allow him to build houses.
I remember telling Miss Horsbrugh on one occasion that at times she seemed to be no better than Molotov. There was deputation after deputation, leading only to frustration after frustration. The right hon. Gentleman can never claim that we are not anxious to get on with what he will allow us to do. But, as we have entered his office in deputations, we have seen the charts, and he has told us, "This is what I have received from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I must apportion it among local authorities. The money which we had for this financial year has been expended. I am sorry that we cannot help you."
That was the answer to deputation after deputation. Yet last year he turned round and said that the poor rate of progress was because Durham had been ruled by one political party for too long. That, apparently, is the approach of Members opposite. It was never my lot to be in the teaching profession, but I have served in the administration of education for many years. I slept on the 1944 Education Act, and worked almost night and day to bring it to fruition in Durham. The great problems we were facing in Durham were those of mining subsidence and the sterilisation of coal. Coal was gold at that time and the cost of sterilising it would have been prohibitive.
Besides grammar schools we built secondary modern and technical schools. Because of mining subsidence we adopted the campus system. We were faced with the problem of finding suitable building sites, and this sometimes led to a delay of a month or six weeks in submitting our building programmes for approval. Each financial year we submitted 12 or 15 projects in order of priority. On many occasions the Minister altered this list of priorities, and I therefore claim that it was the Minister who was responsible for retarding the school building programme in the County of Durham.
934
The county was second to none in the payment of maintenance allowances, but when we submitted our proposals to the Minister he said, "Your allowances are too generous. You must bring them into line with those paid by other authorities". At one time more teachers were coming from the colleges than we required. The position was such that we took only young students and not married women. If necessary, I could name the young people who were offering themselves as teachers but for whom we had no vacancies. Such was the position in Durham under a Socialist-controlled authority.
What has happened since then? The Government introduced the quota system and altered the teacher-student ratio in Durham to that of the national average. This led to difficulties. The last report issued for the county shows that we are 167 teachers short. All this has happened in the last ten years of Tory rule. We have chosen this subject for debate today because the Government have failed to meet the needs of the young people of this nation.
I come now to the problem of teacher training. I remember opening Wynward Hall as an emergency training college, when the period of training lasted for two years. After the end of the emergency training scheme, the college continued to give two-year training. However, I am concerned not about Wynward Hall but about the fact that we are losing about 120 teachers a year at a time of national crisis. The Minister may say that he proposes to extend Nevilles Cross and create an additional 160 places for students. Is that how he proposes to make up our shortage of teachers?
I was denied further education as it is now called, but I have had the privilege and honour of sitting in on the committees of many administrative bodies dealing with education—the University Court, the University Council, the Institute of Education—and I have served on the North-East Council of Education Committees, the Northern Counties Further Education Committee, the Northern Counties Technical Examinations Council, and on the national committee which was set up to consider the problems of those going into industry and commerce.

935
I think that we are losing sight of the fundamental purpose of the 1944 Education Act. We are losing sight of the child in our midst. That is why the Minister gave the tilt and slant that he did to the present position. He referred to primary education and then said that the problem of juvenile delinquency arose in the secondary school. Is there none in the public schools? Why does he attack the State schools and allow the public schools to go free?
Many hon. Gentlemen opposite went to public schools. I am here to defend the State system. When I was chairman of the education committee in Durham, in all innocence I accepted the challenge issued by the public school in my county, but I was soon deluded. Public schools are not restricted when it comes to engaging staff. Almost every boy at a public school gets individual tuition. A lady once came to me and said, "My child failed the 11-plus examination. I wanted to do the best for her, so I sent her to a public school. I paid the fees for the first term, but at the end of the term found that the fees were to be almost double for the next term. Can you help me, through the education committee to keep my child at that school?" That system is wrong.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite are not concerned primarily about the welfare of our young people. To them the State system will always be secondary to the public school system. Conditions of employment in State schools are controlled by the Burnham Committee, but public schools are free to do almost what they like. That is why I maintain that State schools are unfairly treated. I hope that very soon the day will come when the private school system will be integrated into the State school system. There will then be equality of opportunity based strictly on aptitude and ability. When that happens, education will be based on a just social basis irrespective of the background of the children.
6.19 p.m.
Mr. R. P. Hornby: The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Ainsley) ended his speech on a good battling note, which I think one expects when an hon. Member from the North-East speaks. Incidentally, one might say that the North-East has had a good
936
crack of the whip, because we heard the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), then the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), and now the hon. Member for Durham, North-West. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not follow him into the controversies between the Durham County Council and the Minister, because I am not qualified to do that. I should like to revert to one or two of the broader matters raised earlier in the debate.
The hon. Member for Durham, North-West is less than just to my right hon. Friend when he says that my right hon. Friend does not care about the public system of education because he tolerates the existence of an independent section of schools. I do not know whether the hon. Member was present in the House when the subject was debated a week or so ago. On that occasion my right hon. Friend said specifically that in present conditions of national needs and priorities he could not see his way to devoting national resources to the financing of places in the independent section.
The hon. Member also spoke of teachers and the Burnham scale. I have not made a detailed analysis, but if he examines the salary scales in all independent schools I think that he will find that in a number of these schools the salaries are less and not more than the Burnham scales, although I concede that in certain schools salaries are paid above the Burnham scales. In some schools the contrary is the case. But I do not want to pursue that subject, because there are many more schools in the public sector than in the private sector, and it is with these that we are mainly concerned today.
Is it a coincidence that today we are debating education and tomorrow the economic situation? Whether it is a coincidence or not, I am convinced that the two subjects are very closely related, a point made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North. We should be asking ourselves what is the relationship between education and the growth of our national wealth and, as a corollary, what is the relationship between present expenditure on education and present threats of inflation. Those two questions are important and relevant at

937
a time when we know that serious economic problems and strains are facing us.
I contend that neither in terms of present needs nor in terms of future needs can we afford to spend less on education, and we must face the prospect of educational expenditure rising sharply over the next ten years. In view of the present volume of Government expenditure and the proportion which it takes of our national wealth, anyone who makes such a remark has a dear duty to give some of his reasons for holding that view, and I will try to do so in a few minutes. Many hon. Members have far more experience in these matters than I, and the right hon. Member for South Shields has probably a longer experience and a closer interest in education in this country than almost any other hon. Member.
Let us look, first, at the things which still need doing—and very badly need doing. In this connection, I look, first, at oversized classes. About 30 per cent. of our classes are still over the not-very-high standards which we set of 30 pupils in a secondary school class and 40 in a primary school class. That shows that 35 per cent. of our children are being educated in those conditions.
Secondly, we must recognise that about 1,000 all-age schools are still in existence. That, too, represents a failure so far to cope with a major provision of the 1944 Act.
Thirdly, we know that there are many school buildings which we should like to see abolished but which we must use because the increase in the school population has been such that, despite all the school building we have done, we have, except in a few cases, been unable to dispense with existing buildings.
Fourthly, if we are to, meet our standards for smaller classes we need about 70,000 extra teachers, and that will mean a very substantial increase in the bill. There are other points which I could easily make, but I have shown some of the present urgent needs, as I see them, which will mean an increase in expenditure if they are to be met.
Let us next look at our immediate industrial problems and the shortage of skilled workers. In the debate on science last week there were references to the need in many parts of our national life
938
for highly trained scientists and others. On 31st May there was a debate on apprenticeships and training and the need at that level for more skilled people in various industries. All the time we are debating the pros and cons of our association with Europe and the form which it should take. There must be many boardrooms in the country in which directors are wondering how many linguists they have in the firm and how many people competent to jump out of the insularity into which so many of us have allowed ourselves to sink.
During the weeks ahead, when we discuss the economic situation we shall doubtless also consider the efficiency of our industry in terms of managerial, accountancy and other skills right down the line. Wherever one looks there is a need for more skilled people. May I weary the Committee with one or two figures to illustrate this, if only to make the point that in my opinion skilled people are in no danger in our lifetime of working themselves out of jobs.
With the assistance of the Library I worked out the relationship of unemployed people to unfilled vacancies in one or two skilled occupations. The figures are for March of this year. In the category of draughtsmen, cartographers and architectural assistants, the figures are: wholly unemployed, 348, vacancies unfilled, 2,618; bricklayers, wholly unemployed, 490, vacancies unfilled, 3,524: precision fitters, wholly unemployed, 870, vacancies unfilled, 3,419.
I could go on telling the same story of the demand for skilled people which, if unsatisfied, must leave our industries the poorer and less able to compete with their competitors. There is the converse story of the figures of unskilled workers for the same date: light labourers, wholly unemployed 47,292, unfilled vacancies 285; other labourers, wholly unemployed 73,000, unfilled vacancies 19,000. Surely, in the interests of the individual and of national competitiveness and efficiency, we need more trained skill in this country.
If we want another criterion of whether in our economic needs we should provide more or less education, perhaps we should consider what other countries are doing. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North mentioned some figures for higher education in France

939
and Germany. On previous occasions my right hon. Friend has mentioned similar figures. The way in which people are thinking in other countries is illustrated in a document published by the International Association of Universities entitled, "Some Economic Aspects of Educational Development in Europe". Everywhere plans are being made for higher educational expenditure and more training of more skilled people, and, whether we like it or not, in financial terms we cannot and dare not contract out of that pattern of development.
In defence of the plea for expansion in education, in addition to our own economic needs, we have a considerable obligation and a considerable opportunity for giving help and assistance overseas. For instance, in August, 55 teachers are leaving for Nigeria on a short course pilot scheme, which, if successful, will—I hope—be repeated. Teachers from this country will be able to assist in teacher training in Nigeria where the need is very great. There is great scope for assistance through schemes of this sort, and it would be a tragedy if we were so deprived of resources ourselves, not only in teachers but in engineers and statisticians, and so on, that we could do nothing elsewhere.
We have to expand our resources, and it follows that, whatever considerations my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be giving to economic problems, I hope that he will not find it necessary to cut back capital expenditure on education. It would be short-sighted and expensive, expensive in the short term as well as in the long term.
The effect of cutting back any building is obviously to slow down the improvement of conditions in which our teaching effort is being made. It would also have a damaging effect in other ways. Many of the plans of local authorities would have to be remade. One of the present bottlenecks in educational planning is at the draftsman stage, which is the sort of planning stage at which—if building plans were altered—there would be further serious hold-ups, which, in the long run, would not prove profitable to the country's economy, and which, I hope, we shall be able to avoid.
940
It would also be expensive in cash terms, because if an authority has been under the impression that it is to have a major project in two or three years, if it finds it is not to have such a project, it will have to make interim plans involving the expenditure of money, possibly on minor works, and so on, which would be an expenditure which it would not have undertaken if its own programme had not been altered in midstream. That is something worth bearing in mind.
The effect of buildings should not be exaggerated, for teachers and not buildings are the most important thing in education. The importance of teachers should not be minimised; but, on the other hand, the conditions in which people have to work affect recruitment. When teaching staffs are short, one has to consider how to make full use of limited resources, and the nature of the buildings can have some effect. I hope that we shall be able to avoid interruption in plans made for capital expenditure on education.
Even so, it has to be appreciated that an expenditure of £900 million or thereabouts is very large, and anyone interested in education, or the country's economy, or anything else, will agree that it is absolutely right to cast a critical and careful eye upon it. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North mounted a great attack on possible cuts on school meals and school milk, but he was not making the best of his case, because one has to recognise priorities within educational expenditure.
If he had made great play for leaving the capital programme alone, I would have been with him. But if there is a need for retrenchment somewhere in the educational budget and the Chancellor concludes that he has to find savings somewhere in education, they had better come from those places which the hon. Member spent a long time defending rather than those which I have mentioned. The hon. Member mounted his attack in the wrong place. I do not suggest that there are not values in school meals and school milk, but there are greater values in the building programme and teachers' salaries.
Mrs. Harriet Slater: Does the hon. Member realise that school meals and school milk are

941
often one of the best foundations of a good education, because the well-fed child is more able to partake of the advantages of those things about which the hon. Member has been speaking? The right hon. Gentleman spoke of moral values and social training in schools, but the school meal service is one of the best forms of social and moral training in our schools and I would hate to have means tests applied to it.
Mr. Hornby: I am quite aware of the value of the service. I did not use the words "moral values". However, I do not want to pursue the subject other than to say that these choices are always painful, but that, if I had to choose, I would prefer the economies to come in those places than in the others which I have mentioned.
By and large, the priorities which my right hon. Friend has been observing in his educational planning have been right—the elimination of oversized classes, the effort to extend the teacher training programme, and his efforts in technical education, which we discussed earlier. It is foolish to imagine that one can suddenly change the whole educational pace of any country. One cannot suddenly turn on a tap, even by changing salary scales overnight, and produce more teachers. If one wants more skilled people, whether they are teachers, or managers, or skilled craftsmen, it has to be done on the basis of the whole educational system, from the primary schools upwards. That takes time. As a country, we started late with public education. We have made immense progress since the passing of the Education Act, 1944, and over the last ten years.
That sort of progress is the least at which we should aim, but if hon. Members opposite will insist on criticising my right hon. Friend for being complacent because the educational map has not changed overnight, they are missing the point entirely. It is right to look ahead to our needs of ten years hence, but entirely wrong to believe that, just because something is wanted now and because a pattern of population is evolving which could not have been foreseen five or six years ago, the Ministry has fallen down in its duty.
6.38 p.m.
Dr. Horace King: I liked most of the speech of the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. Hornby). He began by making a carefully reasoned case for educational expansion, for more money to be spent on education, but he turned from that to suggest the kind of economies in which he hoped the hatchet men of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would indulge if they had to. I must confess that he reminded me of Charles I pleading for the life of Strafford and saying, "If you have to execute him, I am a little worried about the date; would you mind leaving it until Friday or Saturday?"
I want, first, to refer to training colleges. We are on the eve of the greatest revolution in teacher training which we have made over half a century—the three-year teacher-training course. I begin by again protesting to the Minister on behalf of the training colleges of England on his refusal to allow a representative of the teacher training colleges to be one of his appointments to the Robbins Committee.
A century ago, the teacher training colleges trained elementary teachers for the masses while the universities educated gentlemen and produced teachers for the private schools of England. That, however, is a distinction which has long lost any reality. Yet there is still a hangover of differentiation between the training colleges and the universities which I for one want to see disappear. Education is one. There is no basic difference between the universities and the training colleges, just as there is no fundamental difference between primary and secondary education.
Those who teach the teachers hold the key to our future destiny. I hope that the Minister will let the training colleges feel and know that as they embark on the three-year course their contribution is to the whole of education and not to an inferior part of it, and that their present fears that they are to provide non-graduate primary school teachers while the universities provide graduate secondary school teachers and even graduate untrained secondary school teachers, are unfounded. If they prove, as I believe they will prove, that the three-year course is not merely a

943
quantitative but a tremendous qualitative change, we will put an end to the almost snob distinction drawn between the training colleges and the universities, parallel with that which we still draw between technical subjects and the humanities.
The Minister, however, made a bad start when he refused to put on to the Robbins Committee, one of whose jobs is to consider the whole future of training colleges as part of higher education, a direct representative of those colleges.
I want to address myself largely to the part of the Minister's speech for which I am sure the Committee thinks that he should not have apologised—the latter part of his speech when he dealt with the moral purpose of education. I wish that the earlier part of his speech had matched the latter part. I believe that the schools are waging the battle for the preservation of worthwhile values in a society which is based mote and more on a shallow materialist philosophy, a philosophy which made it possible for the Government to win the last election on the cry of "You have never had it so good"—words which will sound particularly empty when the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes his speech next week.
I found it singularly ironic that the schools, of all people, should be blamed in a recent book like Spoil the Child, and the Press articles which followed that book, for the alleged failure of the schools to win the fight against heavy odds, this fight against a cheap society, and that the Press, or at least the worst part of it which is partly responsible for the atmosphere of the society which the schools are engaged in combating, should join in the attack on the teachers.
Most of us can evaluate the book to which I have referred, by Miss Lucy Street, once we have noticed that she condemns Wordsworth for writing his famous ode, Blake, Pestalozzi, Froebel, Margaret McMillan and Comenius, the greatest educator of them all, for their views on children, accounts for Shakespeare's genius by the fact that he was educated at a grammar school, and states that more attention to the three R's and to religion will abolish juvenile delinquency, and
"our young people will once more approximate to the moral stature of the Pilgrim Fathers."
944
That is indeed consummation devoutly to be wished. She also commends as "a little rhyme easy to remember" the kind of verse which the schools of England escaped from eighty years ago:
"No real advantage can proceed
From saying what is wrong
For if at first it should succeed
It will not do so long.
When Ananias thought to hide
The money he had got
He and his wife Sapphira died
For their deceitful plot."
I assure the Committee that primary and secondary school teachers do try to inculcate standards of conduct and moral and spiritual values at least as earnestly, if not so eloquently, as did the unknown poet whom Miss Street finds superior to Wordsworth.
Teachers have always suffered from the laymen who know more about their profession than they do themselves. It is worth emphasising, in view of adverse comments in the Press, that reading, writing, and arithmetic are being taught in our schools against heavier odds than ever before, as I shall show the Committee, and, I believe, with increasing success. I spoke, at the week-end, in preparation for this debate, with an infants' school headmistress. Of 108 children leaving her school in July for junior school, 100 will be able to read. The other eight present the kind of problem which will not be solved by a return to the educational methods of 1900—the cane for mistakes or punishment for incapacity—but which, I believe, will be solved completely only when we get the classes down to the size that they ought to be. In this, as in everything else, size of classes is the vital factor.
The citizens of Southampton saw last week exhibited at the Southampton Show the work of our schools in needlework, handicrafts, art, science and hobbies, and excellent handwriting—better than the writing of most hon. Members, including myself—produced in the schools which the critics find fault with. I took thirty children, 11-year-olds, around the House of Commons a fortnight ago, and I received a letter of thanks from each of them, well-written with only three spelling mistakes in the whole bunch. This idea that fifty years ago all our children wrote fluently and eloquently, whatever their native ability,

945
at the age of 7 or 8, and that spelling mistakes are a new invention discovered in post-war Britain, has no basis in fact. Complaints from businessmen and universities about the inability of children to write, read and spell when they leave school are not new. Some of the children who go to university, incidentally, are not much better when they have left the university. Such criticisms were made when I was a young teacher forty years ago. They are also being made today in France, despite the formal and, in same ways, admirable system used in French schools, and the fact that French spelling is logical and not crazy like ours. I hope that some day we shall reform this crazy illogical spelling of ours and remove one of the chief handicaps to learning our great language.
Teachers are not complacent. Theirs is a live profession, self-critical, experimenting always—more teachers attend refresher courses for their own further education than do the members of any other profession in this country—and always grappling with problems of ever-increasing complexity. The great adventure of educating all children to the age of 15 is hardly fifteen years old. It has achieved wonders. If we were not attacking the Government tonight, I might has spoken at length of some of the wonders of achievement of secondary modern education. But it has not brought the millennium. I suggest to the Committee that the basic malaise which troubles the people of this country lies in forces outside the school, in the tensions that exist between school life and life outside. Not every parent co-operates with school. Home is still, and always will be, much more important than school. From my experience, however, it is clear that more parents are willing to make sacrifices for their children today than there ever have been in previous generations. There is still a neglectful minority, and much juvenile delinquency has its origin in bad homes.
The Minister has asked teachers to accept certain moral responsibilities. I interpose here to tell him that they are prepared to shoulder their share of the load, but that they cannot accept and carry out the duties which only a parent can perform for his child. Society itself is not helping the schools. A letter in the Daily Telegraph last week laments the
946
fact that some English children know more about Tommy Steele than about history and current affairs. Music and musical appreciation—which excludes Tommy Steele—as well as history and current affairs are being seriously tought in our schools. It is outside, in the world of cheap sensational music, and oversimplification of both history and current affairs in the mass media, that the child finds the material of which the letter writer complains, and which is forced on him by forceful agencies.
We have only to read the Daily Express on the complex question of the Common Market, or the popular Press reports—or absence of reports—of Parliament, to realise the kind of pabulum upon which our children and adults are being fed outside school. If some of our children go wrong, they receive their instruction in wrongdoing from the Sunday newspapers with the largest circulations, from cheap literature and from entertainment in which love becomes sexual behaviour, adventure sadism and drama the kitchen sink.
If these seem hard words, let me quote to the Committee headlines from this week's News of the World, which I picked out at random from the Library. They include "Maltese Scum and his £100-a-week Wife", "Boy Who Was Greatly Tempted", "War on the Saucy Postcards", "Eighteen Photos in her Dressing Table Drawer", "Gangs at War on Holiday Island", and "Den of Vice in an Old Country Town". This is the Sunday reading provided by the newspaper with a circulation of many millions. It is worth reiterating, however, that there are millions more worth-while youngsters profiting by all that our educational system in trying to achieve and all that is good in the mass media—because the mass media are a tremendous power for good as well as for evil—than there are delinquents.
In my early days I suffered at the hands of N.M. inspectors. That type has long since gone. The modern inspector is a friend and adviser of the teacher. I never thought that I would have to defend H.M. inspectors against the ridiculous charge, made in the book to which I have referred, by Miss Street, that teachers are "trounced" by H.M. inspectors because they have taught children to read by the age of 7. I am

947
reminded of the mythical story of the Pope who, at the end of a long confidential interview with Ambassadress Luce, was heard to exclaim, exhaustedly, "But, my dear, I assure you I am a Catholic." I can assure the Committee that H.M. inspectors are as keen on the teaching of reading as are the teachers.
Reading, with ease and pleasure, is the greatest gift that education can give our children. But when our generation learnt to read we needed it—we needed it to get by even day by day in practical life. There was no substitute. Modern discoveries—radio, television, the picture book and the picture paper—are making reading less necessary. Indeed, the French educationist Thabault has said:
"Those who uphold an educational system based on the written word … are fighting a rearguard action doomed to failure."
I believe that opinion to be fallacious.
By all means let us use new devices as adjuncts to teaching. But nothing can supersede the wonder of live human contact, either in school or in life. The televised novel is no substitute for the novel. Orsen Welles' "Macbeth" is certainly not Shakespeare. The attractiveness of the comic strip, the popular Press, radio and television make more and not less necessary the handing down to the next generation of the power to read—and to read with ease and with discrimination.
The teacher's difficulty is that outside the schools the whole of the contemporary scene makes reading less necessary for the children. If democracy perishes in the struggle with totalitarianism it will be because too many of us want to oversimplify, to avoid bard reading, hard thinking and, indeed, hard work. That is why I regard as of supreme importance the quality of eduation—with one aspect of which the Minister dealt—and the length of education that we give all our children—and by all I mean all, and not only the rich, whose education is bought for them until they reach the age of 18, 19 or 20, and the able children who are fortunate enough to have won places in grammar school; I mean all the nation's children, including the poorest, the average and even the dull.
948
My hon. Friend has spoken about teacher supply. I do not want to deal with that, except to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), the late Ralph Morley and the Minister's own advisory committees over the years warned the Government again and again of the teacher shortage problem. We are paying now for the Government's tardiness in grappling with it. The goal we ought to be aiming at is the raising of the school-leaving age at the end of this decade. The Minister ought to declare that this is Britain's aim. He ought to have declared it loud and long this afternoon, so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might hear him as he is preparing his announcement for next week. Crowther is right. Given the will to raise the school-leaving age, as the basic right of our children, long, long deferred, we can also will the means to carry it out.
I now want to make a point about finance. We have to spend much more on education—despite the alarm that the hon. Member for Tonbridge showed at the mention of the £900 million figure, which is far less than Lord Hailsham visualises we shall be spending soon on education—if we are to match the educational achievements of the countries which have produced Gagarin and Shepard, or even our own more nearly equal Western rivals, France and Germany. This means added financial burdens for all of us. They cannot be dodged, but they can be Shared more equitably. I believe that either a complete reform of the totally unjust method of raising local revenue by rates must come about or there must be a much greater subvention from the Government to the local authorities.
I want to illustrate this point by referring to figures concerning my own county. Hon. Members can translate them in respect of their own county and county borough figures. This year Hampshire will spend £21 million. Of that £21 million no less than £12½ million will go for education. Most of the cost is inevitable. Indeed, it must rise steeply. Teachers' salaries, which already amount to £4¾ million, must increase this year. The only argument is how soon and by how much they will rise. Most of that increase can be justified but some items of increased expenditure were unnecessary. For example, loan charges for the

949
educational building programme of Hampshire amount to £1 million, which is almost equivalent to a 2s. rate.
This Government's policy—and the Minister of Education is a member of the Government—has driven up interest rates to 6 per cent., and some local authorities are at this moment cutting their own throats by raising money at over 6 per cent. to meet the demands of their educational programmes. The racket price of land for schools, as a result of Government policy, has enriched landowners and impoverished ratepayers, and it is breeding a resistance to expenditure on education in every local authority.
Last year I quoted a classic case. In February, 1958, my local education authority approved the purchase of a piece of land in Aldershot for £2,834. The vendor refused to complete the purchase, which had already been agreed. He was waiting for the Government's 1958 Act. In February, 1960, we had to buy that land for £17,500. Its cost rose from £400 an acre to £2,500 an acre in two years.
The process goes on. This month my education committee has paid £3,000 an acre, and in one case £4,000 an acre, for land in the countryside which it requires for schools—land the enhanced value of which ought to go to the nation. Yet, although the rates and the expenditure in every county have gone up three to four times over the last ten years, every local authority finds its school building programme inadequate. I quote from recent H.M.I. reports to my own authority:
"There is no staffroom, and separate toilet accommodation for the staff is very much needed,"
No factory would tolerate that.
"The main school premises will shortly reach their centenary, The reception class, together with the canteen servery and a tiny classroom, are housed in the adjoining church hall, which is also used by the school for the midday meal."
This is certainly combining religion with education.
"The infants remain for two terms in the reception class, which is drab and uninspiring."
Again and again I see in reports the phrase, "no school hall". My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) spoke with justifiable
950
enthusiasm of the act of worship, but the morning assembly is impossible in schools which have no assembly hall.
Hampshire is a good authority, as the Minister knows, but it cannot deal with the inadequacies I have mentioned, despite H.M. inspectors' reports, because its own building programme is completely absented by problems even more pressing than these, and because the Minister himself has limited the school building programmes. The programmes of local education authorities have been cut by nearly two-thirds this year. The paradoxical position facing the Committee and the country is that local authorities, despite the rate burden, have been for years the driving force on a reluctant Ministry. They have been asking for larger and larger building programmes, with the Ministry resisting all the time, and conceding only in fits and starts.
The Minister boasted in a recent Answer to me that next year's building programme may be the highest since the war at £65 million. We have, however, never reached the £70 million a year which the experts told us ten or eleven years ago was necessary. Ten years ago £70 million was worth more than £70 million today. Moreover, even the allowed building programme is held up by the unrestricted building which the Government permit. We are getting offices before schools. I am told that the building trade has a labour force of 1 million but is engaged in work which requires a building force of about 2 million at present. This means that schools, which are the least profitable of building contracts, lag behind. Building labour is taken from schools to be used on more profitable forms of building, as the Minister and anyone who has served on a local authority must know.
Undoubtedly Britain has made remarkable progress in post-war years. I can understand the pride of the Ministry. Like every local authority in the country, the Ministry can enumerate a mass of achievements, including for the first time free secondary education for all our children, thanks to the Labour Government; a vast increase in the teaching profession, and higher standards of entry at training colleges than ever before in history. It will interest the Committee to know that nearly 60 per

951
cent. of next year's entry to training colleges will not only have five subjects at O level but at least one subject, and many of them more than one subject, at A level. Another achievement is the huge building programme.
But we cannot be content to compare what we have achieved with the Britain which existed before the war—a Britain in which education had been neglected for forty years. We certainly cannot be content when we compare what we have achieved in education with what has been achieved by the rest of the world. Our advance in education is nothing compared with that of the Soviet Union, which started, after the Revolution, about fifty years behind the Western Powers. What we have achieved is inadequate compared with our expanding child population. It is inadequate compared with the problems confronting the youngster, particularly the ill-educated youngster, as he faces a materialistic, affluent society.
We lead in one way over the Soviet Union. That is that we are building our educational reform inside a free system. This free system is the most precious element in the whole of British life. Unless we use that freedom to end the anachronistic disparities which still exist in the class structure of British education, which make us the laughing stock of the whole of the rest of the civilised world, to ensure that talent, wherever it emerges, gets the opportunity it deserves, to ensure that all our children are educated for the responsibilities of citizenship in a free society and to enjoy the leisure which a technical age provides, and above all to end or resolve some of the tensions which exist between the community life inculcated in our schools and those of a society more and more blatantly based on private profit-making, by carrying some of the community spirit we seek to practise in our churches and schools into our political life, our free system may be replaced by one more ruthlessly efficient, which will in the quest for efficiency sacrifice the most precious thing of all—freedom.
We want education of free, critical, non-conforming citizens. We do not want education under a dictatorship, whether it is an open dictatorship or the subtle dictatorship which some of us fear from
952
the so-called "hidden persuaders" of the modern advertising octopus which threatens to strangle both Britain and America.
If we are going to get the things we desire, I do not believe that we can do it if we have a thoroughly dissatisfied teaching profession. The Minister cannot lightly dismiss the present critical situation. I thought that he would have at least mentioned it in his speech today. After all, we place the future destiny of Britain—the next generation—their intellectual, moral and spiritual well-being, their training for a vocation, or at least part of it, and the fate of the British nation, in the hands of 300,000 professional men and women. It is time that we paid them tribute, not in words only, but also in an adequate professional salary. And nobody can say that they have that today.
7.8 p.m.
Mr. Philip Goodhart: On occasions in other places I have disagreed sharply with the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King), but this evening I certainly would not disagree with the remarks that he made about the teaching profession as a whole or, indeed, his preference for Wordsworth to Mr. Wesker. I was struck by the remark of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that everybody was striving for recognition in our schools. I am conscious that there are many Members who are anxious to secure recognition before the debate ends, so I shall not follow the hon. Member for Itchen in his defence of the free world against the Soviet system. I shall throw away my own stirring oration.
Since the last general debate on education one of the most important developments has been the go-ahead which has been given for a number of new universities. This step is welcomed both in itself and in another respect. All hon. Members who have read the Crowther Report will have been impressed by the distortions that over-stringent university entrance requirements are making on the structure of the sixth forms in grammar schools and public schools today, and any development which can reduce that pressure is to be welcomed.
As a Kent Member I am glad that one of the new universities is to be sited

953
in East Kent, but I must admit that, ungenerous though it may seem, I look at this gift horse with rather a jaundiced eye. The advocates of a new university in East Kent had two sites between which they could choose—Canterbury and Margate. In other words, the University Grants Committee was faced with a choice between the spirit of St. Thomas a'Becket and the spirit of Billy Butlin. It may seem natural enough that the University Grants Committee should come down on the side of St. Thomas a'Becket, but I am by no means certain that it is right in making that choice.
Canterbury is a relatively small town with inadequate hotel accommodation. If there is a decent restaurant in the place, I regret to say that I have not yet been able to find it. There is a distinct shortage of boarding house accommodation, and I am informed that there is shortage of the casual labour which universities swallow so readily. On the other hand, a few miles away, at Margate, we have a town with ample hotel accommodation, a vast surplus of boarding houses and, out of the tourist season, a large surplus of precisely the type of casual labour which is so needed.
I put forward this argument because in the years to come we shall need to site more universities, more technical colleges and more teacher training colleges, and I believe that as a general rule one ought to try to place these higher education institutions in seaside resorts for the sake of the resorts and also because the resorts provide the facilities which are so needed by these institutions.
I have one other ground for being rather against Canterbury as a site for a university—a temporary one, I hope—and that is that Canterbury has a particularly bad record in the provision of textbooks in its primary schools. Since I have been a Member of Parliament I have been an enthusiast in calling attention to the need for greater expenditure on textbooks in schools. I am glad to say that there has been a distinct improvement in the four years which have passed since the Association of Education Committees, in conjunction with the National Book League, first produced a report which laid down standards of reasonable expenditure and good expenditure on books for our
954
schools. Curiously enough, up to that point the standard had never been definitely laid down.
During the last four years expenditure on these textbooks has risen by £2 million, or almost one-third. About £750,000 has been swallowed up by the increased cost of books, and £500,000 has been swallowed up by the progression of the bulge from the primary schools to the secondary schools, where one would expect the expenditure on books to he high. Nevertheless, a substantial amount—£750,000—is left for general improvement.
There have been some fairly spectacular improvements. The area represented by the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) has one of the best records of improvement in the country. I am sorry to say that the education authority which has been referred to by the hon. Member for lichen is one of the very few in the country who have shown a decline during the last four years. The Minister has also not been markedly successful in getting his local education authority to improve its expenditure. On the other hand, I am happy to say that the local education authority represented by the Parliamentary Secretary has done extremely well in the last four years in improving its standards.
Although there has been a general improvement in most areas, there are still some extremely bad spots, and two of the worst, which were at the bottom and remain absolutely at the bottom year after year, are Barnsley and Plymouth. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. I. Fraser) is present: perhaps he will catch your eye, Sir William, later in the debate. Certainly, during the past few years Plymouth has had an absolutely deplorable record.
I should like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary what action has been taken during the past few years to stir up authorities where it would seem that the chairman of the education committee is subservient to the chairman of the finance committee and cannot get adequate facilities for the children.
Mr. Ian Fraser: The whole Committee knows—and I certainly recognise—the interest taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) in this subject. As

955
my hon. Friend has referred to my constituency by name, I would ask him whether he does not feel that perhaps he is making too much of this issue, and that it can almost be dignified by the term "obsession"—
Mrs. Slater: That is how to get things done.
Mr. I. Fraser: I hope that the hon. Lady will listen to me. I have had a lot of opportunities of seeing at first hand the actual quality of primary, secondary and, after that, the further education in Plymouth, and it strikes me favourably—and I hope that my partiality will be excused—compared with the quality of education, at all levels, in other parts of the country, where I have also had a chance of closely examining the position. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) will appreciate that there may be two sides to the question.
Mr. Willey: Very good.
Mr. Goodhart: If my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton does not catch your eye, Sir William, he certainly caught mine.
Mr. I. Fraser: I thank my hon. Friend.
Mr. Goodhart: What my hon. Friend has said may be the case. But the fact is that the figures for Plymouth are deplorable, have been deplorable throughout the years for which figures have been produced, and there comes a limit of expenditure below which it is impossible to maintain standards.
Consider the case of school meals, which has already been raised. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) spoke about the moral welfare one, could gain from eating Brussels sprouts. If our expenditure on school meals were allowed to fall in Plymouth to 50 per cent. of what is considered to be a reasonable standard in other areas, I imagine that there would be a tremendous outcry that would not only reach the ears of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton, but also the Minister. This is certainly a field in which one would not tolerate an expenditure of 50 per cent. below a reasonable level.
It is one of the paradoxes of our modern educational system that seven
956
times as much money is spent on school meals as is spent on school textbooks. We spend more on butter, beans and Brussels sprouts than we do on books and this seems to be an odd state of priorities in our modern society. Further, we spend twice as much on school transport as we do on textbooks and this, in our modern society, seems a rather odd system of priorities. And with the recent controversial Burnham recommendations, amounting to £60 million, ten times as much as is spent in a year on books in our schools.
I wish to follow the forbearance that other hon. Members have shown in discussing the Burnham recommendations, but there is one aspect of the controversy that causes me great concern, namely, I do not believe that in future the Minister will be able to isolate himself from the discussion of teachers' salaries in the way that he has been able to do in the past. After all, here we have the largest single item in the education bill, yet the Minister is not able to take a part, until the very last moment, in the discussions that go on in settling this item.
If the Minister tries to take part in the discussions earlier people on both sides tell him that he should not concern himself with the matter. I believe that the time has now come when the Minister must take part, and at an earlier stage. After all, the Minister has a responsibility to this House for seeing that the amount of money spent on education is spent wisely. I do not believe that he can adequately fulfil this role unless he is brought in at an earlier stage than is now the case.
One of the lessons of the controversy that has gone on during the last few months on teachers' salaries is that the Burnham system will have to be drastically modified in the next few years.
7.26 p.m.
Mr. Alan Fitch: I hope that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) will forgive me if I do not follow him in the interesting comparisons that he drew between eating and sleeping facilities in Canterbury and Margate and also between the amount spent on school meals and school books.
I regret that the Minister is not here at the moment, because I felt that the

957
earlier part of his speech was, if I may say so, delightfully vague. I recall reading a speech made by the late Ramsay Macdonald in which he talked about going on, on and on, and up, up and up, and I thought that the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech today was very much like that. The latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech I found a great deal more interesting, if rather unusual.
I agree with the Minister when he pleaded for a greater urgency and a sense of Christian morality in schools. We have heard the word "materialism" used quite a lot. I am opposed to the philosophical materialism of Marxism and I am also opposed to the more mundane materialism of capitalism. The former has very little root in this country but, unfortunately, the latter has very strong roots indeed.
It is interesting to note, in relation to the question of a Christian morality and schools, that in my constituency two-thirds of the schools are denominational. That is exceptionally high. Also, juvenile crime is rated as the lowest for any comparable town in the country. One can draw the obvious conclusions.
I will row deal with a few general aspects concerning education. I was interested to read that President Kennedy, after he left Vienna, where he had been meeting Mr. Khrushchev, was more than ever convinced that the challenge of the Soviet Government would be as much economic as military. If that is true—and it may well be—we must make an effort to improve our education services and make it the No. 1 priority.
The police have recently had an increase in pay, obviously to encourage recruitment to the force. This is very necessary to defeat crime, but surely the number of criminals in the community is a very small percentage of the entire population and if we are prepared to increase the pay and prospects of policemen we should be equally prepared to increase the salaries and prospects of school teachers. After all, education affects the whole community and not just one part of it.
Just as we prepare ourselves for any military challenge which may come from Communism, so, in future, we must prepare ourselves equally strongly for the
958
economic challenge that is coming from Communism. To do that we must look at our whole system of technical education. At the moment, I would describe this as bitty—a bit here, a hit there, and a bit somewhere else. We have in the secondary modern schools a curriculum which takes in certain technical subjects. We have 228 secondary technical schools, and technical subjects are now taught in grammar schools as well. In addition, there is a technical stream in our comprehensive schools. Nevertheless, I feel that we need more direction than the Minister indicated this afternoon.
On Thursday, in a supplementary question to the Minister, I asked whether he had any plans for increasing the number of secondary technical schools. He said:
"… many local education authorities prefer to give this in secondary modern schools rather than in secondary technical schools. I would rather leave to them that freedom of choice."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July, 1961; Vol. 644, c. 553.]
I should like to put two points to the Minister. First, are the technical courses in the secondary modern schools and in certain bilateral schools as thorough and comprehensive as they would be in a purely secondary technical school? Secondly, it is all very well to talk about giving local authorities or anybody else freedom, but sometimes freedom of choice means freedom to do nothing at all. I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary that the Crowther Report comes out definitely in favour of an increased number of secondary technical schools. I should he interested to know the Parliamentary Secretary's attitude on this matter.
It is interesting to recall that the present Home Secretary, speaking in 1952 when reviewing the 1944 Education Act, said that there were too few secondary technical schools. The Government, or certain Government spokesmen, may have altered their view by now. There is also a certain amount of unfortunate snobbery about secondary technical schools. Rightly or wrongly, parents who went to public schools like their children also to go to public schools, in the main, although there may be exceptions, and parents who went to grammar schools like their children to do the same. But, fortunately, the

959
secondary technical school is largely, though not exclusively, a post-war development, and the idea that many parents have about this type of school is based on the conception of the old junior technical school which was not very efficient in many ways.
The number of pupils taking technical courses is increasing while the number of secondary technical schools is going down. I am certainly not against this trend, provided that the bilateral schools have the necessary facilities in the way of workshops and laboratories which are as good as those in the secondary technical schools, but I think that we need a far more definite and clearer policy in relation to the secondary technical schools.
I should like to say a word about the secondary modern school which I believe is the problem child of our present education set-up. What is its rôle to be? At the moment it is almost impossible to persuade parents that the 11-plus examination is not some world-shattering event. At the age of 11 the choice before a child is either to go to a grammar school, where he has the ability to develop the academic and social sides of his life and any sporting and athletic ability which he may have, or to go to a secondary modern school where he does not have half that chance. So to the parent it becomes an event of world-shattering importance.
A child going to a secondary modern school today has at least a 60 per cent. chance of being in an oversized class. What is the aim of the average pupil at our secondary modern schools? They have no aim except to reach the age of 15—
Mrs. Slater: No.
Mr. Fitch: In many cases that has been my experience. As I shall go on to show, there is very little for them to aim at.
Reference has been made to crime. The peak period for crime is now 14, but up to 1947 when the school-leaving age was 14 the peak period was 13. That is a very interesting set of figures indeed. It surely means that the last year at school is one largely of boredom, frustration and aimlessness, though I recognise that my hon. Friend the Member for
960
Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) may disagree with me.
Mrs. Slater: I do, very much.
Mr. Fitch: Therefore, I think that the proposals put forward by the Beloe Committee, which were mentioned by the Minister, need very serious consideration. I refer, in particular, to the recommendation to institute an examination on a lower intellectual level than the G.C.E. at the age of 16. Some very interesting figures have been published by the Secondary Schools Examination Council. I do not wish to bore the Committee with too many figures, but the numbers staying on at school after 15 are rising—of course, they represent a small minority—from 42,000 in 1958 to 66,000 in 1960. The same can be said of the number of children taking examinations. They have risen from 26,000 in 1958 to 46,000 in 1960, which suggests to me that there is a desire on the part of at least a minority of children to carry on and get some kind of certificate.
In examining the Beloe recommendations we must ask ourselves what a certificate would do. It would give personal satisfaction, of course, but I am of the opinion that the yardstick of measurement is the G.C.E. and I am wondering whether any new kind of examination would count very much with employers Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary, who may be aware of the reaction of employers, could say something about this. Personally, I would rather encourage the top 15 per cent. or 20 per cent. in our secondary modern schools to take a six-year course in the G.C.E., because, as I say, I believe that to be the recognised examination.
On the question of examinations in general, there is a great difference of opinion. I shall quote from a speech made by the present Home Secretary on this very subject of examinations. Speaking in the House on 28th July, 1948, the right hon. Gentleman then expressed a view which was commonly held at that time, but which, I think, is now being abandoned. He said:
"I have always had strong views about examinations, and I do not believe that an education can be good if it is dominated by an outside examination of any sort. In fact, the one advantage I see in the modern secondary school is that, thank goodness, so far they have got no examination at all".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th July. 1948; Vol. 454, c. 1373.]

961
I agree that an examination does not bring out a person's full and complete ability. All sorts of things make up the human personality. Nevertheless, I believe that an examination gives children something to work for and something to aim at, and it should be seriously considered. Indeed, I think that it is to the credit of the secondary modern schools—here, no doubt. my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North will disagree with me—that they have got away from the early post-war conception, shall I say, the rather "free-for-all" conception, of what is required in education. I mean a good general sort of education, with nothing very much at the end of it. The secondary modem schools are moving away from that, and I am glad that they are.
In my judgment, four things must be done if the secondary modern school is to play a more effective role in our education service. First, there should be four full years at school. Secondly, the school-leaving age should be raised to 16. Thirdly, there should be some sort of examination for at least 60 per cent. of the pupils in the secondary modern school. Fourthly, I believe that the real solution is to be found in comprehensive education. I say this not because I am doctrinaire. I pride myself on not being a dogmatist in any way, neither in politics nor in religion. I believe in viewing things from an empirical point of view. The facts as we see them today suggest to me that the comprehensive system of education is the best that we have.
I come now to the primary schools. I shall not say much about them today because, when we debated this subject in May last year, I was fortunate enough to catch the eye of the Chair then. What disturbs me about our primary schools today is that we have selection there not at 11 but at 7. The children are segregated far too early. I doubt very much that the I.Q., while it will give certain indications of a person's intelligence and aptitude, is sufficient in itself to determine future academic careers. It has led to certain primary schools "cramming" their pupils with a view to seeing how many they can succeed in sending to grammar school.
There have been children—I could give examples of this, though I shall not
962
detain the Committee by doing so—who have been sent to grammar school, who have found it too difficult to keep up with the general level, and have had to return to secondary modern schools. This is all due to the "cramming" which goes on, the emphasis on some sort of prestige in being able to say, "Our school had so many successes, but the others did not". By and large, I regard early selection and "cramming" as two very disturbing features of our present primary education system.
In this country, university education has always been for the few. At the time of the American War of Independence, in 1775, the Americans had nine universities and we had only two, Oxford and Cambridge. We are nearly at the bottom of the European table in university attendance. The proportion of people attending universities in this country is far less than it is in many countries, some of which have been named in the debate today.
It is estimated that 700,000 children will be born this year in Britain. What have they to look forward to? They will have no schooling until they are 5. The majority will then go to primary schools, where 25 per cent. of them will be in oversized classes. There will then be the selection examination for them. The top 20 per cent. will go to the grammar schools where, at 18, they will have another selection for university, and, thereafter, 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. will go to the university. Eighty per cent. will go to secondary modern schools and leave at 15, unless, of course, their parents are wealthy enough to buy their education.
The education of our children today is neither good enough nor long enough. I do not know what will happen next Tuesday, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer announces his economies, but I hope that education will not be among them. I ask the Minister of Education and the Parliamentary Secretary to act courageously in this matter. The underdeveloped and uncommitted countries of the world will judge us by the amount of economic and technical aid that we can give. We can give it only if we have a first-class education service. I hope that we shall regard the whole matter of education as of prime importance and resist to the uttermost any economies which may be suggested.
7.45 p.m.
Mr. Compton Carr: Education debates are notoriously debates for the riding of hobby-horses. I give my word that mine will be a very small one. I shall give it a quick dash on a loose rein round the Chamber and then sit down.
The matter I want to mention is, I suppose, really one of priorities. Everyone has been very high-falutin in talking about technical education, the universities and so forth. I come right down to the bottom end of the scale. I am concerned about nursery schools. Although not everyone needs to go to a nursery school, I am convinced that there are good reasons why many children need to go to nursery school.
Some of the reasons come immediately to mind. The mother is out at work because she has a sick husband or a husband with a low earning capacity. She may be a widowed mother. She may be an unmarried mother with an illegitimate child—a problem which is no less now than it used to be. Also, there are social reasons affecting the child. The child may be an only child. It may be a misfit in a large family, a common source for our juvenile delinquents later in life. A child may be either too bright or too dull in its family, or, again, it may be illegitimate, the one illegitimate child in a largish family. Also—I say this with some trepidation in the hearing of hon. Ladies across the Floor—the mother may just be a bad mother. Not all mothers are natural mothers. Finally, the very best and biggest reason, in my view, for our nursery school provision being considered again is that, especially in urban areas, great problems are created for mothers and children as a result of living in high flats.
We are not speaking of large numbers. About one in three of our working population is a woman. About one in three of those working women are married, and about 16 per cent. of those have two children. Nevertheless, although we are not speaking of large numbers, a mother living on any floor above the second or third, as we are coming increasingly to realise, does not like her small child to be out of her sight, with the consequence that she can do no more than have the child round her knees all the time from
964
the third year onwards. This is especially troublesome if the mother is pregnant with another child. It is really too much strain to put on any woman, particularly when we, by saving her that inconvenience, could do more for the child by providing a nursery school place for it. Obviously, the child suffers in those circumstances where the mother is overstrained.
The educational reasons are re always arguable. Very often, they are argued by people who have had advantages which very often these children do not have. I think we all have the advantage of having been brought up in literate homes. Even though they may have been poor homes, they were nearly always literate; but very large numbers of children today can go to school at 5 years of age never having seen the written word at all, and I think that is something of a social reason which we must start to overcome. Today, there is not even the family Bible in the home which can help to trace the children's fingers across the word.
I think, too, that the social habits which were inculcated more easily in what I might call the ground-floor dwelling are not so easily inculcated where children are boxed up with their parents or are alone with one or two other children. Indeed, large numbers of infants teachers whom I have the honour of knowing have told me that it might take from six to twenty-four weeks before they get a child to react socially with other children and settle down to the extent of learning in a crowd, and that shows the advantage of nursery schools in places where these disadvantages exist.
I know that the reason very often given is that there is not enough money. It is a matter of priority, but if I come to a choice—and I hope no one will take umbrage at this—between adults learning Russian at a few shillings a session, or, indeed, as I heard on one occasion not long ago, people learning scooter maintenance at a few shillings per session, I would rather have nursery education. The number of teachers is always insufficient, but I think that it is very much easier to get young ex-teachers with young children back into teaching if they are nursery or infant

965
teachers. I know that there are disadvantages, but I think that they can he overcome.
The final reason, and the one which is always thrown out at any one who makes this suggestion, is that children are best left with their mothers until the age of 5. I do not know whether I am at a disadvantage compared with other members of the Committee, but I find those who say that are very often people who were not brought up by their own mothers, but by "nannies" who were mother figures who gave them the two things they needed—a firm and kindly discipline and love at all possible times. I think that children living in special circumstances in urban areas today need that security, that continual firm calmness which the teacher in a nursery school can very often give but which a harassed mother cannot give. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend will think again about the larger provision of nursery schools in urban areas.
7.54 p.m.
Mr. A. V. Hilton: I am sorry that the Minister of Education is not here at present. I quite understand that he has to refresh himself, as other hon. Members have, but I hope that he will be back before I have finished, although to do that he will have to be in a hurry, because I do not intend to be very long, but to follow the fine example of the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Compton Carr).
In opening this debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) referred to educational priorities, and this theme has run through several of the subsequent speeches, including that of the hon. Member for Barons Court. Emphasis has been laid during this debate on all sorts of education—secondary, grammar school, technical and university education—but the hon. Member for Barons Court made nursery schools his priority. The hon. Member started on the bottom rung of the ladder, and I want to start on the next rung. I quite agree that the forms of higher education to which I have already referred are most important, and I have nothing against them at all, but, in my opinion, not nearly enough importance is attached to primary and infants edu-
966
cation. After all, the primary schools are the schools in which most youngsters start off at the age of 5, and during the following few years, the most formative years of their lives, they are being prepared for the higher forms of education which I have mentioned.
In his rather lukewarm speech, the Minister of Education referred only once, I think, to the primary schools, and that was in reference to their very good conduct. I wholeheartedly agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says about the good conduct of youngsters in primary schools, and that is one of the reasons why I believe that they are deserving of more encouragement than they are receiving at present, at least from the present Minister of Education.
I am sorry that the Minister did not refer more to this, and because he did not refer more to primary schools I intend to do so, and I hope to be able to prove that the Minister of Education has, in fact, neglected the primary schools.
For a number of years now, I have been a member of my own county education authority, and quite recently we sent up to the Minister of Education our list of minor projects for next year. These were really all essential works, needed to be carried out, and most them were aimed at improving the primary and infants' schools. The total amounted to £970,000 worth of work to be done on those schools. Imagine our disappointment when we received the reply from the Minister that all we were allowed was £130,000 instead of the £970,000 for which we had asked, or about one-seventh of the total amount of money we asked for. This small amount will enable us only to touch the fringe of the problem which we have in Norfolk in regard to these small village schools. Many of them need improving, and others require complete replacement by new buildings.
We have a quite good education authority in Norfolk, forward-looking, progressive and anxious to get on with the job, but it is disappointing to know that we in Norfolk have the rather unenviable record of having probably more schools than any other county in the country with the old type of pail lavatory. Despite the recent progress, we shall still have between 70 and 80 of this antiquated type of lavatory in our village schools in Norfolk.

967
Had the Minister been here, I had intended to make an appeal to him to try to have a blitz to see if he cannot sweep away these disgusting and outdated forms of sanitation and let us have decent, modern amenities instead. Had the Minister been here I would have accused him of being niggardly towards Norfolk and our particular problems. I believe that he is concentrating his attention more on the urban areas at the expense of such counties as Norfolk.
I know that it is difficult to attract the younger teachers from the colleges into such schools as those I have described. We have in Norfolk, besides those monstrosities, some fine secondary modern schools, but we have not nearly enough of them and will build more when the money is forthcoming.
My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Ainsley), who has now left to refresh himself, referred to a number of times he had been received by the Minister of Education and said that he had led deputations to him. What a fortunate man he is. We in Norfolk have been asking the Minister to see deputations from the county, but he has turned a deaf ear every time. I only wish that he would receive a deputation from such places as Dereham and North Walsham, because there we have very real problems, and I believe that if he heard about their nature he could not turn a deaf ear to those deputations.
I am not opposed to secondary modern school buildings. We want more of them in Norfolk, where many children are denied secondary education. Only a fortnight ago, in King's Lynn, we had opened a really fine technical college. We are very proud of that, but there is too wide a gulf between these palatial secondary modern schools and the old-fashioned, often really antiquated, primary schools where our youngsters have to start their education, and I should like to see them improved.
We know that the Surtax payers are to be freed from £80 million of tax. If that concession were put off for a year and the money devoted to bringing these old-fashioned schools up to date, with modern amenities, what a great joy it would be to those of us interested in education in Norfolk.
We, too, have the problem of the shortage of teachers. This is not sur-
968
prising, because it is not peculiar to us but applies all over the country. I believe that there is one way the Minister could increase the number of married women teachers. I know a number of ex-teachers who have married and who find that if they were to go back to teaching it would hardly be worth their while financially, because of the Minister who often sits on the Government Front Bench and is responsible for taking Income Tax.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Thompson): And Surtax.
Mr. Hilton: I think that if the Chancellor were to give a lead on that aspect of the matter that would attract more married women back to teaching.
I was a little concerned at the antics last week of the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), when we had Questions to the Minister of Education and the hon. Member reminded the Minister and the House that all the proposals being put forward would mean spending extra money and that we could not afford that extra money at this time for education.
In conclusion, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to appeal to the Minister to resist to the best of his ability the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he intends to cut down on expenditure on education in the proposals that we expect in a week's time. To cut educational expenditure would be a retrograde step. I am sure that if there is any likelihood of the Chancellor seeking to reduce expenditure on education, and the Minister of Education resists it, he can rely on the wholehearted support of this side of the Committee and upon the respect and support of many people in the country.
8.5 p.m.
Mr. Fergus Montgomery: I hope that the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton) will forgive me if I do not follow him into the devious paths in Norfolk which he has been following. I want to say what I have to say very quickly, because I know that a number of my hon. Friends are also anxious to speak in this debate and time is now getting on. I should like to express my concern at certain aspects of education.

969
First, I would point out to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that I feel that there are still far too many overcrowded classes. I was given some figures the other day, that 3 million out of 7 million in our State schools were taught in classes over regulation size. I hope that these figures are wrong, but if they are correct, then they show the necessity of reducing the size of classes. One way to do that is to get more people into the teaching profession.
I was talking to a friend of mine yesterday, a girl who has just come out of training college and is now in her first year as a teacher, and she is teaching a C-stream class in a junior school. She has the smallest class in that school, but she has thirty-one pupils. I believe that that is far too many to have in a C-stream class in any school, because how much individual attention can any teacher give to a class containing thirty-one pupils? Moreover, this is the type of class in which the pupils particularly need individual attention.
I turn to the doubts cast on attainment in the basic subjects. The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) mentioned a book. Instead of disagreeing with it, as he did, I would say that there is much in this book with which I agree wholeheartedly. One of the quotations is from the Entrance to Oxford and Cambridge (Reports of Committees appointed by the two universities) in 1960:
"The standard of English appears to us to be regrettably low not only among the majority of candidates for admission to Oxford but also in the country as a whole."
We have got to decide why this sort of thing can be said in 1960 when so much money is being spent on education. We cannot, I think, put all the blame on over-large classes. I believe with Mrs. Street, who wrote a book on the subject, that the blame is attached to those people responsible for introducing what they call modern methods in our schools. I hope that the Minister will find time to read this excellent book, Spoil the Child, because it says a great deal about education that is common sense.
I agree with Mrs. Street when she writes of the harmful effect on education by not placing enough emphasis on the three "Rs" in our schools. As Mrs.
970
Street pointed out, proficiency in the three "Rs" seems to be frowned upon.
This was a quotation used by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen, but he did not give all of it. Mrs. Street says this about teachers:
"… theories are propounded to them by visiting H.M.I.s when they have begun teaching. One theory is that no child should be able to read at the age of seven. This has been reported from so many schools up and down the country, both state schools and fee-paying schools, that it cannot be discredited. A Yorkshire teacher who expected praise because her class of thirty children could all read at seven, was roundly trounced because they were reading at such an early age and told they should still be playing."
This is what she has written, and it has not yet been disproved. I believe that children go to school to work and to learn. I agree with the president of the National Union of Teachers who, in his presidential address in 1957 said:
"Restore the three 'Rs' to their pride of place and make children work,"
because without a good basic grounding in the three "Rs" what chance has a child of making his or her mark in adult life? I hope that we will get rid of these nonsense theories put out by these educational do-gooders. I believe that they should be called do-harmers. I believe that these methods should be stamped out of our schools and that we should get back to the basic principles and the so called old-fashioned methods of teaching the three "Rs".
The problem of juvenile delinquency is causing enormous concern to the whole nation. Schools today can do a great deal to combat this social disease. I believe that discipline is the first requisite for good teaching, because without discipline there is nothing. No matter how good a teacher may be and how marvellous the lessons are made, if the children do not attend to what is being said they will learn nothing at all. Like the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), I was in a training college and there we were told that if our lessons were made interesting the children would listen. To this I say "baloney", because while that applies to the majority of children it does not make any allowance for that small vociferous minority of unruly children. Any teacher would say that one anti-social child in a class, unless he is corrected, can cause untold havoc among the rest of the children.

971
I am not advocating that we should return to the days of the beginning of the century when children were brutally caned for all sorts of trivial offences, but have we not in 1961 swung too far in the opposite direction? I believe that no teacher worth his salt will ever use corporal punishment unnecessarily. There must always be safeguards against any sadistic teacher, but a spot of punishment administered on the right place at the right time can work wonders. I agree with the president of the National Association of Schoolmasters when he says that if the felt that six of the best would prevent a boy from finishing up at Dartmoor, as he might well do, he would be lacking in professional duty if he failed to administer it.
Children have a tremendous sense of justice. They do not resent punishment when fairly administered. What they resent is unfair punishment and what they resent even more is the teacher who has favourites. I did not find the Minister's statement in the House on 11th May in answer to a supplementary question very helpful when he said:
"I consider that the use of the cane, although it may be necessary, is an admission of failure on the part of the teacher."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1961; Vol. 640. c. 616.]
I do not feel that that is particularly helpful to those teachers who are in the forefront of the struggle to keep the social peace and bring about proper social development.
I am concerned about teachers who are prosecuted unnecessarily for the punishment of a child. We find that in every instance the case is dismissed, but we should try to put ourselves in the place of that teacher who has to go to court and then return to school. We should think about his position when there is some "smart aleck" whom he wishes legitimately to punish for some wrongdoing and who says, "Punish me and my mother will take you to court". I am surprised that more teachers do not say, "I shall not risk going to court for something like this", and turn a blind eye to bad behaviour. This problem deserves careful study, because this is one way in which we can help to combat juvenile delinquency. It would be beneficial not only to the nation as a whole but to the individuals concerned.
972
The amount of money that we are spending on education in the United Kingdom is about one-third of that spent in Russia per head of the population. Yet we have just witnessed the great enthusiasm of British people for the visit of a spaceman from Russia. I believe that the nation is anxious to hear of bold plans for improved State educational services and the establishment of teaching as an honourable profession which will have suitable financial reward.
I saw eye to eye with the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) when he said that more money would have to come from the central Government. The burden imposed on the ratepayers to pay the education bill is tremendous and it cannot reasonably be expected to increase much further. The Government must shoulder more of the financial burden, and I believe that if we are to give suitable financial rewards for the teaching profession the whole structure of educational finance will have to be reviewed.
I hope, therefore, like my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Mr. Hornby) and the hon. Member for Norfolk, South West, that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer decides that certain economies are necessary, education will be left free, because on education today depends the future of our nation. If we could only have a reasonable scale of salaries for teachers, if the rewards were made more attractive, the necessary recruits would be much more forthcoming, and with more teachers and smaller classes many of the problems in education which face us today would disappear.
8.17 p.m.
Mrs. Harriet Slater: I hope that the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Montgomery) will forgive me if I do not follow him in detail in his speech, but I agree wholeheartedly with him about the importance of the three Rs and basic training, at least in junior schools. The free activity methods have some place, but they ought not to be used at the expense of the basic training of our children on which so much of their later education depends.
There are various points of view about discipline. When I left college I taught in a school where the headmistress walked round with a cane on her arm and almost every child was caned during

973
some part of the day. The general attitude to children in that school was by no means good, because they reacted to that cruel attitude of the headmistress.
Later, there was a change in the school and there was no corporal punishment. Instead, as a punishment, the children were excluded from all kinds of things in which they wished to participate. The complete change in their attitude was something which had only to be seen to be appreciated. Children will react to good teaching and encouragement much better than to corporal punishment.
I agree wholeheartedly with the Minister that a great deal depends on the social and moral training in our schools. I am not speaking of religious instruction as such, but where there is a religious attitude and approach and the children are expected to behave up to the highest possible standard there is a reduction in juvenile delinquency. There is a school on a large housing estate in my constituency where some of the parents have prison records, but because of the attitude of the headmaster and staff to the children there has not been one child on probation there for many years. There is no corporal punishment, but there is a high standard of approach to the children and the widest possible education is given in that school.
It is difficult to cover the whole of such a wide subject as education in a debate of this kind. I do not think that there are priorities in the departments of education, but that there are priorities of education in relation to other aspects of public expenditure. The local authority in my constituency has issued a booklet entitled "Education in Stoke-on-Trent in 1960". It was our jubilee year last year. This booklet lists the different educational activities ranging from nursery schools to technical colleges and even to Keele University College, which is conducting a most important educational experiment. It gives a picture of the wok of our secondary modern schools. It deals with all kinds of activities—arts, crafts, music appreciation, athletics and social training. In this booklet, the City of Stoke-on-Trent has shown how wide the field is and how much needs to be done.
974
I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Fitch) on one point, and I shall disagree with some of my hon. Friends about the place of the secondary modern school. I do not believe that these schools are falling down on the job. Many of them are doing a wonderful job under difficult circumstances. The standard in many of them is such that they are giving not only a fundamental education which, to many children, is the only opportunity of education they will get, but it is also giving them the desire to achieve something in life which is better than their parents achieved. In many of these schools a great and wonderful job is being done. I am sorry if, in the experience of my hon. Friend, this is not so in Wigan, but I can take him to many schools in my area where I am very proud of the staff and of the children.
Throughout the schools now we have the largest ever percentage of oversized classes—about 60 per cent. In Stoke-on-Trent we have classes with more than 40—some even have more than 50—children. I know what happens when H.M. inspectors come to these schools. Some of the children are transferred from these very big classes to others. That sort of thing happens in schools just as it does in factories when inspections take place. We all try to hide the worse features. It is a natural thing to do. This year there is the bulge, and it will still be with us next year.
This means, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) said, that the question of the provision of teachers is greatly important. The burden of complaint by hon. Members on this side of the Committee against the Minister is that planning for this did not take place soon enough and on a big enough scale to provide the teachers we so sadly need. Last week he said, during the debate on science:
"We have to plan and to invest for fairly distant results, and we have to be judged on the timing, direction and pace of these plans for advance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1961; Vol. 644, c. 62.]
The right hon. Gentleman has fallen down on the job in the planning, timing and direction, especially in relation to the training of teachers. When the three-year period was introduced, I

975
asked the then Parliamentary Secretary what provision was to be made to step up the number of places in our training colleges. The answer has already been mentioned in today's debate. It was that quality was much more important than quantity. Certainly, quality is important, but in this case we want both quality and quantity.
Great problems are facing us. We must bring down the size of classes both in secondary modern schools and in primary schools. In primary schools the classes should be brought down from 40 children to 30, because that is just about enough in such schools. The maximum figure should never have been fixed at 40. More specialised teachers are needed in our secondary modern schools—indeed, in all other types of school as well. With all these problems facing us, we need to be much more courageous than we are at present and much more forward looking in the provision for the training of teachers.
In view of the time, I shall deal with only one other aspect of secondary modern schools. At present, more children are staying on at these schools after the statutory school-leaving age. In Stoke-on-Trent last year, 180 more children were able to sit for the General Certificate of Education because of the provision made in six of our secondary modern schools. About 40 of them passed—and I do not think that that figure is bad in the early stages of introducing that examination into secondary modern schools.
The fact remains, however, that while we are encouraging more children to stay on, and hoping that more parents will allow their children to stay on, in many areas it is extremely difficult for parents to listen to our pleas. I agree with the demand for doing away, in time, with any fees for university students. I do not believe that there should be a means test anywhere in education, which is so important to our children and to our future. But when we come to the maintenance allowances for children staying on at school we find them to be very meagre.
A parent who earns £300 a year and has an only child who is staying on between the ages of 15 and 16, can get only £40 a year maximum grant. If his
976
income is £390, he gets only £10 a year. When the income is £400, and even if he has one other child, he gets nothing for the child who is staying on.
In the age group 16 to 17, a parent earning £300 a year, with one other child, gets £55 a year maintenance grant for the child staying on at school. If he earns £470 and has only one child he gets no grant at all. If he gets £550 a year and has two children, the grant is £10 a year. But when we come to the age group 17 to 18—when we begin to get the wastage—a man earning £300 with one other child gets £65 a year. This is the age group when a child is costing as much to keep in clothing and in food as the father. A man with two children and earning £550 a year gets a grant of £10. A man with three children and earning over £590 gets nothing.
It is at the age when children are sometimes required to stay at home to help their parents that we must ensure that they are not prevented from staying on at school purely because of economic reasons. If we deny children the right to stay on, whether it be in a secondary modern school, a grammar school, or a technical school, we will prevent those with ability from filling our universities. Ability should be the test, and not whether their parents can afford to let them stay on at school.
If further proof is required of that, I have some other figures. These figures relate to the number of children who stay on at school after 15. The average for England and Wales is 33·4 per cent. after 15; 16·9 per cent. after 16; and 8·2 per cent. after 17. In certain areas where there is a majority of working people, some on low incomes, the children do not tend to stay on at school as long as children in Bournemouth, Southport, and areas like that, and the proof is in these figures.
In Cambridgeshire, more than the national average stay on after 15; 14·1 per cent. stay on after 16; and 7·5 per cent. after 17. When one comes to Manchester, one finds that the figures are 29·8 per cent. after 15 compared with 33·4 per cent. for the national average; 13·7 per cent. after 16; and 6·3 per cent. after 17. Salford, next door. is worse. The figures are 15·7 per cent. after 15, which is half the national

977
figure; 8·8 per cent. after 16; and 3·6 per cent, after 17. Stoke-on-Trent is nearly as bad as Safford—15·6 per cent. after 15; 10 per cent. after 16; and 6 per cent. after 17.
In Bournemouth—and this used to apply during the days of the means test and that sort of thing—51 per cent. stay on after 15; 21·2 per cent. stay on after 16; and 8·4 per cent. stay on after 17.
Mr. Ellis Smith: Equality of opportunity.
Mrs. Slater: In Wales, the land from which my parents come, they do exceedingly well. In Cardiganshire, 62·3 per cent. stay on after 15; 37·5 per cent. after 16; and 21·7 per cent. after 17. In Merionethshire, which is a scattered county and somewhat different, 60·5 per cent. stay on after 15; 43 per cent. after 16; and 25 per cent. after 17.
I sincerely believe that the number of children who stay on at school after 15 is decided by economic reasons. It still depends on whether their parents can afford to keep them on at school, or whether they are needed at home for economic reasons. It is disgraceful that when debating education in 1961 we have to admit that economic reasons may be preventing many children from staying on at school.
Dr. Barnett Stross: Is not the position aggravated even further by the fact that it is well known that children in Stoke-on-Trent are much more intelligent than those in Bournemouth?
Mrs. Slater: Stoke always sticks together. I do not believe that those figures bear any relation to brain power. Children in Bournemouth are not more intelligent than those in Stoke. Children in Cambridgeshire are not more intelligent than those anywhere else. The simple reason is that the children in areas like Bournemouth and Cambridgeshire have more opportunities than the children in Stoke-on-Trent.
Sir D. Eccles: I am intensely interested in the figures for the number of children staying on at school. Is the hon. Lady sure that the average income of parents in Merionethshire is very much higher than that of those in Stoke-on-Trent or Manchester?
Mrs. Slater: I qualified my statement by saying that Wales was different.
Sir D. Eccles: Why?
Mrs. Slater: Because I know so much about the villages of Wales. People in Wales—as in Scotland—have always had a desire to see that their children are not denied education, and they make untold sacrifices to ensure that they get it. In villages in North Wales parents have gone hungry so that their children could get a good education. It is because they have grown up with that great urge to educate their children that Wales is different from other parts of Britain. So I will not get caught out on that one by the Minister of Education.
I appeal to the Minister to look again at the question of maintenance grants. The list which I have was issued in 1957. The Minister tries to make every local authority toe the line about grants to university students, but I can take him to local authorities not far from my own which are not as generous as Stoke is over the grants given to children staying on at school after 15.
I could also go on talking about our building standards, for instance. I feel very strongly about having to ask teachers to teach in shocking buildings such as my hon. Friend mentioned. In the urban areas these buildings are mostly in the towns themselves, and we are moving the children out to housing estates, and as a result such buildings become no longer needed because the population is not there. I was glad to see two old schools in Stoke closed not long ago. We could never have made them decent schools in which to ask either children or teachers to work.
Our chief education officer says that the environment in which children work is very important. I believe that that is true. I do not say that a good building makes a good teacher or gives a good education, but there is a much better chance of a child being given a good education and of the teacher being happy in a good building.
I should like to know how much school building has had to be cut simply because of high interest rates. A week or so ago I asked how much a school tendered for at £170,000 would cost after we had paid the interest at the present rate, and the figure was £431,000. All

979
that has an effect on how far a local authority can plan its building, because it has to meet the constantly recurring burden of very high interest rates. If the Minister wants to do something, he should try to get the Chancellor, in his statement next week, to realise that pushing up interest rates is not the answer to our economic problem.
Education is so wide that the main thing for us to do is to ensure that every child gets a good education, a liberal education. I am a great believer in wide and liberal education. We need sound foundations, too, of course. Every child should have the glorious opportunity of an education according to its ability. The child should be able to appreciate that its education will never cease, and not only should it want further education itself but it should want, as a result of the advantages which it has had, to take part in youth clubs, adult education and other activities to ensure that others get the chances which every child does not have today.
8.39 p.m.
Mr. Dudley Smith: The hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) always speaks with great sincerity and from wide experience. I hope that she will forgive me if I do not go into the details of what she has said, but I subscribe entirely to her last remarks. I, too, and I think most hon. Members, would agree with her that we want children to get the best possible education according to their ability.
I believe that sometimes we are in danger of losing sight of some of the general objectives in education through an over-preoccupation with the material things. The material things—better schools and equipment, more detailed ancillary services and suchlike—are important. All of us on both sides of the Chamber glory in the number of A and 0 level passes obtained by pupils in our constituencies and counties and are glad that thousands of teenagers today have a good knowledge of physics and can tackle advanced mathematics.
However, despite these things, I feel that in some ways we are neglecting the fundamentals, because the prime aim of all education must be to turn out good and useful citizens. The majority in our
980
schools are benefiting from more intense and modernistic methods of education, but there is nevertheless a significant minority who in that first aim of education are failures. These are not necessarily educational dunces either. The well-mannered and well-behaved child with only an average educational record may be of greater use to society than one who has reached a higher grade of education—but who is unmannerly and lacking in responsibility and refinement. The well-mannered child will be of greater use to the community than one who has passed many examinations, but who is lacking in social conscience.
As some hon. Members know, I am a member of a county education committee and, like others interested in education, I have visited many schools and met many teachers and pupils. Much of what I have seen I have liked very much. Part of what I have seen I have disliked. Same of the children I met were highly proficient in science and mathematics, almost staggeringly so. Unfortunately, their teachers regarded them as successes, but I also found that some of them were uncouth, badly spoken and rather boorish. They knew a good deal about calculus, but they knew far more about calculus than they did about courtesy. It is obvious to me, as it is to many others, that standards of behaviour and discipline in our schools have 'been sadly neglected over the past few years. I know that it can be disputed, but I think that it is revealed in the figures of rising juvenile delinquency.
I took a good deal of heart today from the very profound words of my right hon. Friend about discipline, and I was very glad that he drew the inference that there should be more emphasis on religious education, for religious education can do a good deal to put children on the right path when they are going astray and not being properly corrected at school.
There is too much hooliganism in all parts of the country. Much of it stems from a lack of guidance in the classroom. As The Times Educational Supplement said only recently:
"If the schools cannot teach children to behave decently, then. what can they teach them?"
It may be said that good behaviour in the first place should be taught at home,

981
but the trouble is that many parents lack concern. If as a result they abdicate their responsibilites, the teachers themselves should shoulder more responsibilities.
Like many other hon. Members, I have consistently advocated that teachers should be paid more. I said so at the Conservative Party Conference last year, and I know that many of my hon. Friends agree with me. I am sure that the teachers will get much more before very much longer, but if we are to pay them more, 'we are entitled to a better standard from some of them.
A few of the teachers I have met—and I stress that it is only a few, because we do not want to damn the majority by the actions of a small minority—have a rather sloppy approach to their duties and ignore the need for good behaviour and good manners among their pupils. Consequently, morale in the classroom is low, even to the stage where the pupils are getting out of hand. If we are approaching the position of paying qualified teachers about £1,200 or £1,300 a year, as we may well have to under the new Burnham scale, we must expect a general levelling up in the standards of teaching. The majority of members of the teaching profession do an excellent job, often in difficult circumstances, as hon. Members opposite have mentioned. There is no doubt that at present they are underpaid, but, like a significant minority of their charges, a minority of teachers need to pull up their socks to make sure that this decline in moral standards does not continue.
It has been said that the last year of compulsory schooling constitutes the greatest danger period for juvenile delinquency. Like other hon. Members, I think that that period should be geared to the schoolleavers' future. It should try to kindle an interest in the responsibilities of adult life which lie ahead.
But, quite apart from questions of conduct and behaviour there is another danger in education today—that of concentrating too much on the passports to adult life—the passports of academic distinction, the number of subjects passed at A level and O level and diplomas and certificates, which many children are not always capable of getting. Nor are they necessarily unintelligent children. Some are very late developers.
982
The grave danger is that in an age of specialisation and qualification we shall create a stratum of second-class citizens who will be unqualified and on whom their neighbours will look down, not as in the concept of the class society which largely operated before the war, but in a society which is educationally conscious in the wrong way.
That would be an extremely bad thing. We might well find that in due course we had improved our educational system only to damn the failures at the age of 17 or 18 to live out a life full of bitterness and resentment purely because they did not achieve a modern status symbol—a degree, or certificate, or diploma. That is why I have considerable reservations about the latest suggestion that there should be a lower form of school-leaving certificate, although I should like the idea to be considered with great attention.
My right hon. Friend has long shown a great deal of interest in educational research, and I am sure that all those connected with the educational service are pleased about that. Personally, I should like there to be far more research into some of the branch lines of education, lines which form part of the integral whole of the education service. I should like more research into questions of backward pupils and the methods used in handling them, more into coeducation and whether co-education should be further expanded, more into nursery schools, so ably dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Compton Carr), and more into which is tile best year to start school life.
Speaking from my own point of view, I do not necessarily accept that the age of 5 is the best at which to start school. Many children at that age are not ready to be launched into a primary school where big classes and harassed teachers do not have much opportunity to give individual attention and where the hours are sometimes long and weary. I understand from my researches that no other country in the world starts formal education as early as the age of 5 years. In parts of Europe and Scandinavia, where results are at least as good as they are in this country, no child starts school before the age of 7, and only then if he is considered ready to do so. This would be one way of reducing pressure on our beleagured

983
primary classes and would give an opportunity of lengthening school life at the other end, and of implementing the Crowther Report.
I welcome the efforts which my right hon. Friend is making on the question of getting married women teachers back into the education service. It has been a success so far, and I am sure that as time goes on it will continue to be a success. We obviously need more and more married women teachers because of the difficulty of the new bulge which is coming along.
In conclusion, I should like to say a few words about finance. I do not agree with the ideas put forward by the party opposite on education, in its latest pamphlet, "Signpost for the Sixties", but there is one point on which I find some common ground and that is on the question, mentioned by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), of financing the education service. The annual budget climbs each year. It will go on climbing and may well cost £1,500 million by the end of the 'sixties, and the rate burden is increasing the whale time. My own County Council of Middlesex spends more than any other county council except the London County Council. It spends three-quarters of its money on education and the burden on the ratepayers is becoming terrific. I feel that the cost in the future will have to be borne by the Exchequer, although I agree that we do not want to take away responsibility from the local authorities which, by and large, administer the education service fairly and with enthusiasm.
I also agree that we must go on expanding our educational services. I would regret any cuts in those services by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he announces his proposals next week. I feel that we are making good, sound progress in education generally, despite some of the things that have been said today. Since the war education has become more and more important in the eyes of the Government. We must keep it that way, and must always have our eyes fixed on the need for continuous expansion.
8.50 p.m.
Mr. James Boyden: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. D.
984
Smith), and to the four or five previous speakers, for making their remarks reasonably brief. In view of the time, I am compelled to do so, too. It is a tribute to the North-East's enthusiasm for education that so many Members from the North-East have contributed to today's discussion. The North-East has been the pioneer in many aspects of education, especially in experiments in adult education, prison education, the county library system and would—but for the parsimony of successive Conservative Ministers of Education—have been pioneers of the county college system.
I support the hon. Member for Brent-ford and Chiswick in his plea for greater Exchequer help for education, and his warning to the Chancellor to lay off education when he makes his next series of cuts. I was pleased to find a genuine feeling for education among hon. Members on both sides of the Committee in today's debate.
My main criticism of social service Ministers generally is that they will not assess the nation's needs in respect of education, hospitals, and so on, and then set out to tackle the problems involved. In these days there is a shortage of trained brains everywhere. I am reminded of some of the Questions I have asked about therapeutic dietitians, physiotherapists, building engineers and architects in local government service, schools dentists and teachers. In all those fields the endeavour to go forward is held down because the people have not been trained, thanks to long periods of Conservative rule before the war and during the last ten years.
Very little has been done to remedy the orthodox wastages in the education system. On 27th April, 1954, the House debated the Labour Party's Motion to increase the supply of teachers and the money available for education, and in that debate a former Conservative Member, Mr. Angus Maude, said:
"the proportion of both boys and girls who complete a grammar school course is scandalously low …"—"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th April, 1954; Vol. 526, c. 1509.]
The boys and girls who fail to complete grammar school education are normally to be found in working class areas, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater)

985
said. Time and time again Conservative Ministers of Education have been warned of the need for increased maintenance allowances, but they have done nothing about it. The wastage of able girls in all stages of our education system is acute.
The fight on the part of intelligent girls to get into universities is of long standing, and is relatively little easier now than it was before. This problem has been put to Conservative Ministers of Education time and time again. There is also the wastage at 11-plus, and the wastage among training college applicants and at the universities. The failure rate at universities wants looking into.
Hon. Members on this side have offered advice to previous Governments on many occasions. We have suggested action that could have been taken to improve the situation. The first Question I asked in the House concerned dependants' allowances for training college students. It took a long time before the Minister finally made up his mind to do anything about it, and when he did so it was only because of the shadow of Anderson.
On countless occasions my hon. Friends and I have expressed the need for the provision of more day training facilities. The Minister finally came round to this, but not fast enough, and it is still not being pursued with enough vigour.
There is a great need, as I have said many times, to get mature students in greater numbers from other walks of life into the teaching profession. There has not been a drive in this direction. There has been a drive to persuade married women to return to teaching, but there has not bean a drive to get mature students into training colleges. There is nothing like enough clerical and technical support for teachers in schools. This is purely a matter of money. Finally, there are far too many rejections of suitable applicants for training colleges because the buildings just are not there. The right hon. Gentleman has an indifferent record for getting the maximum number of training college students which he can.
I want to spend a few minutes discussing the very deplorable situation which exists in mathematics, physics and chemistry. In answer to a Question
986
tabled by me the right hon. Gentleman revealed that one-fifth of men and nearly one-half of women students at training colleges have no mathematical qualifications. A more systematic study has been undertaken by Mr. F. W. Land, of Liverpool University Education Department. It was a study of about one-fifth of all training college entrants in 1957. It covered 2,254 students, of whom 1,880 were women. It was a fair cross-section of typical training college entrants. One-third of all students needed specific remedial treatment in order to bring their mathematics up to the level of performance likely to be attained by at least half the Children they would be called upon to teach. These teachers are the new teachers in our schools today.
It is very doubtful whether the remedies about which the Minister talks in the training colleges have been anything like adequate to cope with that. In answer to another Question tabled by me he told me that 17 training colleges are without full-time mathematics lecturers. In the debate on science the Minister implied that 1950 was a period of low interest in the teaching of mathematics. I suspect that he selected 1950 because it is a favourite Conservative date to select, with the implication, without actually saying so, that this was the fault of the Labour Government.
But all the people I have been referring to, and, indeed, all the people who would be coming forward in 1950, received most of their education under Conservative régimes. The difficulty in the schools today is largely the absence of mathematics, physics and chemistry teachers in the 35–45 age group. These people received most of their education under Conservative or Coalition Governments and when a good deal of the money which should have been devoted to the social services was spent on the war effort.
I want to make two quotations from Cmnd. 902, Scientific and Engineering Manpower in Great Britain. Paragraph 84 says:
"The continuing shortage of suitably qualified teachers"—
that is, in mathematics and science—
"is likely to remain of serious concern. In secondary schools other than grammar schools the increase in the number of children and the efforts that are being made to develop new courses are creating new demands so

987
quickly that there is little or no prospect in the next three years of maintaining even current standards."
This means that by 1962 the position will be just the same as it has been, with no opportunity of improvement.
Paragraph 46 says:
"… to restore 1953 staffing ratios and to meet all the new demands in secondary schools … might require a further 4,000 to 5,000 science teachers."
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. K. Thompson), who now sits on the Government Front Bench, said this in the debate on teacher supply and the financing of education in 1954:
"We are aware of the problem and of the size of the problem, and of the effect on our society as a whole if those problems are not tackled in an imaginative and vigorous way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th April, 1954; Vol. 526, c. 1533.]
That was seven years ago and the problem remains almost as acute now as it was then. In grammar schools now, in the year preceding the O-level examination, about one-quarter of the girls have no mathematics teaching at all, one-fifth on top of that have four hours or less, and a quarter of the boys have four hours or less. I should regard the minimum amount of teaching for adequate mathematics education as being at least five hours. That is the position today.
The White Paper, Cmnd. 902, to which I have referred, speaking of the grammar schools, says that
"the experience of the last three years is likely to be repeated over the next three, i.e., more pupils, with enough teachers to maintain the present standard of science teaching."
The present standard of mathematics teaching is 100 grammar schools with mathematics vacancies and 370 grammar schools with posts filled
"with teachers not having satisfactory qualifications".
I suggest that the qualifications of science, mathematics and chemistry teachers in the schools are far lower than they were in 1938, and the present standard is not satisfactory.
I should like to say a great deal more. shall conclude with this comment about girls' grammar schools. There are virtually no women graduates coming forward to be trained to teach physics and chemistry in girls' grammar schools.
988
These schools are unable to find staff to provide such courses for the girls. The most urgent need is to break this vicious circle—no teachers of the physical sciences, no provision for classes in these subjects, no students coming forward to study them, so no supply of science teachers. I leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) to break this vicious circle.
9.1 p.m.
Mrs. Eirene White: Today we have had the last of a series of very interesting debates on education in its various aspects during the current session of Parliament. We started off in good time on the Address, and we are finishing now, shortly before the Summer Recess, with today's debate. It is inevitable that all debates on education should range rather wide, and today's debate has been no exception.
We have a certain amount of agreement between the two sides of the Committee on education problems, but I think that the basic difference between the Government and ourselves is that the Government are satisfied because some progress is being made while we are profoundly dissatisfied because so much more remains to be done. That is the difference in emphasis, and the difference in our approach to these matters.
During the debate, contributions from hon. Members have ranged in subject from the nursery schools right up to the universities. One cannot deal with them all. I was very much interested to hear what the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Compton Carr) said about nursery schools. I was rather disturbed to hear the contribution made by the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. D. Smith). We have been discussing behaviour problems among children, and I think that, for the children who are brought up in our urban areas, the fourth and fifth years of their development are extremely important psychologically. One thing which worries many of us is that children of that age often do not have adequate play facilities, and for them play is a most important aspect of development. I am myself strongly in favour of nursery schools, and, in my view, where they cannot be provided there should be far better facilities for

989
play of a constructive kind for these very young children. I should very much like to have a proper debate on that subject at some time.
Having said that, I must turn now to some of the crucial matters raised in the debate, of which, quite clearly, the most important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) plainly showed, is the problem of teacher supply. I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary is to deal with this when he replies. Only last week, we had a discussion on one extremely important aspect of teacher supply, the great shortage today of teachers of science and mathematics. I shall not go over that ground again. It would not be necessary to do more than mention it had the Minister been franker in his contribution to last week's debate.
Last week the Minister twitted the Labour Party for suggesting that the position was getting worse. The right hon. Gentleman denied that and he quoted, most unfairly, from an article by Dr. Crank called "The Crisis in Mathematics" Conveniently, the right hon. Gentleman quoted from that article, but now I quote from the conclusion of it, which is:
"It must be obvious by now that we are confronted with a national problem of considerable magnitude. So large is it, in fact that a national policy co-ordinated by a vigorous central effort is needed to cope with it"
I would not have dealt with that further tonight had I not, as the representative of a Welsh constituency, felt obliged to draw attention to the situation in Wales. Last week hon. Members representing all parts of the Principality were shocked to receive a report on the position of physics teaching in Wales. This is one of the aspects of the problem of mathematics and science in general. This Report, the production of which was carried out by people with the highest academic qualifications, must leave all hon. Members really shocked.
It pointed out that the number of honours graduates is declining and that in the past ten years not one first-class honours graduate has gone in for teaching in Wales, and only two have in the past twenty years. At the other end of the scale, the number of those with pass degrees—not even third-class—who have had to be accepted as teachers has risen
990
to fifty-nine in the comparable period, with only two first-class graduates going into schools.
The position in the girls' schools, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) pointed out, is now, in the words of this Report
"… quite appallingly bad".
I will not weary the Committee with a great deal of detail, but I have with me a list of replies from headmistresses and headmasters of schools in Wales relating to the impossibility of obtaining adequate staff. One says
"The position is desperate".
and continues
"My physics specialist is a man who has never taught in a grammar school until he was transferred here. He can not teach the sixth form".
Another headmaster writes
"The second post was repeatedly advertised but with no result. The man I finally obtained …"
to teach physics
"… holds a pass degree in economics and geology."
From a girls' school a letter states
"The physics post was vacant for six years.
A letter from another girls' school states
"The post was advertised for two years with no response."
Another girls' school stated
"A retired chemistry master helps out part-time."
And so it goes on. I have batches of these which I could quote if there were time, but I will read just the conclusion of the report:
"The position is obviously a grave one, and as far as standards are concerned, a further drop in the near future is inevitable. Obviously strong action is required if the basis of physics teaching in the Principality is not to collapse entirely."
In the light of this sort of evidence, I suggest that we were right and that the Minister was wrong when we said last week that the position, far from improving, is deteriorating. The absolute figures may be better but, relatively, they are deteriorating.
That is just one aspect of the most crucial question in teacher supply. There are other very important aspects of the problem to which we should turn our attention. My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland mentioned mature teachers, people not direct from school or college, but older persons who may

991
have gone into other occupations but who feel that they may become useful teachers. I have been to the various teacher training colleges and I have found that it is a fact that, for instance, women who went into clerical occupations and who found that they were not satisfied with that type of life, wished to turn to teaching.
It is also equally important that we should attract older men back into teaching—possibly some who have gone into industry. But if we are to get back into teaching these people who are settled in life and have families—and the Minister made great play of these older persons in his speech to the Association of Education Committees the other day—we must offer them reasonable conditions. I suggest that the grants for these older people with dependants are quite inadequate to attract them if during training they have to keep their families on present grants. The maximum for dependants is, for a wife £160 a year, a first child £55 a year, a second child £35 a year, a third and subsequent children £30 a year. Even adding family allowances to that, I suggest that we cannot expect people to transfer from other jobs to teaching if that is the total grants available to them during their training period.
There is also the matter of the day training colleges. It is clear that people with families are not likely so easily to he able to detach themselves from their homes and they would, therefore, be particularly suitable for day training colleges. But what is the position there? We were promised colleges which would open last September but which did not open until January. We were told this time last year that there would be three others, but we now find that they are not being opened until next September. One can understand that a residential institution takes a fairly long time to plan and establish, but I cannot believe that if there were a real sense of urgency we could not have had more day training colleges before now.
I now wish to deal with married women who are asked to return to teaching. The Minister started out with a great flourish. He said that he wanted 5,000 out of the 50,000 women former teachers who are of a suitable age to
992
return to teaching. He has had half of that number so far. The rate of recruiting of married women to teaching appears to be no higher than it was in 1953, 1954 and 1955. One cannot pretend that one is doing anything spectacular in this respect, although naturally one is glad of such progress as has been made.
Now I come to something which is extremely disquieting on the question of teachers. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North mentioned this, but I feel that it should be emphasised. He received a Written Answer last Friday from the Minister concerning the number of untrained teachers who had entered the profession last year. Out of 24,000 new entrants nearly 8,000 were untrained. About one-third of the total entry were untrained. These include, no doubt, a number of graduates, but they are nevertheless untrained according to the Minister's own figures.
The Minister himself, speaking at Sheffield in March of this year, drew attention to what I think is the most serious aspect of this high proportion of untrained teachers when he remarked:
"By the end of the decade one in foul teachers in secondary modern schools will be graduates and a growing proportion of these will he untrained."
Anyone who has any knowledge or experience of secondary modern schools will agree that if there is any type of school in which a trained teacher is needed it is the secondary modem school, dealing sometimes with these rather difficult boys and girls whom we have been discussing in another context. Many of us are deeply disturbed to suppose that we are to have this large proportion of untrained college graduates going into the secondary modern schools where they may possibly do considerable harm through their lack of experience. They will be learning at the expense of the children.
The Minister suggests that he is doing everything possible, that he is battling against great odds and is doing all that can be done to improve teacher supply.
Before leaving this topic, I would mention that I happen to be connected with a voluntary organisation which is responsible for some teacher training colleges. We have been anxious to expand and have asked the Ministry for a decision about whether we could be

993
allowed to expand. I am thinking of one well-known women's college, a small one but it could be made bigger, which is training the primary teachers for which the Minister has been calling. The hon. Member for Bath (Sir J. Pitman), the Chairman of the committee, and I had to go on a personal deputation to the Home Secretary, in whose constituency the college is, before we could get a decision from the Ministry that we might expand. It is complete nonsense to say that everything is being done, that there is tremendous pressure and that we could not possibly go faster. I know of other instances where expansion could take place and could be planned, but we cannot get decisions from the Ministry about whether we may be permitted to expand.
I believe that if we consider the delays over decisions, the delays over the day training colleges and the inadequacy of grants for mature students and so on, the Minister cannot honestly say that he is doing everything possible to deal with what everyone agrees is the really central and vital problem in education today—teacher training. The Minister said that he is "waiting for Robbins". If he does it will be three or four years before we have the Report and then work out how to implement it.
I make no apology for having spent some time on this very important matter. But there are other things which we ought also to discuss. We have had some talk today, very properly, about secondary modern schools. The one announcement of policy which the Minister made will affect those schools in particular; that is, the announcement about the implementation of the Beloe recommendations. The Minister was right in saying that to establish a different examination at a different level is a very important step in our national education and one which should be approached with a certain caution and reflection. I think that he was on the whole right on the line which he took on this point. I feel about the Beloe Report much as I do about the Common Market, that I enter it reluctantly but feel that it probably should be done. The evidence which has accumulated over the past few years, the experience in the secondary modern schools and the number of miscellaneous examinations which are being taken all over the
994
country call for some reform on the general lines which the Minister has pointed out.
I should like to draw the attention of some of my hon. Friends who may feel a little diffident about this to some figures given in an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) last March showing that a very large number of secondary modern pupils are taking the G.C.E. examination and are not passing in any subjects at all. That in itself must be a discouraging experience. While I am all in favour of children taking the examination if they are able to take it, I believe that there is a place for a different examination if it is very carefully thought out and so shaped that it will not stunt or restrict the freedom of education which has been a characteristic of the secondary modern schools up to now.
In fairness to the secondary modern schools, we ought to draw attention to some of the difficulties under which they are labouring. I do not agree with what I understood my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Fitch) said about the secondary modern schools being, in effect, failures. We ought to draw attention to the very serious handicaps under which a vast number of these schools are still working. In 1959—these are the latest figures that we have; we are still awaiting the next Report from the Minister—out of 51,000 classes in secondary modern schools, 31,000 were overcrowded.
Let hon. Members think what that means in terms of strain on teachers and children. Not merely were the classes overcrowded, but the buildings in general were overcrowded. I have a list here culled from districts all over the country, and one could pick out one after another. Here, for instance, is a post-war school planned for 600 pupils which in 1960 had 893 children on the roll. A school planned for 510 pupils has 803 children on the roll, and another school planned for 450 had 932 children on the roll. Need I go on? I have pages and pages here, with which I cannot weary the Committee, of descriptions of conditions in which some of these schools are being conducted. I will mention only one or two.

995
Here is a school with 424 children on the roll about which it is said:
"The Baptist Church Hall, which is adjacent to the school, is used as assembly hall, dining hall and gymnasium. The church uses the building during the weekend, so that no permanent displays or apparatus are possible. There is one practical room shared between woodwork and metalwork, which is not a satisfactory arrangement."
That seems to me to be an understatement. There is another school with 614 children on the roll. Two practical rooms and four classrooms are in a detached block of ex-Army huts about fifteen minutes walk from the main building and the playing field is ten minutes' walk from the school. There are no changing facilities. In the science room there are only three working places. I could read so many more, but one cannot pick them all out.
Here is a girls' school for 511 pupils, and they say that there is inadequate provision for domestic science, which takes place in an antediluvian, gas-lit old railway property, completely isolated from the school and three-quarters of a mile distant. The hall is used for school meals, physical education and assembly. It cannot be used for physical education in lesson time. There is endless time wasted in walking to and from the playing fields, which are shared by another school quite a considerable distance away.
The point I am making about this is that a great deal of the work in secondary modern schools is being carried on in extremely difficult conditions, and we ought to be glad that so many of them do as well as they do.
There are a number of other subjects which I should very much like to discuss. Frankly, I was surprised that the Minister made no reference at all to education for commerce and business, because he made an announcement in a recent speech saying that he would refer to this matter before the summer holidays. He has not very much time left for that. In the speech in which he mentioned this, he said that in this particular field:
"We are lagging badly behind some of our most prominent continental competitors."
We would agree with him.
It is now nearly two and a half years since we had the McMeeking Report.
996
Some steps have been taken, but I think that everybody interested in this field is wondering when we are to have a definite announcement about a higher diploma or "Dip.Com.", if it is to be called that, to bring commercial subjects up to the level of technical subjects.
No matter what the announcement may be on these higher awards, and I do not wish for one moment to minimise their importance, because they are very important for us as a commercial nation, I feel that one should also draw the attention of the Ministry to the other end of employment in commerce—the number of children who leave school at 15 with an inadequate background to drift into office jobs for which they have no proper training. The idea of apprenticeships at that level—craft apprenticeships, as opposed to student apprenticeships—is very sadly lacking in the business world today. I was horrified only on Friday, on going to a secondary modern school in Hertfordshire, the headmaster of which told me that some parents were refusing to send their children to his school, which I should have said was an admirable school, because he did not permit girls of 13 to start commercial subjects. They were asking that they should go to a neighbouring school where, presumably, the head was willing for this to happen.
We complain about the inadequacy of the people who go into our offices and businesses, but what can we expect in the circumstances? I think that the Government should very seriously look at this whole question of the proper training and proper day-release of these youngsters who leave school with a completely inadequate background. I recognise that the higher level, the sandwich courses, of which we hoped to hear something this afternoon, is important, but I contend that at the younger age we are wasting a fantastic amount of juvenile ability, because parents do not realise what is best for their children. They take them out of school or encourage them to acquire mechanical skills when they simply have not the necessary educational background to enable them to make any progress in commerce or business. I repeat, this is waste. We cannot afford to waste ability in any sphere.
We cannot afford to waste ability in teaching. I come back to the teachers

997
because they really are the mainspring of education. I appeal to the Minister not merely to recruit and train more teachers but to do everything he can to take the drudgery out of teaching. There is hard work in teaching. There must be, as in any worth-while job, but I believe that there is a great deal of unnecessary drudgery. I ask the Minister just what his policy is on this matter.
Again, in a recent speech he made an eloquent aside about mechanical aids to teaching. There was an article only last week in the Schoolmaster on "Automation in the Classroom". This may be a new idea to some of us. I personally have no objection to it if the teacher can be saved from drudgery—for instance, if absolutely straightforward marking of arithmetic can be done by a machine. That, however, costs money. Is the Minister going to provide money for this, or is this just one of those remarks which he tosses off when he is making speeches outside this Chamber?
We have been discussing science teachers, but what about laboratory assistants? It is a waste that really valuable science teachers should do in the laboratory all the chores which could be done by laboratory assistants. There has been some improvement in clerical help, but not enough.
Finally on this point I refer to the waste in the teachers' energy, time, temper arid general resilience in the sort of conditions I have been describing in some of these schools. If there are not sufficient specialist and craft rooms, if all the time the teacher has to be clearing out and putting away apparatus and equipment, if the teacher has to spend a vast amount of time going round makeshift, badly-planned buildings, he is worn out, and that is a waste of the most precious educational material we have.
We have accused the Minister in the past of complacency. He complained about that in the debate last week on science, but we still believe that he is over-complacent—or gives the impression of being over-complacent. He may not be able to help it, but he gives the impression of being complacent from his smooth hair to smart boots. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap"] I just say that he gives that impression to us on this side
998
of the Committee. This is not the time for it.
We believe the time has come for a real crusade in education. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North pointed out, we need at least 100,000 more teachers in the next decade. At the moment we are getting them at only half that rate of increase. We on this side of the Committee have said in our "Signposts for the Sixties" that "investment in people in this country is still tragically inadequate". We say:
"Under Tory Free Enterprise system no limit is set to the amount of our national resources and intellectual talent consumed by the popular newspaper, the glossy magazine, the cinema, commercial television and the advertising industry … But when it comes to building schools and paying teachers' salaries, strict economy is the order of the day."
We shall know next Tuesday what is the real attitude of the Conservative Government to the values of education. We have had warnings from both sides of the Committee and we hope that when next Tuesday comes education, at least, will emerge unscathed.
9.31 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Thompson): I join with the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) in recognising the great attention which has been given this Session to the cause of education, beginning at the earliest days and carrying on, as she said, until the Session comes almost to an end. I am very glad that it should be so. It is an indication that through the country today there is a great enthusiasm for the cause of education and great determination to see that the resources which the country can provide for education shall be found and shall be properly applied to the general good.
One would have thought from listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) that the education system with which he is familiar is very different from the system existing today. Indeed, one had the impression that such schools as he may visit are entirely apart from the State system for which my right hon. Friend is responsible. I would strongly adjure the hon. Member to take an early opportunity of visting a maintained school of some kind to bring himself up-to-date with what is happening in

999
the schools. There is even less excuse for the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East. We know that she has been inside a school.
The task which my right hon. Friend has to discharge is to provide enough good schools of all kinds, primary, secondary, and technical, spread throughout the country to meet the needs where they are wanted and when they are wanted. I claim that the record of the last ten years shows that extraordinarily good progress has been made in meeting this obligation. The present school building programme, as the Committee has been repeatedly informed, is the largest that the country has ever undertaken. What is more, the rate at which the school building programme allocated among the education authorities is being carried out has now reached a pace which is faster than has ever before been achieved. I shall deal with more records before I come to the end of my speech.
The truth of the matter is that the starts on all kinds of education building, except universities, in 1960–61 total £115·4 million, which is about £30 million better than ever achieved before. I should like to pay tribute, and I think that the Committee would want to pay tribute, to the local education authorities and churches for the magnificent effort on their part that this represents. We may claim, and I hope that the Committee will not think it inappropriate to do so, that part of the credit for this achievement belongs to my right hon. Friend and his Department, for the improved procedures introduced in the last two or three years to add the steam to the programme which the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East thought ought to be there.
Work completed in 1960–61 totalled about 84·5 million. That is the last completed year. This represents about 4 per cent. shortfall of the allocation of projects allowed to local education authorities. This is not evidence of a reluctance of local education authorities to get on with the job. Far from it. It is true to say that all the education authorities are very anxious to do more than we are able to allow them to do, and would willingly set their hands to more if they could.
1000
The truth is that the local education authorities have found, as we have found, that there is a limit of speed beyond which they cannot go—that there is a load on the building industry at present beyond which that industry ceases to be efficient, ceases to bring to completion the projects upon which it is engaged, and the result is a failure to deliver the goods at the end of the day. There is a shortage within the local authority services themselves—leaving aside what goes on in other parts of the building industry—of architects and professional staffs, without whom none of these jobs can get very far.
In the further education programme—the five-year programme which was announced five years ago to accomplish the completion of £70 million worth of technical college construction—we have approved, and seen effected, the start of £69,849,000 worth of work of that £70 million. I hope that hon. Members will consider that to be a reasonable achievement, in all the circumstances.
It is not unreasonable to point out that the building and construction industry, upon which we rely for our schools, our training colleges and our technical colleges, is stretched almost to the limit of what it can be called upon to do. I shall return in a moment to other aspects of this matter, and of what we can ask the building industry to do, since this bears on what I want to say later about the teacher training college programme.
I come now to the problems which have been turned up by the situation to which the hon. Member for Sunderland, North referred. I give figures which it is convenient for him to ignore —if, indeed, he is aware of them. I do not know whether he is. There was no evidence of them during his speech. I can assure him that 1951 is a much more convenient date for us to quote, as it saw the end of the Labour Government and the beginning of our period of responsibility. The school population then was 5¾ million. In 1961, the school population is 7 million children, All these extra children have had to be found places, first of all in primary schools and later in secondary schools.
This has meant that, within the building programme for which my right hon. Friend is responsible, the first and

1001
largest portion had to be given to providing new additional primary schools to accommodate the additional primary school population, and, as that bulge passed through the primary schools, the concentration had then to be put, gradually at first and then considerably, on the provision of secondary schools.
Furthermore, we have had to take account of the fact that, as these larger age groups have moved into the secondary schools, we have had to provide accommodation for the phenomenon to which many hon. Members have referred —the larger numbers of children who have chosen to stay on a further year in secondary schools after reaching the age of 15. In 1961, about one-third of the children are staying on for a further year, and there are also twice as many 17-year-olds staying on at school today —46,000, or 7·6 per cent. of the age group. Thus, the first charge upon the school building programme during these recent years has been the provision, first, of additional primary school places and then, as the bulge has passed to the secondary schools, of further secondary school accommodation. I do not think it unreasonable 4o claim that the achievement of meeting these needs when and where they have arisen is something for which the Committee would wish to give my right hon. Friend every approbation.
I turn now to the most important part of the field of education, the item which has occupied a predominant place throughout this discussion, the training and recruitment of teachers. I think that the Committee ought first to have the present position clearly in mind. Taking the across the board figure, the average size of classes in primary schools is 32·7 children. In the senior schools the average is 30 children. Those were the figures for 1960, and we expect a further improvement in 1961.
I agree that within those figures there are wide differences. There are, of course, classes which are well above the average, and classes which are below it, and it is true, as I think one hon. Member pointed out, that some parts of the country are less favourably placed even within those broad averages. But these figures represent a very considerable improvement over recent years.
1002
In 1952, the percentage of oversized classes throughout the system was 39 per cent. In 1960, it was 33 per cent. In 1952 the percentage of pupils in oversized classes was 47 per cent., and in 1960 it was 38 per cent. In spite of the fact that this extraordinarily large number of children has been going through these schools in this period—I have given the Committee the figures—the staffing standards, which are a fair test of the adequacy of the system of education provided, have been improving throughout the period, and I think it right for us to be able to claim that to the credit of my right hon. Friend.
We ought to consider, as the Committee has been doing, what are the prospects for the future. The number of teachers in the service has increased from 221,000 in 1952 to 274,600 today, an increase of 25 per cent, during that period. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Sunderland, North and his hon. Friends to say that this is not enough; that it is too little and too late. That is a familiar line for the Opposition to take, and it is a familiar line for the Opposition to describe to the world at large how, if they had had the responsibility, they would have done better. The fact is that there is no recorded evidence to give grounds for believing that that would be so, and an increase in those years of 25 per cent. in the size of the teacher force in the schools is a very considerable increase indeed.
In 1952, the number of non-graduates recruited into the schools totalled 9,000. In 1961, the figure was nearly 13,000—an increase of 4,000, represented, in the main, by the overcrowding of the teacher training colleges. I think that the Committee would want to pay tribute to those in the training colleges, the staffs and all concerned and the students themselves, who have endured these conditions and made it possible for this enormous increase to take place.
The recruitment of graduates has shown an increase along similar lines. In 1952, the recruitment of graduates into the maintained school system was 3,100. In 1961, that figure had risen to 5,900, a very considerable increase—almost double—plus the recruitment into the service of about 8,000 teachers from other sources.

1003
Great play has been made about the recruitment of untrained teachers into the service. This figure of 8,000 represents a combination of various types of entrant—the student waiting a place in a training college, and some teachers who have been recruited from outside as mature entrants with industrial experience suitable for the job for which they were wanted, and for which a plea was made by an hon. Member a short while ago.
Recruitment into the teaching profession has been going on at a very considerable pace during these years, and my right hon. Friend is justified in claiming that he has sought all the avenues open to him and has sought to harvest among all the sources to the very best of his ability to obtain additional recruits into the teaching profession.
We have been faced with circumstances which nobody could forecast—the phenomenon of an extraordinarily high wastage mainly among young women teachers. This presented a problem to which there is no final solution. There is no easy answer to the fact that young women today marry earlier than ever before. I can understand that the devotees of planning will resent anything so vicarious, but the truth is that these young ladies are extremely attractive and extremely marriageable—and off they go. It is a very good thing that they should.
Very few trained men teachers left the service during this period. The hon. Lady who, with one or two other hon. Members, asked about day training colleges, allowed herself some unjustifiably scornful references to the rate at which these colleges had been provided. Apparently, she would have managed it in a good deal less time. I have no doubt at all that she would. But the fact is that my right hon. Friend has provided eight day training colleges—two which we have had for some time and six which have been provided in the last year. This seems to me a very creditable accomplishment, and I thought that the hon. Lady would be the first to give credit where it is due. With the eight day training colleges we have provided 1,700 places for mature students, and, in addition, there are about 3,700 places for similar day students in the residential colleges.
1004
The Committee knows quite well that we are not resting on these laurels. It has been informed on previous occasions of our proposals for doubling the training college places to raise the total by 24,000 places in all at a total capital cost of £36 million. We require to provide 12,000 of these places by September, 1962. The prospects are that we shall about hit the target of having that number of additional places available for entrants by September, 1962. The second phase of the programme is an additional 4,000 places to be provided by September, 1963.
Returning to what I said about the difficulties in which the building industry finds itself at present, it will take a great effort of planning and architectural and preparatory work to get these college places available by September, 1963, but I can assure the Committee that we will spare no effort to see that that is done.
Mr. Willey: Is the Parliamentary Secretary saying that the Government have targets in educational building, but that they are physically prevented from achieving those targets by the pressure of less necessary building?
Mr. Thompson: I am trying to give the Committee an assurance that we will do all we can to see that that does not happen. We can do no more than that.
Mrs. White: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why it is, when an organisation wishes to expand, that organisation cannot take the decision that it may expand and may be delayed for months and months before ultimately being given sanction, when planning could have been going on?
Mr. Thompson: I am sure that no such thing would have happened but for very good reasons. I do not have the details before me, but when we are carrying through an expansion programme of this kind it is certainly not done for any but the very best reasons.
This task of providing 24,000 places is very heavy, and the local authorities, the churches and the colleges themselves will find that it will call for every effort of which they are capable. In addition to the problems of providing sites and buildings, there is the problem of recruiting the additional staff which these expanded

1005
and new colleges will require—about 2,400 academic staff right away.
The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East probably knows as well as anyone in the Committee that there are problems of arranging for teacher training practice which, in this kind of situation, are very difficult to resolve and where an additional strain is thrown upon the local schools that serve the colleges. We hope quite confidently that if all goes well the number of graduates recruited into the teaching profession will increase as the universities themselves expand.
As the Committee knows, we are pursuing the married women returner campaign with a great deal of effort. The principal recruiting time for teachers is prior to the September term, as the Committee knows. We have not reached that stage yet in the first phase of the married women returner campaign. but I assure hon. Members that we are ready to make the best use we can of the numbers presenting themselves when we get to that time.
Mrs. Slater: How far has the Minister considered whether married women should be included in the quota for local authorities?
Mr. Thompson: These circumstances have already been explained to the Committee on several occasions. They are ex-quota in most circumstances, except where there are one or two conditions where, for obvious reasons of distributing resources fairly among authorities it is necessary to take a different decision.
In all those ways, we have attempted to anticipate the criticisms which we confidently expected would be made in this debate. We have our programme moving forward as rapidly as we can. We make no claim that our system of education has achieved perfection, or even that it completely meets the needs of the present day. We know that that cannot be so. Still less do we claim that we have the perfect blueprint for the future. Claims of that kind would be as meaningless as the phrases in the handbook to which the hon. Lady referred.
We make a different claim. Our claim must rest on a realistic appreciation of the practical day-to-day problems, of the numbers of children, their differing talents and abilities, the pace and direction of the change in the demands made by industry and society on our schools
1006
and colleges, the problems of the building programme and, above all, the problems of teacher training and supply.
I know that no Labour speech these days would pass the scrutiny of the "Socialist central oratorical planning board" unless it contained a charge of complacency against the Government. We appreciate that, but I hope that the Committee will be assured that no such charge can possibly lie against my right hon. Friend. His task is to assess the needs, to mobilise the resources and to direct their efficient use, and that he does with energy and skill.
We are building the schools and colleges at just about the rate which the economy and the building industry can bear. It is the largest building programme in our history and many times the wildest dreams of hon. Gentlemen opposite when they last had responsibility. It is even more than hon. Members opposite promised to build.
We have built up the strength of the teaching force to its greatest size ever, and, in spite of the bulge, we have made some progress in reducing average class size. We are increasing and improving the output of the training colleges and we shall recruit a greatly increased number of graduates. The technical colleges have grown and continue to grow out of all recognition from what they were only five or six years ago.
Those are solid achievements in which I should have thought the whole Committee would have found satisfaction. Their success is reflected in the growing numbers of our children who choose to stay at school beyond the compulsory age, reflected in the size of sixth forms everywhere, and reflected in the intense competition among able young people for places in the growing universities. They give the lie to the charge of complacency.
We know and we freely acknowledge that there is much more to do. The difference between us is simply that the party opposite can content itself with proclaiming dreamy-eyed objectives, whereas we have to manage with what is possible. Our educational resources are growing all the time and are growing rapidly. We want to keep up that growth. The worst that could happen to British education would be for the electors to give the party opposite a

1007
chance to disrupt the plans and developments now in progress and, if this is what they are in for, I think that it will be a long time before that will happen.
I invite the Committee to reject the Opposition's charges.
Mr. Willey: I beg to move, That Item Class IV, Vote 1, Ministry of Education, be reduced by £5.
Question put:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 158, Noes 242.

Division No. 252.]

AYES

[9.58 p.m.

Ainsley, William

Hill, J. (Midlothian)

Prentice, R. E.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Hilton, A. V.

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Bacon, Miss Alice

Holman, Percy

Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

Holt, Arthur

Randall, Harry

Blackburn, F.

Houghton, Douglas

Rankin, John

Blyton, William

Hoy, James H.

Redhead, E. C.

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

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Reid, William

Bowles, Frank

Hunter, A. E.

Reynolds, G. W.

Boyden, James

Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Brockway, A. Fenner

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Jeger, George

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

Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Ross, William

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

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

Short, Edward

Butter, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Kelley, Richard

Skeffington, Arthur

Castle, Mrs. Barbara

Kenyon, Clifford

Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

Chetwynd, George

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

Cliffe, Michael

King, Dr. Horace

Small, William

Collick, Percy

Lawson, George

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Snow, Julian

Cronin, John

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Sorensen, R. W.

Crosland, Anthony

Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Crossman, R. H. S.

Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

Spriggs, Leslie

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Lipton, Marcus

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Darling, George

Mabon, Dr. J, Dickson

Stones, William

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

MacColl, James

Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

Davies, Harold (Leek)

McKay, John (Wallsend)

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

Deer, George

Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

Swain, Thomas

Delargy, Hugh

McLeavy, Frank

Swingler, Stephen

Diamond, John

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Sylvester, George

Dodds, Norman

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

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

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Edelman, Maurice

Manuel, A. C.

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

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Mapp, Charles

Thornton, Ernest

Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Thorpe, Jeremy

Fitch, Alan

Marsh, Richard

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Fletcher, Eric

Mason, Roy

Wade, Donald

Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

Mayhew, Christopher

Wainwright, Edwin

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Mendelson, J. J.

Weitzman, David

Galpern, Sir Myer

Mitchison, G. R.

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Ginsburg, David

Moody, A. S.

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Gordon walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Morris, John

White, Mrs. Eirene

Greenwood, Anthony

Mulley, Frederick

Whitlock, William

Grey, Charles

Neal, Harold

Wigg, George

Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Wilkins, W. A.

Grimond, J.

Oliver, G. H.

Willey, Frederick

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Oram, A. E.

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Hamilton, William (West Fife)

Owen, Will

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Hannan, William

Padley, W. E.

woof, Robert

Hart, Mrs. Judith

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

Hayman, F. H.

Pargiter, G. A.

Henderson,Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)

Parker, John

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Herbison, Miss Margaret

Popplewell, Ernest

Mr. Charles A. Howell and

Mr. McCann.

NOES

Agnew, Sir Peter

Biggs-Davison, John

Buck, Antony

Aitken, W. T.

Bingham, R. M.

Bullard, Denys

Allason, James

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

Ashton, Sir Hubert

Bishop, F. P.

Burden, F. A.

Atkins, Humphrey

Black, Sir Cyril

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Balniel, Lord

Bossom, Clive

Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

Barber, Anthony

Bourne-Arton, A.

Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

Barlow, Sir John

Box, Donald

Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

Batsford, Brian

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Boyle, Sir Edward

Channon, H. P. G.

Bell, Ronald

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

Chataway, Christopher

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

Brooman-White, R.

Chichester-Clark, R.

Berkeley, Humphry

Browne, Percy (Torrington)

Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Bryan, Paul

Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Hocking, Philip N.

Pitt, Miss Edith

Cleaver, Leonard

Holland, Philip

Pott, Percivall

Cole, Norman

Hollingworth, John

Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

Cooke, Robert

Hornby, R. P.

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Cooper, A. E.

Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hon. Patricia

Prior, J. M. L.

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

Corfield, F. V.

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Costain, A. P.

Hughes-Young, Michael

Pym, Francis

Coulson, J. M.

Iremonger, T. L.

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

James, David

Ramsden, James

Craddock, Sir Beresford

Jennings, J. C.

Rawlinson, Peter

Critchley, Julian

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

Cunningham, Knox

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Curran, Charles

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Renton, David

Currie, G. B. H.

Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

Dalkeith, Earl of

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Ridsdale, Julian

Dance, James

Kershaw, Anthony

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Kimball, Marcus

Roots, William

Deedes, w. F.

Kirk, Peter

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

de Ferranti, Basil

Langford-Holt, J.

Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Leavey, J. A.

Russell, Ronald

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

Leburn, Gilmour

Scott-Hopkins, James

Doughty, Charles

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Seymour, Leslie

Drayson, G. B.

Lindsay, Martin

Sharpies, Richard

du Cann, Edward

Linstead, Sir Hugh

Shaw, M.

Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

Litchfield, Capt. John

Simon, Rt. Hon, Sir Jocelyn

Eden, John

Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)

Skeet, T. H. H.

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Longbottom, Charles

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

Elliott,R.W.(Nwcstle-upon-Tyne,N.)

Longden, Gilbert

Smithers, Peter

Emery, Peter

Loveys, Waiter H.

Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Farey-Jones, F. w.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Speir, Rupert

Farr, John

McAdden, Stephen

Stanley, Hon. Richard

Fisher, Nigel

McLaren, Martin

Stevens, Geoffrey

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Forrest, George

McMaster, Stanley R.

Studholme, Sir Henry

Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

Maddan, Martin

Sumner, Donald (Orpington)

Gammans, Lady

Maginnis, John E.

Teeling, William

Gardner, Edward

Maitland, Sir John

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Glover, Sir Douglas

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

Marshall, Douglas

Turner, Colin

Goodhart, Philip

Marten, Nell

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Goodhew, Victor

Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

Vane, W. M. P.

Grant, Rt. Hon. William

Matthews, Cordon (Meriden)

Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.

Mawby, Ray

Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

Green, Alan

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Grimston, Sir Robert

Mills, Stratton

Walder, David

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Montgomery, Fergus

Walker, Peter

Gurden, Harold

Morgan, William

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Wall, Patrick

Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

Nabarro, Gerald

Ward, Dame Irene

Hare, Rt. Hon. John

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

Webster, David

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Noble, Michael

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Harrison, Brian (Maidon)

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Whitelaw, William

Harrison, col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Harvie Anderson, Miss

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Wise. A. R.

Hay, John

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

Woodhouse, C. M.

Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

Woodnutt, Mark

Hiley, Joseph

Peel, John

Woollam, John

Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenthawe)

Percival, Ian

Worsley, Marcus

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

Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Hirst, Geoffrey

Pilkington, Sir Richard

Hobson, John

Pitman, Sir James

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mr. Finlay and Mr. Gibson-Watt.

Original Question again proposed.
Mr. Ray Mawby Mr. Ray Mawby (Totnes) rose—
It being after Ten o'clock The CHAIR MAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

POLICE PENSIONS (REGULATIONS)
10.7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Renton): I beg to move,
That the Police Pensions (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations, 1961, a draft of which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved.
I suggest, Sir Gordon, that we discuss with these Regulations the Scottish Regulations, which are in identical terms.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): Yes, if that is convenient to the House.
Mr. Renton: These draft Regulations give effect to a part of the agreement on pay, conditions and service which was reached in November by the Police Council of Great Britain, following the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Police, among which was a recommendation for a substantial increase in police pay. It was accepted by all concerned that, besides the pay recommendation being implemented, effect should be given to the recommendation of the Commission that the payment of an ordinary pension calculated on less than thirty years' pensionable service should not begin unless and until the pensioner reached the age of 50.
The Royal Commission said in its interim Report that thirty years should be regarded as the generally accepted minimum length of service of a constable, subject to the exceptions that there might be in the interests of the force causing some men to retire with less than thirty years' service. For example, a man recruited in his late twenties might find after twenty-five years' service that he was no longer fit for the full range of police duties. However, in general the Commission felt that there was little justification today when standards of health are rising and the expectation of life is increasing for preserving the entitlement granted to constables seventy years ago to retire on half pay after twenty-five years' service and while still in their forties. Such a provision has become an anomaly within the public service.
The Royal Commission deplored the loss of experienced men who leave the force on pension between the ages of 45 and 50 at a time when many of them
1012
still have a valuable contribution to make, not least in helping and encouraging the new recruits. That is why it recommended that ordinary pensions awarded on less than thirty years' pensionable service should not be paid until the pensioner had reached the age of 50, and the effect of the draft Regulations will be that a pension will always be payable where one would have been payable under the old arrangements, the only change being that where an officer Who retires with less than thirty years' service is under 50, he will not start to receive payment of pension until he reaches the age of 50. His pension will be calculated from the first day of his retirement as at present, but if it is an ordinary pension awarded with less than thirty years' service, and if he is under 50, the payment will be deferred until he reaches that age.
I should make it clear that this freezing of benefits applies only to those officers who retired with ordinary pensions, as they are called. Ill-health pensions and pension awards which take the form of gratuities or of amounts equal to refunds of pension contributions will continue to be made as from the date of retirement, just as they are today; and if a pensioner dies during the deferred period any widow's or children's awards which may be payable will come into effect from the date of his death.
These new provisions will not apply to those serving on or up to 7th August. They will apply to all those who subsequently enter the force. We are therefore in the strange position that these Regulations will not come fully into force until twenty-five years hence.
10.12 p.m.
Mr. Eric Fletcher: I am sure that the House is grateful to the Minister for having explained the precise purpose and effect of these Regulations. Without such an explanation they would not have been entirely easy to follow from the draft Statutory Instrument. The matter has been complicated because a number of previous Regulations have been made and approved by the House this Session dealing with police pensions.
The Minister made it plain in his speech, as I hoped he would, that nothing in these regulations affects rights already accrued or applies to persons

1013
at present in the police force. Their rights and their position are preserved. He also explained that the Regulations will affect only new entrants and that they give effect to the Royal Commission's recommendations about new entrants and to the principle which we all approve that thirty years' service should be regarded as the normal period in future for new entrants far entitlement to pension.
The House will also be interested to know that these Regulations have been approved both by the Police Council and by the Police Federation. The only other comment which I wish to make is that since the Police Pensions Act, 1961, has been passed by the House, we think that it would be an advantage to those who are interested in this matter and to the police if an opportunity were taken to consolidate the various Police Pensions Regulations which have been made in recent years, including these Regulations.
10.15 p.m.
Mr. Renton: By the leave of the House, perhaps I may reply to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher). As he said, there is now power to consolidate as a result of the Act of this Session which passed through the House virtually without discussion. We were most grateful for the co-operation which we received from hon. Gentlemen opposite in getting it passed through.
The enormous task of consolidating the three sets of Regulations started, in fact, some time before the Act was passed, but it is a most formidable task. Not only is it a formidable drafting task, but, of course, we must have a great deal of consultation with the representatives of both sides of the police service before we can lay anything before Parliament. This task is likely to take some months. However, it is a task 'which we are pursuing keenly and, eventually, it will be achieved and Parliament will see the results of it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Police Pensions (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations, 1961, a draft of which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved.
Police Pensions (Scotland) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations, 1961 [draft laid before the House, 5th July], approved.—[Mr. Brooman-Whitel.]

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SUPERANNUATION)
10.17 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): I beg to move,
That the National Health Service (Superannuation) Regulations, 1961, a draft of which was laid before this House on 5th July, be approved.
These Regulations provide for the superannuation of 350,000 persons engaged in the National Health Service in England and Wales. They replace the existing Regulations on the subject, the principal ones of these being the National Health Service (Superannuation) Regulations, 1955. In the main, the new Regulations are consolidating, but they include some Amendments to which, perhaps, I should draw attention.
The main changes which have been made to the existing Regulations are set out in the Explanatory Note, on pages 118 and 119 of the new Regulations. But four changes, I think, might be brought to the attention of hon. Members. In the definition of an approved course of study or training in Regulation 2 and elsewhere in other Regulations the Minister takes power to extend at his discretion the periods of time during which various applications and payments must be made by those concerned.
Such a discretion has already been exercised from time to time where applications and payments were late through no fault of the person concerned, but up to the present any concessions have been extra-statutory. The new provisions will make for greater ease and flexibility in the administration of these complicated Regulations.
Secondly, Regulation 10, about injury allowances, has been redrafted to remove anomalies which have arisen in its operation and to ensure that the wording fits the intentions. The principle is retained that injury allowance may be paid to an officer who sustains injury or contracts disease arising out of his employment, but where, because of the receipt of substantial benefits from the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act of 1946, or, for other reasons, no injury allowance is awarded and he is

1015
not entitled to any other benefit under the superannuation Regulations an amendment to Regulation 35 will enable contributions to be returned to him.
Thirdly, in Regulations 16, 17, 19 and 76 there are new provisions extending still further the widespread interchange arrangements that already exist between the National Health Service Superannuation Scheme and other schemes.
The final matter to which I should draw attention is Regulation 18, which is new. As will be seen from the Explanatory Note, this provides that an employee whose remuneration is suspended owing to illness or injury will cease to be an officer within the meaning of the Regulations from the date of suspension. On the other hand, in this case, or where the illness or injury has resulted in the termination of the person's employment in which he was subject to the Regulations, a period of incapacity of up to two years or longer, at the Minister's discretion, will in future be added to the one year already allowed before a disqualifying break in service occurs.
This provision will meet a point to which the nursing profession, in particular, has attached importance and in which my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) has taken an interest. I am sure sate will be particularly happy that it has been included.
Dame Irene Ward: Hear, hear.
Miss Pitt: There have been very detailed consultations between the Department and more than a score of bodies representing staff and professional interests, including the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives, the British Medical Association, the British Dental Association and the Joint Trade Union Committee for the National Health Service. One or two of the bodies consulted have remained of different opinion on one or two of the provisions, but, broadly speaking, I can say that they are acceptable.
I shall not trouble the House with the details of this very large number of Regulations, but I shall be glad to try to answer any points which hon. Members have in mind.
10.21 p.m.
Mr. Kenneth Robinson (St. Pancras, North): I am sure that the House will be grateful to the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary for her explanation of these Regulations. We on this side of the House have no objection to the Regulations, except perhaps on the ground of their bulk and complexity, but I suppose that is inevitable when one is dealing with a service which employs not only so many people but also so many different types and grades of staff, from copy typists to consultant surgeons.
We are grateful to know that there has been full consultation and, with very minor exceptions, general agreement with the professional associations and trade unions concerned. We are very happy that the House should approve these Regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the National Health Service (Superannuation) Regulations, 1961, a draft of which was laid before this House on 5th July. be approved
10.23 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): I beg to move,
That the National Health Service (Superannuation) (Scotland) Regulations, 1961, a draft of which was laid before this House on 5th July, be approved.
The purpose of the Regulations is to apply to the National Health Service in Scotland the arrangements for superannuation which have just been approved by the House for the Health Service in England and Wales.
The two sets of Regulations do not differ in any material respect. The present Regulations which are in force are the principal Regulations which were made in 1955, together with the amending Regulations which were made at this time last year. The draft Regulations at present before the House consolidate these Regulations and the opportunity has also been taken to introduce a number of Amendments. The more important of these Amendments, which, incidentally, will have little or no effect on the finances of the scheme, are described in the Explanatory Note of the draft Regulations.

1017
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, when moving the affirmative Resolution on the Regulations for England and Wales, referred to some of the more important amendments, including the extension of the already wide interchange arrangements between the Health Service and other schemes and also the new procedure in cases of prolonged sick leave. What my hon. Friend said with regard to England and Wales applies also to Scotland.
Apart from these amendments described in the Explanatory Note, the other changes introduced are rather of a tidying-up nature. They take account of a number of minor points of drafting and the like which have arisen during the working of the scheme in the past few years.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health referred to the consultation with the various staff interests which took place on the Regulations for England and Wales. Full consultation also took place on the Scottish Regulations. The House may be interested to know that details of the proposed amendments along with an explanation of the need for them were given to the interested bodies, which numbered about 20, early in January.
In the light of the comments received, the present Regulations were produced in consolidated form and the amendments inserted. Copies of this consolidation, with the Amendments clearly shown, together with a table of comparison giving the reasons for the various changes, were sent at the beginning of June to the bodies which had previously been consulted. Comments were invited by the end of June. I am glad to be able to tell the House that none was received.
I think that I can say, therefore, that the amendments proposed have, on the whole, been welcomed. Accordingly, I invite the House to agree to the proposed Regulations.
10.26 p.m.
Miss Margaret Herbison: I am grateful, as, I am sure, other Scottish Members present are grateful, to the Minister for the explanation that he has given. These Regulations run to very many pages, and it is very
1018
difficult for a lay person to follow every one of them and keep referring back to the previous Regulations which are consolidated.
One change has puzzled me considerably. If someone were looking after the interests of an officer and trying to find what were the officer's rights, he might he in great difficulty. I think that this is something to which the hon. Gentleman should give his attention.
I find in the Explanatory Note one of the main changes referred to in paragraph (c), namely,
"where, in calculating an injury allowance, no payment is found to be due, contributions are to be returnable "
I am then referred to Regulations 12 and 36 (1,d) as the relevant Regulations giving authority for the return of contributions.
I went carefully through the Explanatory Note to find what was new and what was consolidation. I read Regulation 12. I read Regulation 36 (1, d). Regulation 12 provides that the Secretary of State may not pay an injury allowance greater than would otherwise be paid, and Regulation 36 (1,d) provides that
"For the purposes of this regulation a person shall not be regarded as entitled to an injury allowance under these regulations if by reason of the provisions of paragraph (4) of regulation 12 no sum is for the time being receivable by him on account thereof."
In those two Regulations to which our attention is drawn far an explanation, no explanation is given. I have read it very carefully, but I may have misunderstood. If it is a fault in the Explanatory Note, it ought to be corrected so that any person acting on behalf of an officer will know just where to turn to ascertain what his rights are. Can the Under-Secretary of State deal with the point now, or would he prefer to give his attention to it later?
Mr. Galbraith: On a complicated matter like this, I should prefer to accept the hon. Lady's invitation to consider the matter and communicate with her in due course.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the National Health Service (Superannuation) (Scotland) Regulations, 1961, a draft of which was laid before this House on 5th July, be approved.

DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITIES, CYPRUS
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Diplomatic Immunities (Conferences (Cyprus) Order, 1961, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th June, be approved.—[Mr. Braine.]
10.30 p.m.
Mr. Eric Fletcher: Are we not to have an explanation of this Order? Perhaps I could put to the Under-Secretary of State the point which troubles me about it. I do not imagine the House will want to oppose the Order, but I am a little puzzled to know why the Order is made and presented to the House at this juncture.
It comes before us as a draft Order under the Diplomatic Immunities (Conferences with Commonwealth Countries and Republic of Ireland) Act, 1961, an Act which was passed only a few months ago. We had our Second Reading on 24th January and the Act received the Royal Assent on 2nd March. The operative part is Section 1 (5), which provides that
"The countries to which this section applies are Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Ghana, the Federation of Malaya, Nigeria, the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland and the Republic of Ireland"
Section 2 gives Her Majesty by Order in Council power to add other countries, provided they are within the Commonwealth.
What puzzles me is why Cyprus, which was already a country within the Commonwealth, was not specifically named in Section 1 (5), because, as I recall, Cyprus obtained her independent status about a year ago, and it seems a little anomalous that Cyprus should have been deliberately excluded from the Bill when it came before the House but is now added by Order in Council. It may, of course, be thought that it is desired to add to the countries I have mentioned and perhaps also to subtract from them. It may be necessary to subtract from that list the name of South Africa, but that does not arise on this Order. I think that we are entitled to an explanation, for it does seem an inconvenient way of legislating.
10.33 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Bernard Braine): I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that Cyprus was not deliberately excluded. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to explain what the purpose of the Order is. It is, of course, as the hon. Gentleman indicated, to add Cyprus to the countries to which the Diplomatic Immunities (Conferences with Commonwealth Countries and Republic of Ireland) Act, 1961, applies. Under the Order the Act will apply to Cyprus in exactly the same way as to other Commonwealth countries.
Section 1 of the 1961 Act confers the same immunities which are accorded to the envoys of foreign sovereign Powers and their retinues on the representatives of Commonwealth countries and the Republic of Ireland and their staffs, named in a list published by the Secretary of State, who attend conferences in this country with representatives of Her Majesty's Government in this country. The immunities continue for the period of the conference only.
Cyprus was not named in the Act as a country to which it applied, because it was intended that the Act should cover only Commonwealth countries and the Republic of Ireland. The House will recall that the Republic of Cyprus became independent, it is true, on 31st August; but the Cyprus Government did not actually apply for Commonwealth membership until later, and the fact is that the Commonwealth Prime Ministers had not approved the Republic's application for admission to the Commonwealth by the date the Act was passed.
This is the first Order to be made under Section 2 of the Act, adding a country to those named in Section 1 (5). Section 2 was included with Cyprus particularly in mind. It is unlikely to be used much. It is much more likely that in future a country attaining independence will become a full member of the Commonwealth at the same time, and will be added to the subsection by special provision in the Act providing for its own independence. Sierra Leone has been inserted in the list by the Sierra Leone Independence Act, 1961.

1021
I am fully aware that the House is always rightly sensitive on the subject of these immunities. But Cypriot representatives at conferences in this country are at the moment the only representatives of any independent country who would not have these immunities and it would be anomalous and invidious to withhold them.
1022
I hope that my explanation will have satisfied the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) and the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Diplomatic Immunities (Conferences) (Cyprus) Order, 1961, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th June, be approved

SCOTTISH FISHING WATERS (PROTECTION)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]
10.36 p.m.
Mr. James H. Hoy: I seek to raise with the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland a question of which I gave notice to the House on 20th June, namely, the protection of Scottish fishing waters. I shall not suggest for a moment that this is a new subject, because if one cares to look up the records one will find that it has been raised over many years and on many occasions by different Members both in this House and in another place.
On 21st February, 1907, Lord Balfour of Burleigh asked the representative of the Scottish Office, in another place,
"whether it was the case that certain persons recently convicted in the Sheriff Court at Elgin for illegal trawling in the Moray Firth, and imprisoned in default of payment of fines, had been released without the payment of the fines, and if so, whether he could, without detriment to the public interest, give any explanation of the reasons which led to their release, and to ask His Majesty's Government whether they would state what policy they intended to pursue in future regarding trawling in the Moray Firth"
That very adequately sums up what this is all about tonight.
On that occasion the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, replying to the debate which ensued, said:
"On behalf of the Scottish Office I am allowed to say that this matter is continuing to receive the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland. …"
Fifty-four years have now passed and I assume that successive Secretaries of State have continued to give the matter attention, because so far nothing has happened.
There was a much more vehement debate in this House in 1908, in Committee of Supply, when the then Member for Wick Burghs moved to reduce the vote by £100 and initiated a debate on fishing in Moray Firth. He protested against the unsatisfactory state of the law and the inaction of the Scottish Office. It is interesting to recall that
1024
on that occasion he was supported by one Major Anstruther-Gray, who then represented St. Andrews Burghs. The gallant major of that day was a very outspoken Member. He said that the condition of Moray Firth was absolutely deplorable and he wanted to know whether the foreign fishermen were legally or illegally fishing in those waters. He said that
"what was wanted was a little backbone in the Administration of Scotland. All this flabby work would not do. He did not think that they should have a decision by the Judges of the High Court of Scotland upset by a telegram from England."
The debate was replied to by the then Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, and by the Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. Sinclair. They both made it clear that they did not want to enforce the law and so offend certain foreign Powers with interests in these waters.
It is perfectly clear that these foreign countries still have interests in fishing in these areas. The White Fish Authority's Report, which has just been published, makes it clear that, in the Moray Firth and the Firth of Clyde, in contravention of the Trawling in Prohibited Areas (Prevention) Act, 1909, these trawlers are continuing to fish. In 1960, 12 Belgian trawlers were seen on 38 occasions in the Moray Firth, while 49 trawlers were observed on 128 occasions in the Firth of Clyde.
If the Under-Secretary of State seems to have a little trouble in following these figures, let me, in confirmation of them, point out that they were given by the Secretary of State in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) on 13th June. The right hon. Gentleman stated that in the Firth of Clyde, 49 trawlers were observed oil 128 occasions, and that they included 43 French trawlers which were observed on 109 occasions.
From all this, it arises that, while the Act does not specifically prohibit foreign trawlers entering these areas, fishing there obviously goes on, and it is at this point that the trouble arises. The Act which lays down the law about these areas is—unless I am incorrect—the Herring Fisheries (Scotland) Act, 1889. Sections 6 and 7, and the Schedule to that Act, combined with the byelaw passed in 1892, prohibit all fishing of certain specified

1025
types in the Firth of Clyde and the Moray Firth.
Let us be frank. I do not think that the Under-Secretary of State will deny that, as a matter of policy, the Government have decided that the laws on this matter should not be enforced against foreigners. Indeed, in the early case which I have mentioned, where the law was enforced, and the decision was upheld by a bench of Scottish judges, the Government issued an instruction to withhold the penalties of the law and allowed the men concerned to go free.
It is because the Act is not being enforced that the trouble is arising. The Act does not lay down that foreigners shall not be allowed to fish in the area, but it prevents them from landing fish in this country. The consequence is that, while our trawlers are not allowed into the area, foreign trawlers can go in, catch fish and take it to some other country for landing. This has two bad effects. First, it causes great friction among our own fisher folk, who resent the fact that foreign trawlers can fish in these waters and take their catches away, and that there is no means of checking them. Secondly, many fishermen say that immature and small fish are being caught, that the fishing grounds are being destroyed, and that this has grave consequences on our own fleets.
I do not think that even the Under-Secretary of State will deny that that sort of thing is taking place today, and that it is creating so much trouble in the area. The Minch still works under the ordinary three-mile limit. Under the Sea Fisheries Regulations (Scotland) Act, 1895, the Fishery Board may enforce a limit up to 13 miles, but no action has been taken to do this because we do not want to offend other countries. That is the simple reason for it.
We are faced with a new position today, because in the past few months certain changes have taken place in fishery limits throughout the world. One has only to think of the Norwegian Agreement, where a 6-mile limit was in force, and the 12-mile limit is to come into operation in October, 1970. Iceland has extended her fishery limits to 12 miles, and the Faroes, which we were discussing on Friday, have extended their limits from four to six miles. and during certain periods of the
1026
year and in certain areas, from six to 12 miles. British fishermen are debarred from those areas.
What British fishermen do not understand is why, in view of the action taken against us by those countries, we go to the other extreme and debar our fishermen from going into certain areas but appear to welcome foreigners. It seems ludicrous that this should continue.
As the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs reported in 1907 that this was under consideration and continual examination by the Secretary of State for Scotland, I can only hope that after a period of fifty-four years the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to tell us something about the action the Government now propose to take in this matter.
10.46 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gilmour Leburn): I am not quite sure what I am to be allowed to say tonight, but I should like to congratulate the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) on the researches that he has made into this subject.
The hon. Member has covered very fully some of the old Acts, but perhaps I might repeat the position, although I think that he clearly understands it. The hon. Gentleman quoted the Herring Fishery (Scotland) Act, 1889, under which no one may trawl within three miles. Under the same Act no one may trawl within the Firth of Clyde. Also, that Act enabled the Fishery Board for Scotland—it is now the Secretary of State for Scotland—to make a byelaw prohibiting trawling in the Moray Forth. Such a byelaw was made in 1892.
The hon. Gentleman then went on to quote the Trawling in Prohibited Areas (Prevention) Act, 1909, which says that a foreign trawler observed trawling in an area prohibited to British trawlers may not land fish in the United Kingdom within an ensuing period of two months. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that if the Department's protection cruisers observe a vessel of that kind trawling they report the matter to the Department, which, in turn, circulates Customs officers to see that these vessels do not land fish within a period of two months.

1027
That is the legal position. The hon. Gentleman then went on to quote the famous case in 1906 but here, no matter what happened in the law courts, I think that it is well known that the Government of the day subsequently decided not to enforce the byelaw against foreign trawlers, and that they did so on grounds of international law.
The hon. Gentleman quoted certain authorities on this matter, including the hon. Member for St. Andrews Burghs, and perhaps I might quote what the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury said in reply to a Parliamentary Question. He said:
"The Act of Parliament as interpreted by the High Court of Justiciary is contrary to international law."
The practice of not proceeding against foreign trawlers operating in the Moray Firth or in the Firth of Clyde, to which similar statutory provisions apply, was thus instituted a long time ago by a Liberal Government and has been followed ever since by all Governments irrespective of party. Whether that satisfies the hon. Member or not I do not know, but I now want to turn to two other matters.
I think that the hon. Member would like me to say something about the Government's general policy and about conservation, particularly in regard to the foreign trawlers fishing in these areas. The question of policy—i.e., Whether we should seek to extend our territorial limits, or exclusive fishery jurisdiction, further than three miles, either in a limited way, say, to the Moray Firth or Clyde, or, in a more general way, round the whole coast is obviously a very big problem. It affects not only the interests of our fishermen who fish off our own coasts and those who fish elsewhere, but it also affects defence and strategic questions and our concerns as a major maritime nation.
Undoubtedly, the climate of international opinion and practice on this subject has changed very much in recent years. Factors which had not arisen even ten years ago have to be taken into account. Views as to what international law does or should permit differ widely. As the House knows, Her Majesty's Government and other like-minded Governments have made great efforts in
1028
the past few years to arrive at a generally agreed international settlement on the territorial sea and fishery limits. We achieved a great deal at the Geneva Law of the Sea Conference, in 1958, but that conference left outstanding the important question of the breadth of the territorial sea and of exclusive fishery limits.
At the second conference, in 1960, despite the sacrifices involved for our own fishing industry, we supported the United States-Canadian proposal for a 6-mile territorial sea and 12-mile fishery limit, subject to the continuance of historic fishing rights in the outer six miles for a ten-year period. That proposal narrowly failed to secure the necessary majority. Since then we have been seeking to resolve our differences with other countries off whose coasts we fish, and have made agreements with Norway and Iceland.
All those developments obviously have a great bearing on the policy we should adopt towards fishery limits off the United Kingdom coast. I know that there is a substantial body of opinion which holds, for reasons which seem to it to be cogent and some of which have been well stated by the hon. Member this evening, that we ought now to follow precedents set by other countries and extend the breadth of our fishery limits beyond three miles.
There are many other considerations to be taken into account. There are other areas elsewhere—and I am sure that the hon. Members knows this very well—of importance to our deep-sea fishing interests where limits have not so far been extended beyond three miles. We must keep that in mind, and also the repercussions which any action on our part might have on our general naval and maritime interests. The question of fishery limits, moreover, cannot be viewed in isolation from other questions affecting our fishing industry, such as conservation and the trade in fish. All these matters require very careful consideration and we must always keep in mind the desirability of collaborating with the other fishing countries with which we are most closely associated.
Turning to the other very important point, the protection of our fish stocks, we must here keep a sense of proportion regarding the effect on the stocks of

1029
excluding foreign trawlers from the Moray Firth and from the Firth of Clyde. The number of foreign trawlers at present operating in these areas is not large, and I must tell the hon. Gentleman that for once I did not have any trouble with his figures, even if I appeared to do so.
As the hon. Member stated, in 1960, 12 foreign trawlers were observed on 38 occasions in the Moray Firth and 49 on 128 occasions in the Clyde. This gives a total of 166 fishing days. Since these trawlers are not allowed to land their fish in this country we do not know exactly how much they caught, but if we assume that their catch was roughly the quantity per day taken by a modern Aberdeen trawler—about two tons—we get a total of about 330 tons taken during the year by foreign trawlers from these waters. By comparison, our own seiners landed at Moray Firth and Clyde ports, in 1960, about 34,000 tons of fish. Not all of that, admittedly, would be taken from the two areas in question, but it gives some measure for comparison.
I think that the figures demonstrate that the operations of foreign vessels in these areas are not likely to have affected our catch very greatly. Having said that, however, it is not to suggest that the desire of our own fishermen that foreign trawlers should be excluded is unreasonable. I clearly understand the hon. Gentleman's point that it must be very irritating and galling for our own fishermen to see them fishing in these waters in which they themselves cannot fish.
This is very understandable, particularly in view of the situation with which we are confronted off other countries. Undoubtedly, if we did extend our fishery limits our inshore fishermen would derive benefits. The point I would make, however, is that if one is thinking in terms of protecting the stocks, it does not really make sense to rely solely on the prohibition of certain forms of fishing within certain areas.
What happens to the stocks around the United Kingdom coast depends on fishing not only there, but all over the North Sea and other areas nearby, since the fish migrate. Effective protection of
1030
the stocks can be achieved only by international conservation measures which it is one of the fundamental aims of our policy to promote. The 1946 Over-Fishing Convention prescribes minimum sizes of mesh which may be used and minimum sizes of fish which may be landed. The North-East Atlantic Convention of 1959, which we took the lead in promoting, but which has not yet been ratified by all the signatories and has not yet came into force, will make possible more comprehensive measures—such as close seasons, closed areas, and limitation of fishing effort.
We are very conscious that the 1946 Convention had limitations and loopholes and that under cover of these a large amount of fishing with small meshed nets is going on which can be most damaging to stocks. We have made certain proposals to the Permanent Commission set up under the 1946 Convention with the object of securing an improvement in this respect, and we shall spare no effort to achieve more effective conservation measures than now exist.
I think that I have covered most of the points which the hon. Gentleman raised. The questions at issue are not simple and cannot be rashly or hastily determined, even after fifty-four years. We are, as has been stated on several recent occasions in the House, keeping United Kingdom policy on fishery limits under review, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have listened very carefully to what he has said.
This discussion has been useful in bringing out once more the factors to which we must obviously give attention. If I cannot be more specific at present about what our future policy on fishery limits may be it is not because we do not realise the urgency or importance of this matter. I can assure the hon. Member that we do realise its importance and urgency. It is one on which strong views are obviously held, for very proper reasons, and we shall treat the matter with the care and seriousness which it deserves.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Eleven o'clock.

PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Graduated Pensions Scheme
  Graduated Pensions Scheme
  Family Allowances
  Family Allowances
  Pensions and Supplementary Allowances
  Pensions and Supplementary Allowances
  Social Security (Reciprocal Agreements)
  Social Security (Reciprocal Agreements)
HOSPITALS
  Old People, Bolton (Hospital Beds)
  Old People, Bolton (Hospital Beds)
  Children's Hospital, Leeds
  Children's Hospital, Leeds
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Pharmaceutical Services
  Pharmaceutical Services
  Physiotherapy
  Physiotherapy
  Physiotherapists, Orthoptists and Occupational Therapists
  Physiotherapists, Orthoptists and Occupational Therapists
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Mini Minor Cars (War Disabled)
  Mini Minor Cars (War Disabled)
  Epileptics
  Epileptics
  GREECE (MINISTER'S VISIT)
  GREECE (MINISTER'S VISIT)
  KUWAIT
  KUWAIT
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Foresters (Pay Claim)
  Foresters (Pay Claim)
  River Hull
  River Hull
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Public Service Pensioners
  Public Service Pensioners
EDUCATION
  Primary and Secondary Schools (Size of Classes)
  Primary and Secondary Schools (Size of Classes)
  Teacher Training Colleges
  Teacher Training Colleges
SHIPPING
  Discharge of Oil, Bristol
  Discharge of Oil, Bristol
RAILWAYS
  Prestige Advertising
  Prestige Advertising
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Kuwait
  Kuwait
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Hovercraft
  Hovercraft
  Cotton Textiles (Geneva Conference)
  Cotton Textiles (Geneva Conference)
  Pekin (Trade Fair)
  Pekin (Trade Fair)
  Locomotives and Rolling-Stock (Exports)
  Locomotives and Rolling-Stock (Exports)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Delinquency and the Treatment of Offenders
  Delinquency and the Treatment of Offenders
BRITISH ARMY
  Member's Letter
  Member's Letter
SCOTLAND
  Medical Laboratory Technicians (Salaries)
  Medical Laboratory Technicians (Salaries)

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

TRADING AGREEMENT WITH UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC
2.35 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: 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 having regard to the recently announced bilateral commercial trading arrangement between British nationals and the United Arab Republic:

(a) If this arrangement was made without the intervention of the United Kingdom Government.

(b) If such bilateral arrangements can in any way prejudice or retard further distribution to the United Kingdom claimants against Egyptianised assets.]

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I presume that my noble friend's Question refers to the agreement concluded on July 9 between a British firm of export consultants and the United Arab Republic. Her Majesty's Embassy in Cairo extended to the firm assistance of the type normally given to United Kingdom exporters in overseas markets.
As to whether such bilateral arrangements can be prejudicial to the interests of claimants against Egyptianised assets the answer, my Lords, is No. The Foreign Compensation Commission have, as noble Lords are aware, already received for distribution the compensation for all Egyptianised assets under the 1959 agreement.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Marquess for that reply, may I ask him, with regard to the
384
first part, whether it is to be understood that this indicates the beginning of a departure by the Government from their purist orthodoxy of disapproval of bilateral barter arrangements, which it has been understood have hitherto been viewed with disapproval by the Government? With regard to the second part of his Answer, may I ask if he can say whether he is likely to be in a position to make some statement with regard to this matter before the House rises?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: As I tried to make clear in my first reply, the assistance given by Her Majesty's Representative in Cairo was perfectly normal assistance in a private commercial enterprise, and therefore there has been no alteration whatsoever in normal practice. With regard to the second question, I would simply say to the noble Lord, that I should hope so.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Marquess for his reply to the second part of my question, may I say that on the first part I evidently did not make myself plain. For the record, I would say that I refer to what has hitherto always been regarded as the traditional attitude of Her Majesty's Government of frowning upon barter arrangements between countries. It had nothing to do with the active participation by Her Majesty's Government in such a deal.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, it will be necessary to have a dinner adjournment this evening, the time of which will be fixed through the usual channels, when we see how we get on with the Finance Bill. Dinner will be available tonight for those Peers who desire it, and I should be most grateful if noble Lords could inform the Refreshment Department by four o'clock. We are having certain staff problems and unless noble Lords can warn us by four o'clock I am afraid they will not be able to have dinner, but there will be sandwiches available. To-morrow night we shall not be able to put on a proper dinner but sandwiches will be available in the Restaurant.
NEWPORT CORPORATION BILL
Read 2a, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

COVENT GARDEN MARKET BILL
2.38 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I have it in Command from Her Majesty the Queen to signify to the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Covent Garden Market Bill, has consented to place Her Majesty's interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament for the purpose of the Bill.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time. There has been so full a debate and it is so closely within your Lordships' recollection that I do not think your Lordships will wish me to make a speech at this time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, we have fought a good fight and we have lost. I can only hope that time will prove that we have been wrong. I hope that when the Market Authority is set up it will from the start realise that people will expect a really worthy development for this potentially fine area in London, not just a series of concrete office blocks.
2.40 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, if I may respectfully say so, I agree with the polite and friendly observations which have fallen from the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, opposite. I do not propose to keep your Lordships long, but it will be remembered that there was some degree of controversy between myself and the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture about the position of the London County Council in this matter; and in order to refresh your Lordships minds I will quote briefly from the OFFICIAL REPORT. During my speech on Thursday last I said to the Lord Chancellor [col. 277]:
"My Lords, would the noble and learned Viscount tell us, in terms, what the L.C.C.
386
said about what they want to be done with the Market?"
To which the Lord Chancellor replied:
"My Lords, if the noble Lord will contain himself for a moment"—
which I did—
"I will come back to the important point on which the London County Council are most anxious".
At col. 278 I again intervened and said:
"My Lords, I hope the noble and learned Viscount will not rebuke me again but I have a recollection that the L.C.C. gave evidence before the Runciman Committee. Does the noble and learned Viscount remember what line they took? I thought it was rather critical of the present site."
The Lord Chancellor replied:
"My Lords, I have the report and the evidence here, but I think it would be a pity if I interrupted my speech."
And that finished that.
Now we come to the Parliamentary Secretary. During his speech towards the end of the debate I said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 233 (No. 109), col. 315]:
"Will the noble Earl forgive me? I wish he would clear this up, because I raised this matter with the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack. Will the noble Earl quote the positive approval of this Bill and this scheme by the London County Council—the positive approval? Because they gave evidence otherwise to the Runciman Committee."
And the noble Earl replied:
"My Lords, I was going through the list of authorities and bodies whom the Government had consulted, and whom it was their duty to consult. On the question of the London County Council and its degree of acceptance of the proposals in this Bill I have not a document to quote; but it would be unlikely that one would have a document to quote on this matter."
I thought it would be well, for the sake of the Record, to quote from a letter which I have received from the leader of the London County Council Sir Isaac Hayward. I am not a member of the Council and have no authority over its affairs. I submit that this letter is to a great extent on my side on matters as to the views of the Council on the merits, but in the end it is clear that the Council reached some sort of compromise about this scheme—possibly it has some relation to another scheme about which they reached a compromise as well—though it is not true, as I shall show, that they positively approve the Bill. I think it was the noble and learned Viscount the

387
Lord Chancellor, who said, at the end of the day, that they "acquiesced in" the Bill; and that is true, because I want to be quite fair.
However, I will quote certain portions of the letter. I will not quote it all, because I do not think that is necessary, but if anybody wants the whole letter in the Record I do not mind. Sir Isaac Hayward says in this letter of July 14:
"It is quite true that as far back as 1950 the Council expressed the view that if the Government were to decide on a unified control of the wholesale markets serving the London area, the appropriate authority or agency for the County would be the Council. This view was reiterated in 1955 in the Council's evidence to the Runciman Committee in favour of the removal of Covent Garden Market."
The letter goes on:
"It was also recommended"—
this is by the Runciman Committee—
"that a public ad hoc authority should be set up to undertake the comprehensive improvement of Covent Garden, the development of a proposed new market in north-west London and the co-ordination of redevelopments and improvements at all the other London markets. The Council expressed regret …"
this is after the Report of the Runciman Committee—
"that the Runciman Committee had not supported the complete removal of Covent Garden.
In 1958 the Government announced that it had accepted the broad conclusions of the Runciman Committee in relation to Covent Garden; that steps would be taken to set up a statutory market authority for Covent Garden alone; and that it was considered unnecessary to proceed with the Runciman Committee's proposal for a London Markets Authority. The statutory Covent Garden market authority would, when set up, first concentrate marketing into a smaller area and ultimately provide and maintain up-to-date buildings in the area …
For some time before the publication of the Runciman Report the Council had been trying to do something positive to try to improve conditions as regard traffic and fire risk in the existing Covent Garden Market."
Finally, the Council secured some undertakings from the Government about this point. The letter also says:
"The City Corporation had been trying to get powers to set up a fruit and vegetable market on the Metropolitan Cattle Market site (Caledonian Market), Islington …"
Some arrangement has been reached that, in return for the transfer of that site to the London County Council, the Council will build an abattoir for the City somewhere else. Then the letter continues:
388
"The Minister then asked the Council to negotiate for the acquisition of the St. Luke's site."—
I think that is in the Finsbury and Shore-ditch area. And here is the point where the Council, not improperly, co-operated with the Government for the sake of a public service.
"Having got so far, having pressed for the tidying-up at Covent Garden and it being clear that the Government had rejected the idea of a unified control of the London markets and accepted that Covent Garden should stay, our Committees agreed to accept the principle of the setting up of the new authority for Covent Garden in so far as it arose in connection with the proposal to acquire the St. Luke's site with a view to its being vested in due course in the statutory authority.
"From all of this you will see that we have accepted the situation in respect of Covent Garden, though with regret. From a town planning point of view, we think that on the basis that the Market has to stay more or less where it is in the centre of London, it should be moved to the Seven Dials area and rebuilt with adequate entrance and exit and car-parking facilities. At the same time the whole statutory market area should be opened up and redeveloped round the church and the Opera House (but not with blocks of offices) and made an area of high amenity."
My Lords, I thought it would be well to quote that letter in order to show that this question, which was never answered by the noble Viscount the Lord Chancellor or the Parliamentary Secretary, as to the Council's real attitude at the beginning and after the Report of the Runciman Committee was a contrary view from that taken by Her Majesty's Government in this Bill. But it was fair for me to make it clear also that they had in the end acquiesced in the passage of the Bill. I did not know all this. I was calculating and guessing at what might be the situation, but I was most careful never to say that the Council had opposed the Bill, or deposited a Petition, otherwise I should have been in difficulties. In the end, they acquiesced. On the other hand, I think that the Lord Chancellor and the Parliamentary Secretary might have admitted to the House, which they never did, that the Council, on merits, had opposed the Covent Garden rebuilding before the Runciman Report, at the time of the Runciman Report and after the Runciman Report. Possibly some arrangement has been reached between the Government and the Council which I, as one experienced in these matters, can understand, whereby friction between Her Majesty's Government and the Council has to that extent been removed.

389
In conclusion, I want only to say that I still think we were right about this Bill. I still think that it would be right, over a period of years, to clear the whole of the central London markets out of central London—Covent Garden, the City Corporation markets and the others—and to have four mixed markets somewhere on the edge of the County of London, and to let them be run in London, as they are in the Provinces, by the municipality, namely, the London County Council. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, said, we had a good try. On one occasion we were successful and it was a great day. On another occasion we were unsuccessful, which from our point of view meant that it was not such a great day. We do not propose to divide against the Third Reading of the Bill, but we do think that Her Majesty's Government have lost a great opportunity to rationalise and clear up the London markets situation, the result of which would have been a great relief of London's traffic problem.
2.52 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will be grateful for the trouble which the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, has taken on this matter in investigating with the London County Council to make the position quite clear. I should like to make only one further comment: that I did say on the last occasion we were discussing this Bill, on July 13, at Column 319 of Hansard:
"My Lords, I come to the question of the London County Council. They told the Committee"—
that is the Runciman Committee—
"and later the Government, that on town planning grounds they would have preferred to see the Market moved to a site elsewhere outside London."
I said that all through, and there was no question of my trying to conceal it. The London County Council made it clear to the Runciman Committee that they favoured the complete removal of the Market from the Covent Garden area. So far as I am aware, the London County Council's view on the matter is still the same—that is Ito say, on town planning grounds they would prefer to see the Market removed from its present neighbourhood.
390
But on March 17, 1958, the then Minister of Agriculture had a meeting with the Leader and the Chairman of the Town Planning Committee of the London County Council, at which the Minister of Housing and Local Government was also present. At this meeting the Minister outlined his proposals for Government legislation to solve the Covent Garden 'problem, emphasising that the Government was not yet committed to his plan. The Leader of the London County Council reminded the Minister that the Council would prefer the removal of the Market to another area; but he went on Ito say that as the Runciman Committee had not recommended in this sense the London County Council were prepared to co-operate with the Government in putting into effect plans for improving the Market on or near its present site, if they should finally decide to tackle the problem in this way. He also stressed the importance of early action to reduce the acute fire risk and control the storage of goods and ancillary business around the Market. On a number of occasions since then the Government have paid public tribute to the assistance they have in fact had from the London County Council in carrying these plans forward. Therefore I do not think there is much difference between us, and I believe we have now explained to your Lordships fully all that has developed in 'these negotiations between the Government and the London County Council.
I did not want to make a speech, and I will not make a long speech on the Bill at this juncture. But it is vitally important that the present chaos in the Market should be brought to an end. When this Bill is on the Statute Book the chaos which affects not only marketing but traffic, and means also a grave risk to life from fire, can at last be tackled realistically.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

FINANCE BILL
2.55 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, I have been looking through the

391
OFFICIAL REPORTS of our debates on the annual Finance Bill for the last few years. As a general rule, your Lordships prefer to have a short debate on the Second Reading. Last year we used it as an occassion for a two-day debate on the general economic situation. But this year we have had three fairly recent economic debates, the last of which was on May 17 when this Bill was going through its Committee stage in another place. I propose, with your Lordships' permission, first to summarise briefly the major changes but not the lesser changes in taxation which are proposed, and then to conclude with a few words about the economic situation to which the Bill is related.
My noble friend Lord Amory, in his Budget last year, took some modest steps in the direction of restraining expenditure by increasing taxation, because he anticipated that personal incomes were likely to rise more quickly than production, as indeed they did. The main theme, or the principal keynote, of this Finance Bill is the need to reduce excessive spending power. Except for a few minor adjustments in other branches of taxation, the only change in the Bill which will eventually reduce the revenue is the raising of the figure at which surtax begins for earned income from £2,000 to £4,000 plus the existing earned income allowance, which is two-ninths up to £4,005 and thereafter one-ninth up to a final figure of £9,945.
My Lords, £2,000 to-day is equal in value to somewhere between £600 and £700 between the wars when our present surtax structure was established, and it is equal to about £400 in 1909 when the first surtax was introduced by Mr. Lloyd George, incidentally with a higher starting point. British salary earners and professional men, business managers and executives who are earning incomes within the range of from £2,000 to £6,000 a year are at a considerable disadvantage compared with people earning similar incomes in Germany, the United States and other of our industrial competitors. The new starting point at £4,000 applies only to earned income, and the differentiation between earned and unearned income, which was first introduced into our tax system at the beginning of this century, has usually been justified by the argument that, whereas the owner of property
392
can probably pass on at least some of his possessions to his children, the man who earns his living, other things being equal, normally needs to save a larger proportion of his income than the man who lives on the proceeds of past savings.
In order to compensate the Revenue for the loss which will eventually arise from this new surtax structure on earned incomes the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to increase the profits tax from 12½ to 15 per cent. It so happens that both these taxes, surtax and profits tax, are delayed in their action. They do not affect the revenue for the current year. Surtax on income which is now received becomes payable in January, 1963, and profits tax is payable either one year or two years after the profits to which it applies have been earned, depending on the time of the year at which the company closes its accounts. British salary earners who suffer from the present out-of-date surtax structure will not get any relief this year, but they may perhaps be encouraged by the knowledge that their position will be improved the year after next.
On the other hand, companies which know that they will have to pay a higher profits tax next year on their present profits may well be deterred by that knowledge from increasing their dividends now; and that is one of the purposes of this Bill, as it was of Lord Amory's Finance Bill least year. Lord Amory increased the profits tax from 10 to 12½ per cent. last year; the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has now increased it from 12½ to 15 per cent., so that it has increased by half as much again in two years, not because we object to anybody having more money, if that money represents an increase of real wealth, but because we think it right to restrain the inflationary increase of spending power at the present time.
The other principal changes in taxation proposed in the Bill are the 10 per cent. duty on television advertisements, which seems to have given considerable satisfaction to almost everybody except the people who are going to pay it—but it is not a very large amount, £7 million this year and £8½ million next year; the increase of 20 per cent. in Excise duty on motor vehicles, which is estimated to yield £25 million; and the duty of 2d. a gallon on hydro-carbon oils, which will produce £48 million this year and £50

393
million in a full year. These three taxes together will raise just over £80 million of new revenue. If you add that to the approximate figure of £425 million, which is the estimated above-the-line surplus on the existing basis of taxation, you will then get an estimated above-the-line surplus for the current year of £506 million, compared with Lord Amory's estimated surplus of £304 million last year.
When we subtract that estimated surplus above the line from the estimated deficit below the line arising from the Government's capital expenditure, then the estimated overall deficit for this year is only £69 million, compared with £318 million last year. What that boils down to is that the Government borrowing should be reduced by about £250 million, which is quite a substantial amount. But it is only a fraction of the inflationary increase in spending power which was created last year by the rapid rise in personal incomes, which seem to be rising even faster in 1961. Our present estimates are that if they go on increasing at the rate at which they increased in the first quarter of this year, spending power, personal incomes, in 1961 would be increased by somewhere between £1,100 million and £1,200 million. Although industrial production, I am glad to say, in the last month or two has begun to grow again, its growth is nothing like commensurate with this growth of monetary income, which has already caused the price level to rise by no fewer than three points in the last seven or eight months after two and a half years of stability.
My right honourable friend has therefore asked in this Bill for power to use what are called the two economic "regulators" which are taxes that may be applied optionally, at the discretion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer: number one being the variation of Customs, Excise and purchase tax together, within a limit of 10 per cent. either way; and the other, number two, the payroll tax. Both of these were fully discussed by your Lordships on May 17. I explained to your Lordships then that although my right honourable friend recognises that there are some imperfections in the payroll tax, which we must seek to remove if it is to be re-enacted in 1962, he Still wants power to use it, if need be, in
394
1961 since he considers that an imperfect instrument may be better than none at all. As for the number one regulator, variations in Customs, Excise and purchase tax, there was, I think, less criticism of that. Most of your Lordships appeared to regard it as a useful advance in the science of public finance.
My Lords, if these two regulators were both applied to their fullest extent for a full period of twelve months they would, between them, mop up another £400 million of spending power; but only eight months of the twelve would be in the present financial year, because four of them have already gone. After that, at the beginning of the next financial year, these regulators, if they are to be continued, will have to be renewed by receiving fresh authority from Parliament. I do not, of course, know at all what my right honourable friend's intentions are with regard to the use of these two economic regulators. But whether or not he decides to use them his Finance Bill is a major instrument in the economic policy of the Government.
I think, my Lords, that most Members of Parliament in both Houses and, what is perhaps more important, most trade union leaders and most employers have been educated in the last generation when we were all trying to solve the problems of unemployment and unnecessary poverty. Perhaps it is not surprising that in trying to deal with the problems of full employment and affluence, which are very different, their success has not always been remarkable, and that in many respects this country has been outstripped by countries whose old economies were destroyed in the war and who have had to start again from scratch, without the old inhibitions which still survive here. Although we have had a great deal of advice about it from all kinds of people, some of which has been very good advice, as a nation we have not really yet learnt how to cure the economic diseases which spring from the abundant prosperity which we now enjoy.
I always talk with great diffidence about any economic subject, because I am not at all well versed in political economy, but it seems to me that our fundamental economic difficulty is a very simple one, and I do not think it has

395
really changed essentially in the last sixteen years; it is simply our disposition to spend more quickly than we earn. In the post-war sellers' market employers got into the habit of agreeing, not only to those wage claims which can be met by greater efficiency or economy of production and better salesmanship but also to those claims which can be met only by putting up prices, believing that they could easily sell at a higher price—which, of course, they usually can in the home market, because we are all giving ourselves more paper money with which to buy things. But, my Lords, you cannot build up a flourishing export trade, which is our eternal necessity in Great Britain, by yielding to the cost price inflation at home; partly because your prices will not be competitive, and partly because inflationary demand at home will lengthen your delivery dates, and your foreign customers will not buy from you on a twelve-month delivery basis if they can get what they want in six months from somebody else.
Of course, there are a great many other things in our economy which need improving, like restrictive practices. I myself believe that it is vital to our industrial future that we should abandon at least some of them. But even if we could get rid of all our restrictive practices to-morrow, if we insisted on paying ourselves a good deal more than the value of the increased production that we should expect to get, and a good long time before we got any of it, we should still have the same old difficulty of expanding our exports and of avoiding a foreign exchange deficit.
I think there are great improvements, too, which could be made internationally, in the international credit base, on which your Lordships had a debate two or three months ago, which would be to the great benefit of all the trading countries in the Free World. But however good and well-planned the credit arrangements to facilitate international exchange may be, if you consistently go on spending more than you earn the time will come when you will no longer be solvent. This problem of over spending, I think, is always essentially the same, whatever methods we may think right to use in trying to deal with it. We can use monetary methods, which means that you stop people borrowing
396
money from the banks or from hire-purchase companies; we can use the fiscal methods, such as are contained in this Bill, which means that you stop people from spending their money by taking it away in taxation; or we can use physical controls, which means that you stop people from building offices or houses or flats, or something of that kind. It is always a question of stopping people from doing something, and it is sometimes very necessary.
As I think your Lordships know, in present circumstances we are not proposing to apply any physical controls; but I have often told your Lordships that we have no objection to them in principle, and we might think it right to use them in different circumstances. We are at present using a combination of monetary and fiscal controls. How much better it would be if there could be some voluntary agreement or convention among all sides in industry to stop cost inflation at the source by applying a reasonable wage policy, as was suggested not long ago in one of your Lordships' debates. That would be so much better far the country than first of all starting inflation and then the Government corning along with some of these remedies. But whether that is an impracticable dream or not, I do not know.
I think it is very misleading to talk about a foreign exchange crisis or an economic crisis, as we all sometimes do, because there has never been any crisis in the proper sense of the word, which means a decisive moment or a moment of change. What we have had are certain moments when, owing to some accidental development, the attention of the public has been sharply drawn to the existence of a continuing problem which is there all the time; and the problem is not just haw to stop cost inflation but how to stop it without, at the same time, retarding sound economic growth.
My Lords, we have had this much success: that our standard of living in Great Britain, according to one economist, has increased in the last ten years more than in the previous hundred years. I do not know what figures he was using for the previous hundred years, but the figures for the last ten years, based upon the real value of wages, show a rise of just over 30 per cent.—that is allowing,

397
of course, for the decline in the value of money; and this in spite of cost inflation, which was in fact arrested for two and a half years from the spring of 1958 until the autumn of last year, and which we intend to fight again now.
At the same time, our exports continue to reach new records. I think an outside observer who began to study our economic problems in July, 1961, and who started off by looking at the record export figure of £331 million for June, at the unemployment figure of only 1·2 per cent. for June, and at the record level at which average wage earnings are running, would probably not be at all impressed by all the speeches which your Lordships are now preparing to make, and would probably be very puzzled to know what we thought was wrong and why we were worried about anything. Of course, the answer is that we are not doing enough in comparison with others, and that if we slide back into the position of a second-rate industrial Power we shall then become a second-class political country, too.
I think it was when we had our last economic debate that I pointed out to your Lordships that if we stopped giving anything at all in aid to underdeveloped countries, and stopped maintaining any defence forces abroad, if we could get rid of those two categories of unrequited exports, our trade deficit for last year would have been non-existent, and we might now even be adding to our reserves. But does anyone want to do that? I do not think any of your Lordships do, and I believe there will be very few people in the country who want to do it either. We have the resources, the skill and the brains to do very much better. All we need is common sense from all sides in industry, and I am sanguine enough to believe that we can get that, too. If we cannot, if we surrender to cost-inflation, and allow ourselves to slide downhill, we shall then receive very little consideration and no esteem at all either from Europe or from our own Commonwealth. One will regard us as a potential liability and not as an asset, while our own Commonwealth will look upon us as a broken reed which is of no further use to them. But if we can win the battle against our own weakness and against our own reluctance to move with the times, then
398
we can still lead both in Europe and in the Commonwealth. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
3.23 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, we have listened to the noble Earl give a lucid account of what is in the Budget, and some picture of the prospects which he foreshadows in the early future. Perhaps I might be allowed, in the course of my speech, to make reference to that early future, because we understand, first of all, that to-morrow in the other place there is to be a debate on the prospects of the economic outlook, and it is suggested that a week from to-morrow the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be making another statement bringing up to date his attitude toward the prospects for the year. Be that as it may, my Lords, I propose to turn backwards, in the first place, to see what has been the attitude of this House and the country to what has been going on under the auspices of this Government in the last eight to ten years.
About a year ago, I remember making a speech in this House in which I painted a rather serious picture of the position of this country. During the debate I was taken to task by more than one speaker from the Government Benches on the ground that I was exaggerating the situation when I drew a comparison between the risk which faced us if we did not stand up together, man to man, in fighting the foreign foe, and the danger we faced if we did not stand up to the economic situation of this country. Looking at the situation which has developed during the last few months, and which is regarded as very grave in the opinion of a large proportion of the general public, and even by Her Majesty's Government, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I wonder how far noble Lords here would really differ to-day from the point I made a year or so ago when I drew attention to the grave economic danger and the grave peril with which this country was confronted in the economic sphere. It seems to me that the lesson of the intervening months, between the time I made my speech more than a year ago and to-day, and of the promised statements to be made by persons in authority on the Government Benches, is that my fear that unless we mended our ways we should economically cease to be a

399
great Power in the world was not so preposterous as was thought at the time by certain noble Lords.
Now, my Lords, what is it that we take exception to in the policy of the Government? All along I have taken two things as matters of criticism of the Government. First of all, I have criticised, and I continue to criticise with confidence, their complete reliance upon a high bank rate and dear money in general as the main means of dealing with the economic situation. In the second place, I criticised a year ago, and I still criticise, the complacency in their policy which they have tried to put across to the country in coining the phrase—I do not care who used it, but it was not anybody on this side "You've never had it so good"; or, as a great many other people would put it, "I'm all right, Jack". Both those things are very dangerous shibboleths to describe the British people, because it places the advantage of apparent prosperity of private individuals as separate from, and even possibly at variance with, the prosperity of the nation as a whole, and the need we all have, to whatever part of society we belong, whether rich or poor, one class or another, to put the interests of the country as a whole before the interests of our individual selves. On both those indictments I arraign the Government for doing great damage to this country.
Now let me come to the question of the high bank rate and dear money in general. Two things are said in its defence. First of all, it is said that the Government at any rate succeeded in stopping the rise in prices of an inflationary kind. In the second place it is said that they were able to reinforce the amount of currency and exchange reserves in our vaults, so that we could face up to sudden gusts of ill-fortune in the international and national weather. I am quite prepared to admit that there is something in those claims, but personally I think that, when we come to look at them more closely, we shall find that they have not been nearly so successful as they may appear to have been.
Taking the second matter first, the extra strength of our reserves of currency and exchange, I must remind your Lordships that the result of the high bank
400
rate was to bring to this country a fortuitous amount of hot money. Hot money is a bird that flies in and out at its leisure. It is quite true that the rate of interest of the bank rate brought into our Treasury quite a considerable amount of hot money. But it was frankly hot money, and we know to-day that there are strong signs of its going away again. It may well be, as I said with great thankfulness, that a number of international high financial authorities have not withdrawn their money as rapidly as they might have done, and that a certain amount of that so-called hot money is standing with us to-day. But it is a precarious hold we have on it. It can go at any moment, and that moment will come when the bank rate tends to come down. Therefore, I think that the advantages which are claimed for a high bank rate and dear money are not nearly so powerful as they appear to be to less informed persons, who are not aware of the real state of the facts.
In the second place, with regard to inflation, I have never denied the advantage of stopping inflation and stopping a rise in the price of commodities. But I would point out to members of the Government, who are flattering themselves with having succeeded in that respect, that there is another kind of rise of prices—I do not know whether it could strictly be called inflation or not—which is the exact result of a high bank rate and dear money. For instance, what is the effect of dear money? The first effect is to put up the rents of houses. A large number of people in this country are suffering from high rents, owing to the dearness of obtaining capital and covering the period of paying off the capital which has to be borrowed. Again, when it is a question of installing new machinery in a factory the rate of interest at which new capital has to be borrowed is a considerable factor, and a permanent factor, in the cost of the output of that factory.
I am not going to run through the large number of illustrations which I could give, but I would take as one more example the case of municipal rates. Owing to their public works, many municipalities have to borrow money, and it is well known that they have to borrow at a far greater rate of interest than prevailed in the old days.

401
when the bank rate was low and they could borrow freely.
Finally, I think it is clear that the fall in the value of gilt-edged stocks, bringing a complete change in the whole outlook towards investment of that kind, is a very grave injury to the country. As I said to your Lordships not long ago, I was brought up to think of the importance of preserving the standard of the money represented by what we called the Funds in those days. I remember when 2½ per cent. Consuls were as high as 114, which is an unthinkable figure at the present time, when they have got down into the 30s—as low a figure as I have known in their history.
My Lords, all those factors are factors to set against what is alleged to be the wonderful achievement of the present Government in avoiding ordinary inflation. I myself would go so far as to say that, in a sense, dear money is in itself a form of inflation and, as such, can cause evils to the body politic and to the private citizen comparable to, if different in kind from, those of ordinary inflation. Those are the facts, as I see them, which make me very loth to do other than criticise the Government. I see grave dangers ahead.
I was reading the other day a well-known paper of high financial and economic standing. It stressed the importance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer using his powers, and using them speedily, to promote some change in the present situation. I thought that perhaps the writer was going to have some brilliant idea of a new method by which the dangers to which I have been referring would be overcome. But I found, to my horror, that the only things he was advocating was that the bank rate should go up at once to 7 per cent., that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should use all his powers to increase the tariffs on imports from abroad and to increase other taxes on the people. With all due respect to the editor of that paper, and the policy which it represents, that is trying to meet the difficulties of to-day with the old-fashioned, discredited methods that have done so much to produce stagnation in this country at the present time.
This stagnation, my Lords, is far greater than even the evils to which I have referred. I think that the most important criticism I have of the Govern-
402
ment is that their policy has produced stagnation. It is beginning to bring inflation back again. From all the evidence available, it is quite clearly creating stagnation; and in the last resort it is that stagnation, more than anything else, that is bringing about our perilous position at the present time.
We in this country live on the favourable margin between our exports and imports, and if our imports exceed our exports, both visible and invisible, in volume and in value, we are in a parlous way indeed. Because we cannot live as a country, and no artificial aid which we get from abroad, for which we are grateful—people helping us to bolster up our reserves of currency and exchange—can really put us right unless we get our trade balance correct. I am happy to see that in the last few months there has been some recovery, but it is much too early to judge whether that recovery is of real significance or whether it is just a flash in the pan. Going back over a period of months, our position remains exceedingly serious. I cannot avoid criticising the Government for the part they have played in that, for both the reasons I have given hitherto. I have never denied that changes in the bank rate may at times be justified and, in times of crisis, inevitable; but I have maintained, and maintain more vigorously than ever, that changes in the bank rate should at most be one of several of other pieces of machinery which should bolster up our position.
I have said earlier in my speech that I dislike particularly the Government's pretence that all is well, because "I'm all right, Jack—and you need not worry about the nation." I see the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, quite properly, shaking his head. I never charged him with taking that view, but there are people who have taken it. I think that is a most dangerous position. I have known the people of this country all my life, with an increasing respect for them. If they are treated properly, if they are faced with the facts and told that the nation can succeed only if they are prepared to make sacrifices individually, they will play their part. What I complain about in the Government is that they have taken the opposite position. The people have been led to believe that they can be well off themselves even

403
when their country is going downhill economically. They cannot. And when they wake up to find that they have been betrayed in that way, I think they will show their resentment.
But we have not yet got to that stage. We have reached the stage where the people must be told the facts and told that they must tighten their belts; and, above everything—and this is essential with the British mind—they must believe that they are getting "fair do's". The question that we on this side of the House ask is: in this Budget, which the noble Earl has so clearly laid before us, do the ordinary people think that they are getting "fair do's"? I emphatically state that they do not think so.
Let me just recall certain of the facts of the last few months. In the first place, we had the imposition of a special rate, a doubling of the tax on medicines which the bulk of the rank and file of the ordinary people of this country must have in order to preserve their health. We on this side of the House objected to that at the time. We said that we were quite prepared to consider imposts upon every section of the people, provided they were fair, but that, in fact, we regarded that as an unfair impost. What was the next thing? The next thing that happened was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made certain alleviations on surtax. I said from these Benches that I thought it was perfectly reasonable and fair that he should allow surtax payers relief on earned income with other income tax payers. So far as that was concerned, I thought it a perfectly legitimate relief of taxation when people were improperly dealt with under the laws of the country. What I took exception to then, and take even stronger exception to now, is the enormous other concession made at the same time to the earned income tax payers through a very large increase on the basic amount from which their surtax begins. I think that the time when he was making the other concession was not the time when he should also make his gifts of largesse to these people and raise the money from other people.
In the course of the debates in another place a further concession came to light. I would not say for one moment that it was a trick of any kind; I think the words of the Chancellor of the
404
Exchequer were not 'fully understood; but during the debates on the Committee stage in another place it became evident that, to a certain extent, unearned income was also going to gain advantage from the terms of the Bill. I do not want to argue the point here; it is a most complicated one and I do not think anyone in a speech could possibly make clear what the distinction is.
I only say that, first of all, we have had the relief to surtax payers allowing them to deduct two-ninths (I think it is) of their income for surtax purposes; secondly, we have had the very large concession to surtax payers who pay on earned income; and thirdly, we have had an explanation (I am not suggesting anything improper at all) of something which was not appreciated at the time, but by which, to a certain extent, what are called investment incomes gain a certain amount from the new law regarding surtax.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, but this point interests me. This is the first I have heard of it, and it is good news to me. Can the noble Lord tell me exactly how I shall benefit?
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It is so complicated a point that it would take a considerable time to explain. I would refer the noble Lord to a debate in another place towards the end of the Committee stage in which the Opposition moved an Amendment and it was resisted by Sir Edward Boyle. There was no charge of a breach of faith on either side, but it was found that the law as lit is now embodied in the Finance Act does provide in certain circumstances a relief to unearned income which was not appreciated at the time when the statement was originally put forward. As I say, it would take far too long to explain, but the noble Lord will find it on almost the last day of the Committee stage.
I think the result of those facts has been to produce in the minds of a large number of people a sense of unfairness; and one thing for which the British people as a whole will not stand is something that they regard 'as unfair. I regret, therefore, that these remarks of political persons or non-political persons against claims for higher wages for the working people fall upon deaf ears. They are bound to fall upon deaf ears so long

405
as there is It sense of unfairness. There is that sense of unfairness throughout the country, particularly among the working people, in that so much has been given to persons of high position and wealth. If that is so, then they are going to claim whatever they can get from the body politic in the shape of a higher standard of living for themselves.
If you grant that I am right in thinking that these people regard the set-up at present as unfair and rigged unfairly against them, then you must admit that until you can convince them that the situation is not unfair, no amount of blaming them for trying to get a higher wage and inconviencing the community in so doing will get you anywhere at all.
Those, broadly, are the points I want to make. First of all, I claim that the Government have failed through their obsession in favour of monetary policy. I admit that the bank rate may have to be used in certain circumstances, but the reliance on it of the Government, in conjunction with certain people with financial minds, is a slightly mistaken one if it is going to take the prime place. Secondly, I think it is essential that what we do in the matter of relief taxation not only should be fair but should be realised to be fair by the bulk of the people. When it comes to the new regulators which the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be putting on, I think I am right in saying that the noble Viscount who is to follow me was himself very doubtful about the desirability of what is known as the payroll tax; but he was in favour of the other. For my part, I am not enamoured of either. I am not in favour of the payroll tax for the reasons which the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, gave; and I am not in favour of the other tax, which in itself is an unfair tax, because it is one which falls on the humbler people more than it does on the well-to-do, and it increases the price of all the necessary simple things of life. To my mind, those two things are enough to mean that the working class people of this country will not be guided by the views of people in high places in the Government, because they are not prepared to admit the fairness of the distribution that is being made.
Finally, I repeat once more my belief that the high bank rate and dear money policy is a form of inflation in itself which is quite as injurious to the produc-
406
tivity of the nation as an inflation of the direct kind. Much as I hate it, and much as I would go a long way to stop inflation of the ordinary kind, such as rises in prices, I think the Government may easily tumble over backwards into a form of inflation which must be just as injurious as the inflation to which the noble Viscount and myself are strongly opposed.
3.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, once again I am sure your Lordships, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, will feel, as I do, that the lucidity and the moderation with which he has addressed us this afternoon is a never-ending source of satisfaction to his friends. I do not think the noble Lord will expect me to agree with him on interest rates, because we have crossed swords on this matter before. I accept with alacrity his statement that he is prepared to accept them as one of a series of measures in appropriate circumstances, and that is the way I myself look at them. I cannot accept his view that high interest rates are in themselves evidence of inflation. They reflect, when they are necessary, the supply and demand situation for capital in real terms. I agree entirely with the noble Lord that the attitude, "I'm all right, Jack" is as despicable as the attitude we experienced after the war for some years of, "I couldn't care less". They are both absolutely unrelated to the needs of the nation. I think I am on record on a number of occasions when I was in office as saying that although the expression "We've never had it so good" is factually correct, it is a most dangerous basis for our future conduct and actions.
The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, has said that the Budget and Finance Bill of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is unfair. If I thought that, I should regard it as a very serious criticism indeed, because I agree with the noble Lord that our nation gives the best account of itself only when it feels that the treatment of everyone is as fair as can be achieved. But when we view this Budget against the background of recent Budgets, I cannot think for a moment that anyone can really conclude that it contains anything which is unfair. I should have thought that the reduction in surtax, against the background of

407
other reliefs that have been made over recent years, was certainly not unfair; in fact, many people feel that it is overdue. I do not think that the reaction in the country generally has been a reaction which gives one to think that people generally—the man in the street—regard it as unfair. The noble Lord, of course, did not mention the increase in profits tax that has been made at the same time. Nor can I agree with the noble Lord that the specific increases in health charges justify the term "unfair", because what, in effect, has happened is that a proportion of the increased cost of the Service, equivalent to the proportion that has been paid hitherto since the scheme started, has been passed on to the user—just about the same proportion. Unless one takes the view that the original basis of that Act was unfair, I do not think that this action can justify that term.
Finally, if I may say so with respect, I do not think the noble Lord's allegation that there is criticism against the Government for having brought about a stagnant economy can be justified by the facts. Your Lordships have considered that question at length on other occasions, and I will not deal with it further now, except to remind your Lordships that, as my noble friend Lord Dundee has said, the level of our standard of living to-day is higher than ever it was; and, what is more important, the level of personal savings and investment is far higher than ever before.
During the past ten years, the internal wealth of this country, in real terms, has increased faster than at any other time in our history. As my noble friend Lord Dundee said, the problem here is that we must keep a perspective, and the danger is that the results which I have mentioned have been brought about at a cost, in one respect, which is very serious; that is that it has been brought about to the detriment of our balance of payments. I think—and I do not mind how often this is said from every quarter of this country—the lesson we must learn is that it is no good improving our standard of living, or our savings or investment, even in real terms, unless in our particular circumstances at the same time we accompany those things with a sound balance of payments.
408
Now may I turn to the Finance Bill and say that I believe my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to be congratulated on the Finance Bill, because it gives effect to his Budget proposals with the added merit that he has produced a Bill very much shorter than I produced last year—I think about a quarter of an inch less in thickness, and perhaps about three-quarters of a pound less in weight. Generally, the proposals seem to me to be entirely in tune with the needs of the economy. One proposal I do not like—I make no secret of it—is the fuel tax. One I am doubtful about the efficacy of is the payroll tax. Otherwise I think it is a good Bill, and I am in agreement, if I may respectfully say so, with every word my noble friend Lord Dundee used in his observations this afternoon.
I am going to comment briefly on only one aspect, and I want to apologise to my noble friend the Leader of the House if, because of another public duty, I have to be absent during his winding-up speech. The aspect to which I should like to refer is the other regulator that my right honourable friend has introduced, which is the power to vary indirect taxes by order. The advantages of this device seem to me to be considerable. It is quick acting; it will influence mainly—if it is used—consumer spending power, and it will involve no new administrative machinery. In the short term I think it is an effective club for my right honourable friend to have in his bag, and I hope that he will not hesitate to use it. But like any other method of mopping up spending power through increased taxation, it is an antidote rather than a cure. It is a device for neutralising the consequences of damage which has been already caused. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree that what we must find at any cost is a method of avoiding that damage before it takes place.
There can be no question, when we look back over the past fifteen years, that the greatest single cause of our economic troubles has been the regularity with which, with the exception of two or three years, wages have more than absorbed the whole benefits earned through increased productivity. This factor has been a far more potent one than any other in landing us in trouble

409
every year or two through rising costs and excessive demand. Of course, the years since the war have been utterly different from anything that was experienced before the war. There are no precedents on which we have been able to act, and that applies to Governments in every country. Even economists, so seldom in doubt, have been in very considerable doubt as to what consequences would flow from new circumstances and hitherto untried economic policies. Inevitably, therefore, it has been a period of trial and error. We must learn from our experiences and not repeat our mistakes. And here I am afraid, to date, in this business of the inflationary consequences that have followed from these excessive increases in monetary incomes, we do not seem yet to have learnt from our experience. I have ventured to say on a good many occasions over the past four years that the pace of expansion that we can safely undertake without certain damage to stability of prices and our balance of payments is directly related to our success in keeping this increase—both in wages and in profits—within the limits of the new resources that we can earn through increases in productivity.
My noble friend Lord Dundee told us that this year the increase in spending power, I understood him to say, which would arise from this increased money income would amount to £1,100 million to £1,200 million. I have always said that to the extent that we failed in the task of keeping the increase in money incomes within the new resources earned, the Government of the day would be forced to adopt unpleasant remedies to mitigate the damage caused. But really, to go on like this is not a sensible or efficient way of tackling the problem. Surely we ought as a nation to choose a better way of tackling the problem itself at its roots. I found myself in substantial agreement with a leading article in The Times recently to the effect that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not do this job alone; it must in the main be done by the nation; I am sure that is right. The Government's task is to give the right guidance and the right leadership, but whether results will follow or not will depend upon the conduct and reaction of the nation as a whole.
There is only one thing I want to do to-day and that is to suggest what I
410
believe to be the most sensible way of tackling this problem. Let the leaders of the employers and the trade unions form a joint standing council for industry. Let this council set up a permanent joint intelligence, information, research and planning staff. The rôle of the organisation must be a positive one: the promotion of efficiency and co-operation in British industry, including planning for development and expansion at the maximum rate consistent with price stability and sound balance of payments. Then let the Government support and work with this Council in every way appropriate in its field of responsibilities and functions. I believe that a joint staff of persons drawn from both sides of industry, with some economists and some statisticians added, would be able to give a council of that kind objective information and advice and provide them at the very least with a solid basis of agreed factual information, and I hope more than that—increasingly with agreed advice and guidance. My Lords, we waste so much time and effort in quarrelling about factual information, on which there is no reason in the world why we could not agree if we really wished. Later, after getting the information, when 'we come to questions of policy it may well be that we shall find ourselves in disagreement.
In the late war many people foretold that the inter-Service staffs and inter-Allied staffs would not work because of differing attitudes and rivalries. Most of them, when favoured with good leadership, did function, with steadily increasing efficiency. I believe that if, as an act of faith in the future of our country, both sides of industry were to resolve to try this road, a new spirit of positive teamwork might well permeate the whole of industry, with consequences that would revolutionise the prospects of our national economy.
I know well that support for such a project would involve radically new thinking on the part of both trade union leaders and employers. I think that on the part of trade unions a new attitude, if I may respectfully say so, would be justified by two considerations. It would involve an appreciation by the unions that their functions and responsibilities to their members have changed with the vastly changing conditions over recent

411
years, and in particular as a result of the acceptance by Governments of all Parties in this country of a responsibility for maintaining full employment. It would also involve ready acceptance by all concerned that the trade unions are an accepted national institution, with a continuing rôle of the utmost importance to play in industry, and that all employed workers ought to belong to a union or an association. I am sure many responsible and able trade union leaders know in their heart of hearts that short-term gains in monetary incomes are of no lasting benefit to their members if those increases are accompanied by consequences that damage the basic strength of British industry. Such gains, indeed, cut at the very roots of the standard of living and of the security of employment on which it rests.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I think the noble Viscount is making a very important part of his speech on these things which I have listened to with very great interest in the last few minutes, but when he comes to speak of this joint council as a properly set up body, will he include in that someone to deal with purely financial and monetary staff, not merely some economist or other? I have not so much faith in some of the economists. And will he be able to explain to us how it is that the pound has lost its value to 14s. since 1951 and what those things are? Is it suggested that the trade union officials will be able to persuade their members that they cannot go on asking for more wages when their spending power is being continually reduced in this way.
VISCOUNT AMORY: Of course, in reply to the noble Viscount, the lost purchasing power of the pound has been due to the inflation from which we have suffered. In my opinion, the biggest single cause of the inflation from which we have suffered is the tendency for money increases to rise faster than productivity, and the purpose of my proposal here is to get those basic facts better understood and accepted; and I believe that this is the best way of doing it. The joint council would not be just a conference for consultation but a standing body employing permanent staff.
If I may, I will quote an instance where I have seen something of this kind
412
happen, and that is in one of our national institutions now known as the Annual Price Review for Agriculture. I remember that some years ago, in our discussions with the National Farmers' Union, we used to spend a great deal of time quarrelling about factual information. Then the Ministry of Agriculture and the National Farmers' Union got together and appointed a joint working party (my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn will remember it) whose function was to get all the facts and present the Ministry and the National Farmers' Union with agreed financial and economic data. That procedure has been highly successful as a basis for subsequent policy discussions, and I believe that the same thing could be applied in this far wider and more difficult field; that is, to a study of the whole intelligence and information and factual basis which must be the background of our industrial effort.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, may I intervene to ask the noble Viscount a question? Is he not aware, as a member of the Government of the day in 1957, that the broad proposal he has just put forward is almost identical with the views which I gave the Government and Mr. Thorneycroft, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1957, and that it was rejected by the Government in favour of the setting up of the Cohen Committee on Prices, Productivity and Incomes? Is the noble Viscount not aware of that fact?
VISCOUNT AMORY: I own that I was not aware, and I must apologise if I ought to have been, that the noble Lord made a suggestion of this kind; that there should be set up a Standing Council with a joint staff. But if he did then I give him the fullest credit for a degree of prescience which I admire to-day.
LORD CITRINE: There is a record of this in the Treasury proposal to set up this Council on Prices, Productivity and Incomes. I pointed out at the time that it was not merely the ascertaining of facts which was at stake but the application of any recommendations that were made; and I tried to make it clear at that time that it was what followed the report which was infinitely more important than what the report itself contained.
VISCOUNT AMORY: May I make a deal with the noble Lord? If he will support me this afternoon I will gladly call this the Citrine Plan.
I should like tremendously to feel that a project such as I have described, or something like it, would receive the earnest, urgent and objective study of the leaders of both sides of industry, because I sincerely believe that it points the only road suited to this nation of ours, towards real practical progress and sound expansion. Meantime, as I promised your Lordships to be brief, I should like only to add, as regards the rôle of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this matter, that I know him to be a man of outstanding ability and energy and courage, and I have no doubt whatever that he will follow up his Budget and Finance Bill with practical measures of a kind and on a scale adequate to the needs of the situation.
4.15 p.m.
LORD BROCKET: My Lords, I am very much reminded of thirty years ago, just after I was elected to the House of Commons in June, 1931. That autumn, your Lordships will remember, we had the formation of the National Government and what we called the Snowden Budget. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer prepared a small Budget on the last Budget day, but whether he will have to legislate in any other way than for the two regulators which he has provided is, of course, a matter to be seen. I feel this afternoon in a very interesting position following a former Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not know what sort of cows the noble Viscount has, but he is dual-purpose himself; he is a sort of shorthorn, because he has been Minister of Agriculture—if I may say so, a very successful one—and also Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I think we are very fortunate in your Lordships' House in having such Members with such experience in another place.
Before, I come to the main theme of what I was going to say, may I, speaking as an industrialist, welcome very much Lord Amory's suggestion of the setting up of a joint council of some kind. It was very helpful, I think, that the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, should have thought of this even in 1957, and if the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, had had better atten
414
tion from the Government of that day I am sure we should be in a much better position at the present time.
LORD CITRINE: I agree.
LORD BROCKET: I have spoken on several occasions in debates on the Finance Bill in your Lordships' House, and I always feel that on the whole we are hardly allowed enough time to debate it. We have had economic debates recently, but I welcome being able to express a few thoughts on the Finance Bill, although we have no power over finance except that of advice. I have on several occasions followed, either more nearly or a little further away, speeches by the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, and I should like to pay him this tribute: that he has made very wise, well-thought-out speeches on almost every Finance Bill since I have been in this House. I should also like to say that on the question of money rates I always agree with him. It may not be acceptable to Her Majesty's Government to say that I disagree very much with their views on rates of money and on bank rate. Whereas in the past the bank rate used to be looked after by a non-nationalised Bank of England, in the last few years I have always thought that the bank rate variations, up and down, must be an agreed policy between the Treasury and the Bank of England. I must admit that although, as the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence said, a high bank rate may attract hot money from abroad, I feel that on the whole a high bank rate does far more harm than good and is in fact inflationary in itself.
The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, mentioned the question of rates—that is, rates with a big "R"—imposed by local authorities, which never seem to go down but keep on going up. I sympathise with the local authorities whose rates go up because they have to borrow money to build their council houses—and I have said this before. If they borrow money at 7 per cent. they will have to charge 30s. a week extra on the rent of a council house above what they would have to charge if they could borrow the money at 4 per cent. That is quite easy to work out. What happens? Of course, the person living in the council house wants more wages to pay the rent, and

415
that is absolutely inflationary. I cannot regard anything as more inflationary than that.
We have lately had the raising of building society rates to 6½ per cent., and I am told by those who know that that was caused by the increase in profits tax imposed by the last Budget, which we are discussing to-day. Profits tax, as your Lordships know, was increased from 12½ per cent. to 15 per cent., and that increase. I believe, was the last straw which broke the camel's back, or the building societies' back, and they had to raise rates to 6½ per cent. I cannot imagine anything more inflationary than that for people who wish to own or build their houses, and it is just one more example of a high bank rate causing inflation. As an industrialist I would point out that when we want to build factories or put up further plant in order to export or to supply the home market, we now have to pay a very high rate, instead of a low rate to get the money. That must, in effect, cause higher prices either in the home market or the export market. In fact, speaking as one connected with various industries, I cannot imagine anything more inflationary than a high bank rate, except high taxation itself.
Now we have the two regulators proposed in the last Budget. What the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to do, one has no idea, except that I do not imagine that he would have proposed the regulators if he had no thought of using them. I believe that part of the recent inflation since the Budget has been caused by the uncertainty of when and how these regulators will be used. In my opinion, there is nothing more damaging to industry than uncertainty; and the very fact that we have had these regulators hanging over our heads for the last three months has, I believe, caused a certain amount of inflation. As to this poll tax, or, as I have seen it expressed, this "up-the-pole" tax, I personally will not criticise it, because I know there are other Members of your Lordships' House who will do so. I merely say that I think it is a bad tax, and I only hope that at the last moment the Chancellor will not use it.
I now come to the other regulator, the power given to the Chancellor to impose
416
an extra 10 per cent. on customs or excise or tariffs, or anything else. That, I believe to be an absolutely fatal tax. I think that if the Chancellor imposes it he will have round his head the biggest round of wage rises that he has ever had. It is quite useless for members of Her Majesty's Government, or for the Chancellor, to ask the trade unions not to ask for higher wages when the cost of living is going up. I do not call this tax a regulator; I call it an accelerator. When this is put on, if it is put on, I feel quite certain that the trade unions not only will ask for higher wages, as they have already, but will be justified in asking for them. I believe that nothing can be worse from the point of view of encouraging inflation than this accelerator, the power to impose which is allowed to the Chancellor in his last Budget.
There has also been 2d. per gallon put on fuel oil. I noticed that the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said that this adds £48 million to the revenue. The way I look at it is that it adds £48 million to the cost of travel and heating, both in industry and in housing. Therefore, it is inflationary, because it is obvious that those who have to spend £48 million extra will want more wages to provide the £48 million. I feel that that was a most unwise thing to do, except, of course, that it may well be that it was done as a sop to solid fuel and perhaps may encourage the use of coal or other solid fuels which are produced here rather than abroad. So far as that is concerned, I can see the point; but I feel that it is a most damaging amount to put on to the cost of living or of manufacture.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said that the regulator would "mop up" £400 million of spending power in a full year, if applied in full. That means that £400 million of spending power may be, to use his words, mopped up; but it also means that the wage earners of this country will require £400 million more in wages in order to pay these extra costs. Frankly, although we may dislike the words quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence and by my noble friend Lord Amory, "Never had it so good", if this is all done I feel (to coin a phrase) we shall never have had it so mad, because I think it is a mad thing to do.

417
Now I should like to come to the question of exports. The other countries in Europe—particularly the defeated countries, such as Germany, and I think I might include Italy as a defeated country, because it had a bad time in the war—have really gone ahead more than we have. They have had to go ahead. Germany had to work harder. We in this country were on the winning side in the war, and we have not had to rebuild whole towns, like Cologne and other places in Germany. I was travelling in an aeroplane with a Pole the other day and he told me how marvellously Warsaw had been rebuilt. These countries have had to work. The countries hove had to be rebuilt. They have had to export. They work far harder than we do in this country.
I was most interested to hear that our standard of living here is 30 per cent. higher than it was a hundred years ago. I hate to say so, but is that not perhaps one of the reasons why we are not exporting as much as the other countries? If our standard is 30 per cent. higher, that means that our costs are higher and we cannot compete with other countries. I am not advocating that we should have a lower standard of living, because the fact is that once you have raised your standard of living you cannot very well put it down.
Except perhaps in 1931, when Mr. Snowden in the National Government had the courage to tell the nation what the position was and really economised in Government expenditure, no Government since has really economised in Government expenditure. From time to time we have pious statements that economy is going to be the order of the day. When I was in the House of Commons 30 years ago, the annual Budget was £700 million a year. It is now, I think, eight times that amount. I happen to know this figure because a pension scheme of the company of which I am chairman started in 1928, and the other day we wanted to find out how much the 1928 pound was worth now in order to consider whether we could raise pensions. We found it was worth 7s. 7d. To get back to the question of economy, in 1931 our Budget was in the neighbourhood of £700 million. It is now £5,600 million, or thereabouts, which is much more than three times the amount. The pound may be worth
418
roughly one-third of what it was in 1928 but our expenditure has mounted and mounted.
There is one matter of which I disapprove greatly—namely, this surplus of £506 million over or above the line. I have a sneaking suspicion that Her Majesty's Government like to have this large surplus above the line, because if the nationalised industries went to the stock market to borrow money they would not get all of it. I do not think they are sufficiently credit-worthy, and, quite frankly, I do not think their behaviour makes them sufficiently creditworthy.
LORD BARNBY: Without Government guarantees.
LORD BROCKET: Without Government guarantees. I feel that this £506 million is, to use the expression which the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, used, mopping up the £400 million of expenditure, and that it loads another £506 million on to the backs of the taxpayers of the country. They have to get that from somewhere—in other words, from increased wages or from somewhere else. As a supporter of the Government I feel—I am sorry to have to say this—that in a year's time we may well look back and think that this Budget is not quite so good as some noble Lords and also some supporters of the Government in another place think it is. I personally feel that inflation, which is always with us, increases in strength from time to time, and at present there is certainly an increase in the strength of inflation. We are in an inflationary period. I am sorry to slay that I think this increased inflation will be looked at as partly due to the mistaken policies of the Government and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
4.30 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I find myself in agreement with a great deal that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Brocket, Who has just sat down. In particular, I agree with his final remarks. After all, it is now ten years that we have had a Conservative Government, and we must, whatever side we may be on, give either credit or blame to the Government which has been in power for those ten years for the state of the country to-day. Admittedly, from time to time—the noble Viscount, Lord

419
Amory, said he is sorry, and the noble Lord, Lord Bracket, also said he was sorry—they did not listen to the good advice given by my noble friend Lord Citrine in 1957. Possibly on reflection they will find many other pieces of advice given by my noble friends on this side and by my friends in another place which they are sorry they did not listen to. But they must take the responsibility for not having listened to those pieces of advice and they must, as I say, not only take the credit for what has gone well during the latter part of those past ten years, but also take the blame for what has gone badly.
There is no need for me or for any of my noble friends on this side to point out that to-day things are not going well. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and many other prominent members of the Government have made us only too well aware of the actual state of the country to-day. So that is not a point to be laboured at this stage. But I think it is only fair to say that, although we have had a Conservative Government in this country for ten years now, we have not had anything like full-blooded Toryism during that time. It is quite possible, I believe, that full-blooded Toryism might have worked, but it would have been a very drastic pill to administer to the country and would almost certainly have resulted in the Government which put it forward not being elected at the next Election there was—the intervening one between 1951 and to-day. It would, of course, have involved a fairly rapid dismantling of the Welfare State; it would have involved the abolition of exchange controls, the setting free not only of the people but also of the pound and letting it find its own level and letting the people find their own level. It would have involved lower taxes and also a higher cost of living, higher prices for food, higher rents, greater expenditure for people with less money on education and health services. In other words, it would have involved a far greater expenditure than there is to-day on the necessities of life.
The result of that might well have been—and I certainly should not wish to deny it—that people would have been forced to work harder simply in order to provide themselves and their families
420
with those necessities. Furthermore, we might then, with full-blooded Toryism, have followed the example of the United States, where not only are the necessities of life expensive so that people have to work hard to get them, but the luxuries—television sets, motor cars, refrigerators, and all that—are relatively cheap, so the extra marginal effort needed just to work that little harder once you have the necessities is not so very great after all, and the incentive is there to do your bit of overtime in order to get those extra luxuries. My Lords, that is what, in my opinion, a really full-blooded Conservative Government with the courage of its convictions might have done, and it might have succeeded in achieving economic growth in this country.
Whether the Government did not do so because it did not have the courage to do so, or whether it did not do so—and I hope this is the reason—because it had an innate sense of justice which shrank from causing suffering among a large class of people who were not well able to protect themselves from what would have resulted from this, I do not know. But although I have said what I think they might have done. I am not for a moment saying that I wish they had done it, because not only do I believe that it would have been an extremely undesirable and extremely unjust thing to do, but I believe that it would have led to a very large amount of unrest and strife in this country which it would have taken us probably far longer than ten years to emerge from and to live down.
But, in spite of the fact that we have not had this full-blooded Conservative economic policy, we have year by year since 1959 had Budgets which by degrees have whittled away the Welfare State, so that year by year we find that the gap between the rich and the poor has grown ever wider. This has led to the situation which we have to-day. It has not, unfortunately, led to an economic recovery; it has not led to the recurrent crises becoming a thing of the past and to the economy of this country going ahead on full expansion, not only competing with but outstripping the economy of other European countries. It has, in fact, done just the reverse, and to-day we are passing through what is called a "crisis". But in my opinion

421
that is a misleading term, because to most people a crisis means something which rises to a sudden rapid crescendo and then fails away again, very often without any action being taken.
My Lords, I do not believe that this is a crisis of that sort. This is not just a temporary difficulty of balance of payments because there happens to be a war in Korea, because the terms of trade turned against us or because of a mere external cause for which we cannot be held responsible and which, in the nature of things, will in a month or so disappear. It is something which is innate in our present economy and something which cannot be overcome—and here the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, said something with which I entirely agree. It is not something which can be overcome by short-term palliatives, whether in a Budget or as part of our general economic programme. It is a deep-seated cause which has brought this about, and simply raising the bank rate will have no effect in curing that deep-seated cause. Of course, I agree wholeheartedly with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence about dear money. I think it is worth remembering that, although raising the bank rate may once more, as it did in the past, attract "hot" money into this country, "hot" money has "cold feet" and it can very easily take fright.
LORD BARNBY: Hear, hear!
LORD WALSTON: And it has and will run away. It has run away. So I hope that if 'we are forced into raising the bank rate as a temporary measure to overcome this immediate and very serious need of this country we shall not then sit back and say, "We have done our job. Let the industrialists, let the trade unions, get on with it." What in fact has been happening over the past ten years is very simple indeed. We have been consuming more than we should; not necessarily more than we have produced. We have been consuming more than we ought to, taking into account the investments which it is essential for us to make if we are to maintain our economic position in the world. In passing, I would say we have been encouraged in doing that by this frightening rise in hire purchase.
Not only have we seen spending more than we should, but we have been living
422
on credit before we have produced the goods. That (is an additional factor which is now catching up on us and is aggravating (this present state of affairs. In all that, of course, we have been encouraged by this doctrine of "free-for-all"—not sufficiently free, as I said, to be true Conservatism, but sufficiently free—
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): The noble Lord keeps on talking about "full-blooded Tories" and "true Conservatism". This is all very well, but I would ask him, when using his descriptions of other people's theories, to define them a little better. No Conservative has ever believed any of the things which he has described as "true Conservatism", and I think I know as much about Conservative thought as most people. I would therefore suggest that he uses another word as his Aunt Sally. He is quite entitled 'to knock it down if he wants to, but he should use a word of his own devising, and not a word which belongs Ito other people.
LORD WALSTON: I apologise to the noble and learned Viscount and to his Party. I certainly do not wish to set up the Conservative Party as an Aunt Sally. I have far too great a respect both for Aunt Sally and for the Conservative Party. I can only say that, from some of my reading in certain papers, and from remarks by same people who are normally supporters of the Conservative Party, this has been the extreme—the logical extreme, I would say—of the policies which have been suggested. But I wish to make it perfectly clear in what I am saying—and I am sorry if I did not—that this is not the policy which the Conservative Party have been pursuing, although I do think it is a policy which logically they might well have pursued.
Leaving aside Aunt Sallies, and the Conservative Party at the same time, what is more important now is what can be done in this country to cure this procedure which has been going on for many years—and out of deference to the noble and learned Viscount I will not say "for ten years". We must, in the first place, produce more; and we must export more, which probably means that we must consume less at home. Those are the two very simple facts which

423
many people throughout the country have been stressing for a long time. It is in the light of that, I think, that we should examine the present Budget and see how far it is likely to achieve those two ends. Obviously, it would take far too long to go through the whole of the Budget proposals, and many noble Lords have already mentioned several of them. I would agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Brocket, in his condemnation of the fuel tax. To put on a tax which is going to raise production costs by £48 million or £50 million at the present time seems to me the most direct contradiction of the principle of lowering costs that one could possibly conceive. So I would suggest to your Lordships that the fuel tax cannot be supported on that test.
The same goes for the poll or wages tax. One can imagine economists, sitting in the seclusion of their common rooms and their lecture halls, saying, "We want to make better use of labour. The way to make better use of any commodity is to make it more expensive, so that the consumer of that commodity will be more careful with it". That is a sound theoretical argument. But suppose you take the next step and say: "Therefore, let us make labour more expensive; and let us make labour more expensive, not by putting up wages, because that is inflationary, and there will then be more money to spend, but by putting a tax on labour so that the employer will be more careful of his labour, and the worker himself will not have any more money to spend". That, again, sounds very well in theory, but any of us who have practical experience know that it will not work: and in the columns of The Times to-day, I think it was (it was one of the papers) there was an example of the effect that this poll tax is likely to have on an individual firm. We all know that it is not in any way going to make employers economise on labour. We all know, too, that it is an open invitation to unions to say, "If this extra tax can be afforded, then pay it to us", and up will go wages again.
Then we have the increase of purchase tax and Excise duties. Again I do not want to repeat the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Brocket, but although there is something to be said for it, if properly
424
administered—and I would not wholeheartedly condemn it—it will, in fact, put up the cost of living; and unless other steps are taken it will undoubtedly increase the pressure for higher wages. Furthermore, of course, it is a tax which is going to fall heaviest on the people with the smallest incomes—the old-age pensioners and the lower-paid workers; the farm workers and so on. It will leave the people who are better off relatively unaffected, and will fail to diminish their spending or the inflationary pressure which comes from them.
Finally, we come to the surtax concession—and that, I believe, my Lords, is the crux of the whole problem. Here I would take up the theme which my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence so ably started to develop. What is essential in this whole situation is that there must be a feeling of justice and a feeling of fair play throughout the whole country. My Lords, some of you, or many of you—probably all of you to one extent or another—are employers of labour. How would you, individually, like to go along to the men who work in your factories, to the men who work in your offices, to the men who work on your farms, and say to them, "It is true that we have given the management more money to spend; more to the three or four people at the top; but because things are so bad in this enterprise we ask you to tighten your belts and to take less and have a lower standard of living"? You could not do it. You know that it would not work, and it would go against the grain of every one of you. Yet that is precisely what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is doing in this Budget.
Had he said, "The country is booming; we are in a strong financial position; we believe that the surtax payers have waited for a long time for a little benefit; we shall give it to them now and, in due course, we shall pass it down the line", he might have got away with it. But he is not saying that. I will not repeat what he is saying, but we know the position of the country and we know that it cannot afford any increase anywhere. We are talking of cutting down; and to talk of restrictions and belt-tightening and at the same time to give away £60 million to people with an income of £3,000 or £4,000 a year,

425
simply is not going to make it possible to get the co-operation that one must have in this country if we are to come out of our present situation.
Now, my Lords, I should like just to give you two short examples of the way that individuals actually work when it comes to material well-being and money. These are two personal examples that I have come across in the last few years. Fairly recently there was a rise in building workers' wages, and I employ a certain number of builders on my estate. Among them are two brothers, one a craftsman and the other a labourer. They work together. Their differential before this rise took place was 10s. a week. When the rise took place, because it was a proportionate rise, the differential became 12s. 6d. The brother who was the labourer, not the craftsman, came to me and said, "This is not fair. I am perfectly happy to work with Bill, but although I am 10s. a week less good than he is I am not 12s. 6d. a week less good than he is". He was very unhappy about it; and so was his brother. Eventually, I finished up by saying to them, "I suppose, really, you would have been happier if there had not been any rise at all?", and they said, "Yes, I think we should have been".
We could call that a sense of justice, or we could call it jealousy—I do not know; but it is a very real factor in dealing with human beings. It is not a factor which is on only one side, only on the weekly wage earners' side. I remember on one occasion canvassing in a country village when I was a Parliamentary candidate. A woman came up to me and said, "You can't expect me to vote for your Party. You are putting up council houses now which have two lavatories. I do not have two lavatories in my house one is quite enough for me. Surely, for the working class one lavatory is ample. Do you expect me to vote for a Party that puts two lavatories into council houses?" That is exactly the same attitude. It is the refusal to allow other people to come up closer to you, and the desire to retain what you may say is a just division, or what you may say is the status quo—I do not know what it is. However, as a practical politician trying to get the country to work together, that is a very important factor which must be taken into account.
426
I am quite convinced that so long as we have the present Budget, which is giving away this £60 million to the surtax payers, it is going to be absolutely impossible to get this working together, this co-operation between employer and employee, which is so essential.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord keeps on saying that something is being "given away" Would he not think it more creditable to him to say that they are allowing the surtax payers to retain a little more of what they have earned for themselves?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, that is a perfectly fair way of putting it. All I can say is that I hope the noble and learned Viscount will use his very well-known forensic skill to persuade the people of this country that it is so.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Perhaps it would come better from the noble Lord by his not putting it in an inaccurate way.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, all I am saying is that hitherto he and his colleagues have failed to do that, and I certainly cannot see them doing it. But I am no lawyer; I am not learned. I very much doubt whether any member of the present Government can do it.
My Lords, in all seriousness, if we are going to have one nation and not two, those are factors which must be taken into account. And if we are going to make appeals to-day to the country, as we must make appeals, to work together for the good of the country, it must be made abundantly clear that the people who are running the affairs of this country share the same ideas and ideals of justice as the ordinary man in the street shares. I do not believe that any clever arguments or even, in certain cases, logical arguments are going to win the day. It is something which is felt at the heart, not understood by the brain. That is where I believe the Government have failed to-day.
I do not know, any more than probably any of your Lordships knows, what is going to happen next week when the Chancellor of the Exchequer announces his new proposals to save the country. But I suggest to your Lordships that unless, at the same time as he does that, the concession of allowing people to keep a

427
greater proportion of what they have earned than they have kept in the past is postponed till the country has come out of its difficulties, all of the appeals for self restraint, belt-tightening and cooperation will fall on hostile ears, and it will require a very much greater effort on the part of all of us on both sides of the House to put it across to the people, as put it across we must. I do ask noble Lords opposite and their friends in another place to consider this matter very seriously, and to believe that we, and the workers and the unions also, I am sure, want to work with them for the country; but their actions at the present time and under the present Budget make that working together a very uphill struggle indeed.
4.55 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of the Finance Bill my noble friend Lord Dundee used, understandably, what I would term a narrow focus on the economic situation. He reminded your Lordships that we have had various economic debates. He had knowledge, as we all have, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is shortly going to make a statement on the financial economic position, and therefore his speech was very naturally on a somewhat narrow front. I am so glad that my noble friend Lord Amory, and others, have widened the basis of this debate, because, after all, this is an opportunity—probably the last opportunity before we rise for the summer, somewhat unique by fortuitous circumstances, in that there is to be an economic debate apparently in another place; and there is also to be a statement next week by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—for your Lordships to make contributions to the wider picture of the economic field.
I think the gravity of the present position is admitted by all who have any knowledge of political economic fields. My noble friend Lord Dundee did not like the use of the word "crisis". He preferred the expression "a moment when the attention of the public is sharply drawn to a difficulty that has been with us for a long time". That is to me another way—a rather longer way—of saying "crisis". Of course, the talk of "touching the brake" or "pressing the accelerator" has gone. We are
428
in the midst of a grave economic emergency which has justified much preparation and publicity for an important statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place this week and, also, if the newspaper reports are correct, for the Prime Minister to broadcast to the nation. So, my Lords, I think we are justified in saying (and I would use the word) that we are in something of an economic crisis.
I think the question which all of us ask ourselves is whether the steps Her Majesty's Government are about to take will temporarily lift our difficulties, or whether they are going to be steps which are going to set us on the path of soundly-based progress. The holidays are nearly upon us. Our people are, quite rightly, packing up and planning to go off to the seaside or to go abroad for a well-earned rest. We have at home a very full employment, and high demand—everything is apparently prosperous. But I would hazard a guess that, unless the Chancellor's proposals are seen by the world to be effective for something more than the immediate, the Parliamentary Recess is likely to be interrupted for discussion of a more serious position than we have to-day.
The facts of the position have been stated so often that there is no need to repeat them, except to say that the import—export gap yawns. We are glad that there is some slight improvement, but the gap still remains serious. Our invisible earnings are running down at an alarming rate, and our gold and dollar reserves are inadequate. Against that background we have arms expenditure which is rising, production growth which we all admit is inadequate and, most serious of all, a new round of wage claims completely unrelated to productivity. And all this with the nation divided within itself, politically and economically, on many great issues and the treatment of those issues. The result is that we are a nation facing a crisis without an inspiration or any single great purpose.
I do not believe that this is the fault of this Government. I do not believe that it is the fault of any one Government, or of Parliament. I believe that it is the result of something like sixteen years of what I would term softness in some directions and often acceptance

429
of indecision under the label of compromise, of hesitation under the label of consideration and of complacency under the label of confidence. Let me give one example, our economic policy. I do not want to elaborate it in any degree, but only to us it as an illustration of my point about indecision.
Our economic policy has been based on world liberalisation of trade, the willingness of British industry to accept all competition and an aim towards universal free trade. If you back that policy, which I personally do not (though that is beside the point), you must be consistent. If you back that policy, is it right to deny the steel industry the cheapest coal from America? If you back that policy, is it right to tax the raw material of industry, oil, 2d, a gallon. If you believe in that policy, is it right to allow State transport monopolies and sheltered industries to have wages leap-frogging unrelated to productivity? If you believe in that policy, is it right to resist the free import of Hong Kong textiles? I do not agree with that policy, but if you do pursue it, you should have the courage to take it to its ultimate and not compromise. Because if you compromise, you fail all round.
If we have not been thorough in the past, now, in time of crisis, we must be ready not to be doctrinaire, either to Left or Right, either free trade or protectionist. It may be that the Government may have to come to some compromise with the rigidity of theory and possibly follow Sir Roy Harrod's ideas on some control of unnecessary imports and of investment, whether physical or monetary, and on some check on the building boom. It may well be that if the State takes 43 per cent. of the gross national product, we should have some scheme to see that the balance of 57 per cent. is used to the greatest national advantage.
That is in the material field; but I believe that there is a far greater task for Her Majesty's Government in the field of what I would term morale. The restoring of the national purpose and the national morale is the Government's greatest task and greatest responsibility to-day. And to do this, exhortation and declaration are not enough. Alarming by fact exposure is not enough. Impos-
430
ing remedies and sacrifices on other people is not enough. It is by their example and by their actions that the Government must lead in the revival of national inspiration. I believe that the first thing to accept is what has been said in the debate by your Lordships to-day—that no Government to-day, of any particular complexion, can really do anything big in the way of leadership without carrying with them the trade unions, both the trade union leaders and the trade union rank and file. To-day we have trade union leaders, fine, good citizens, queueing up to repudiate the Chancellor's appeal for wage restraint. Any idea of direct conflict with the trade unions on a major scale is unthinkable and would lead to national disaster.
Faced with this basic fact, I should like to pursue a little further (because my mind has been running on much the same lines, and it is the duty of us all to speak out) the ideas put forward by my noble friend Lord Amory. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, wondered whether it was not an impracticable dream (I think those were his words) that there should be a period of co-operation and peace between the trade unions, employers and Government in this country. I believe that the Government should say to the people, "A halt to our differences and arguments!" They should say to the nation, "We will tell you what we face, and now let us lift a year of time above the years of the past and of the years to come and make it a year of national effort." Let the Government say, "For the next twelve months we accept something like an economic Battle of Britain." If your Lordships remember, in those days all were for all and none for one; and no one had any idea of unofficial stoppages or wild-cat strikes. All worked for Britain.
To-day, the trade unions are suspicious and resentful. I think that there has been far too much play on the surtax question. I am not going to re-argue the matter, but I disagree profoundly with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Walston, on that point and agree entirely with what my noble friend Lord Amory said. But never mind that. Though the trade unions are suspicious and resentful, they must respond to the appeal to leave out of the arena of controversy for this year of effort our current differences. I

431
should like to see from the trade unions a halt to wage claims unrelated to productivity and to calls for shorter hours; a lifting of restrictive practices in a big way, and only those wage rises asked for and accepted which are related to any rise in the cost of living. That would take a lot, and it asks a lot from the trade unions; but I know that the trade union leaders are patriotic men who can give a lot if they feel it is right to do so. Then I would say to the employers that it is important that they make a big and radical contribution. Let it be agreed that profit margins are not to be raised; that any profit rise is ploughed back for the benefit of industry, and that dividend distribution will be stabilised for this one year of effort.
I think that the biggest contribution would have to come from Her Majesty's Government. I would suggest to the Government and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he gives a Budget pledge that next year his Budget shall be a Budget of no remissions and advantages for any one section over another, of no increases in personal benefits for any one section over another. The Government would have to set an example of restraint in their own expenditure, without any attack on the Welfare State. We must also see, so far as we can, in spirit and in act, whether we can call a halt to Party strife and provocation, going for what we agree on and agree to do, rather than playing with differences. That would need machinery, and my noble friend Lord Amory has suggested some machinery.
I believe that the only people who could make this year of effort a year lifted out of the passage of time would be the Government, led by the Prime Minister. I should like to see something beyond what my noble friend Lord Amory suggested—namely, a national recovery council of the Government, trade unions, employers and, I would hope, the Opposition as well. If at the end of the year of effort we so wished, we could dismantle the council and revert to the freedom and luxury of controversy. But meanwhile, we might have lifted from the passage of time one year of national greatness, during which I believe we might have helped to save ourselves and, in doing so, save countless others who look to Britain's spirit for guidance and a
432
material support for their progress. I hope the Government will not turn away from the concept that imaginative bigness is needed to revive and direct our people's spirit, without which we can do nothing.
5.12 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I am glad to find myself following my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye because he has just made an inspiring appeal on a very lofty plain as to what is needed to unite the nation in accepting what we are warned will have to be great sacrifices. I am also glad that my noble friend gave good reasons why we should regard this as an opportunity for wider reference to economic subjects; and, indeed, the noble Earl, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, embraced this himself. We recognise that we have no powers to modify the Bill that we are now discussing, but we have the privilege, as my noble friend, Lord Brocket, said, at least once a year of expressing our thoughts.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, reminded us that the Bill includes references to two new types of regulators. Other speakers have already pointed out how it seems likely that both of these will add to the cost of living; and doubtless that has occurred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in proposing them. As a simple industrialist, it seems to me obvious that they will increase costs. If it results in damping down industrial production which will not find its way into export, then we shall have lost a great deal of potential production and lower activity must inescapably mean that a point will be reached when costs will increase, profits will fall, and revenue will decrease.
It is going to require great courage by the Government to see this through. Quite simply, to some extent employment will be disturbed. But we have had assurances by the Government that they will resist wage advances in the nationalised industries. These set the pattern. If it is that the Government are going to see this through, then we can face the situation with more confidence. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is reported in the Press on Saturday last to have said:
"We cannot afford the restrictive practices, whether of management or labour, that are too readily accepted now. We cannot afford the easy complacancy with which increases in costs derived from these and similar inefficiencies are added to prices".

433
Whatever may be the effect in the home market, there is a general hope that exports may be increased. But in all these exhortations to export which we have had, it is inescapable that people say or think to themselves: "Are exhortations really enough? To be practical, do we need some incentives?" Incentives are required in everything in life to get results; our whole industrial structure is based on the idea that you must give incentives to production. We are always urged in this country that conscious incentives must be foregone and we must not give a naughty lead to other countries. Only two weeks ago we read in the Press (I will not take the time of your Lordships to quote details) of specific concessions to export industry being given by Italy. I do not know whether the noble Viscount, when he comes to reply, will be able to give us some interpretation in the terminology of difference between incentives and concessions; but the Board of Trade have consistently adopted the attitude of resistance to incentives.
Frankly, there are an enormous number of people in industry who just do not believe in this resistance to incentives and feel that we should adopt the attitude of other countries and use them. Take G.A.T.T. as an illustration. The shackles of G.A.T.T. are accepted by us, but others disregard them. Only to-day reference was made in this House by Question to barter transactions. There has been an attitude by the Government that they disapprove of strict barter transactions. I suggest that this purity of orthodoxy which we have so consistently attempted to urge on others, and have loyally adopted ourselves, is perhaps something which of necessity we shall be compelled to review.
My noble friend Lord Amory made a contribution to the debate for which we are all grateful and which to-morrow we shall all read with the greatest care. After many points of most important analysis there was one which will receive particular attention. It stirs my memory to revert, for the purposes of record, to a partially similar experiment which was tried in the middle 'twenties. Sir Alfred Mond, that great statesman who subsequently became the first Lord Melchett, was seized with the dangers and difficulties (and they were real, as others will remember; I was a Member of another
434
place at the time) of the discord in relations between employers and workers. He worked out that we should have seven representatives of industry, and seven of organised labour. I was privileged to be one of the seven employers.
I can remember the massive characters who constituted those representatives of organised labour. It was called the Mond-Turner Conference. The representatives were Ben Turner, Jimmy Thomas, Will Thorne, Ernie Bevin, Ted Richards, and I cannot remember the others. Particularly do I remember it because the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, then a young Assistant Secretary of the Trades Union Council, was Secretary of the Mond-Turner Conference. We sat for months. They produced a Report which I am confident had a great bearing on industrial relations at that time. One thing is certain; these seven employers came into intimate personal friendship with those seven great personalities in organised labour, and I think that contributed a great deal to the result.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend to say that I agree with him very, much about the Mond-Turner Conference? That Conference may well have been before its day, but I think it would be timely that we should be thinking along the same lines to-day.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I entirely agree it should be tried. I presumed to introduce that only because it seemed to be in support of the most valuable contribution which my noble friend made, and which I hope will be studied nationally with great care.
There is currently a great national debate over the Common Market. There is one thing in that connection which seems to me obvious. If we are going to substitute a bigger volume of trade with Europe for a lesser volume with the distant Commonwealth, then invisible earnings from shipping will make a smaller contribution to the balance of payments. My noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye gave in his opinion what seems to be in the minds of a good many to-day: that entry into the Common Market can produce some shock to the nation; and that after the softening years of a Welfare State, also trade union rigidities and restrictions,

435
low work loads and shorter hours, we need this shake-up. This is going to include free entry of 'workers from Treaty countries. Surely that must cause some thinking by organised labour. But whatever it is, let us hope, as my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye has emphasised, that we can achieve this without wide-scale industrial disturbance.
I suggest that shorter hours are not a solution, and yet that practice is being extended every year. Shorter hours mean less productivity, a higher break-even point, higher costs and less competitive power. It is inescapable. We certainly want higher earnings, based on productivity, a very different thing from higher wages. I mention P.A.Y.E. However it is going to be done, there must be more incentive to workers to work overtime. How the Government can work it out is a matter for them, but overtime must be paid well, and there must be some remission incentive in taxation.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has emphasised that our payments overseas are too great. The noble Earl emphasised that contributions to underdeveloped countries should not be cut. Quite frankly, I differ from him. I believe that if these payments are made outside the Commonwealth, it is a question of whether we can afford it. There should certainly not be, as was stated in this House recently, 50-year interest-free loans. Such largesse we cannot afford; we are not rich enough. We are told that the individual must not spend more quickly than he earns. Surely the Government likewise should spend less, cut back Government expenditure. We all know how easy it is to use such a flippant phrase, and how difficult it is to achieve it. However, the Government are the ones holding the tiller.
In conclusion, inspired by what my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye said when he referred to these questions of starts and stops, palliatives, patching, trimming, plastering and constantly unsettling industry, I cannot find a better way to express the thoughts I have than to quote from a recent letter in The Times from a large industrialist banker, Mr. Lionel Fraser. He said:
"The present situation shows again that there is no alternative to a coherent long-term economic policy, a design for the future, and
436
true success will only attend it if it is understood and supported by the man in the street."
My Lords, as a supporter of the Government, I support the Bill which we are discussing.
5.27 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, it always seems a little hard that, though we are all taxpayers, we cannot discuss this Bill in detail. But we can console ourselves with the reflection that we can perhaps discuss it a little more dispassionately and also in the wider context of the economic field. There is an added consolation for amateurs in economics like myself in that we can have the privilege, as we have come to expect, of hearing such admirably lucid contributions as we have had from the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, and the noble Viscount, Lord Amory. For that alone it has been worth my while coming here to-day from Scotland. No doubt at this moment the Chancellor of the Exchequer looks upon us here as a sort of tiresome old nannie who is preventing him from starting to play with the toys which he has been given on Christmas morning. One thing seems probable, which is that, having been given two very exciting new toys, he is going to want to play with them as soon as possible and not leave them in the cupboard.
I will be as brief as I can and confine myself to only two aspects. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I relate them both rather specially to our viewpoint in Scotland. We are no less aware of the need for strong measures at this time than are any of the rest of your Lordships, but our domestic economy is in some respects different from that of the rest of the country. Our views may therefore differ as to the nature of the remedies required and the means of putting them into effect. May I take this opportunity of apologising in advance to the noble Viscount who is to reply because I may be discourteous enough to leave before the end of the debate? It is all a question of the time of departure of the plane to Scotland.
My first point relates to the field of exports, about which I should have thought we might have heard rather more in this debate to-day. We all agree that an increase is vital and we are all making a great effort. We have these

437
great Export Councils, the Western Hemisphere Export Council, the Export Council for Europe, and many other bodies which are putting in stalwart work in this field. In Scotland, we have constituted an Export Committee on which are represented all the leading bodies with interests in export. They are making great progress and are encouraged under the leadership of that champion of overseas trade, Sir Robert Maclean.
Scottish companies are going out actively and aggressively selling abroad. One consequence of that has been the number of inquiries about export business which are going through the offices of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) who are handling some 200 inquiries a month from firms, an increase of same 40 per cent. over the equivalent for last year. That, I think, is a very heartening indication of the increased interest that is being taken by industry in export, not only in the traditional field, but in many new industries such as aero engines, rail freighting equipment and electronics. Even shipbuilding, despite its difficulties, is making a come-back, and I think we can take a pride in that only a fortnight ago one of the Clyde shipyards secured an order for a 54,000-ton tanker from Norway, the first Norwegian ship order placed in Britain this year. That was due to efforts made to increase their efficiency in building and also—if I may declare a slight interest—to the readiness of our financial institutions to take perhaps a rather more liberal view of financing this kind of business than they used to in the past.
All this is fine; but the Government have a big part to play as well. Their responsibility is high. Last week I asked two different industrialists what they ought to do and what they thought the Government ought to do. Each of them said, in more or less similar terms, though one was somewhat more polite in language than the other, "Not, on any account, to mess up the home market". I think there is a lot of truth in this. The home market is bound to be the basis of our trade. Without the home market, export trade cannot flourish. The Government seem to think the way to encourage exports is to damp down the home market by increased duties and taxes and so on.
438
That, I think, is a mistake, because overseas markets are uncertain now.
There are some changes from uncontrollable causes: to take only one example, one recently announced closure of a factory in Scotland, I understand unofficially, was due entirely to the tariff policy of one of their principal customer countries. These companies must have a reasonable degree of certainty with the home market if they are to pursue an export trade aggressively; and I say "certainty", that word already used by other speakers. The worst thing of all is frequent changes of rates or tax and fiscal policy, because that causes uncertainty. And this power to regulate and alter rates and duties works both ways. Take one industry, the refrigerator industry. In 1958 hire purchase restriction was swept away. Everybody went into the market. Capacity was increased far beyond what in fact has turned out to be an economic level; and then when restrictions were replaced later on in 1960 the industry found itself, and still finds itself, in a difficult situation. In that case the sudden removal of restrictions was just as damaging as their imposition. Far from helping the export market, that sort of thing damages it.
If a general in war finds his headquarters is threatened he does not just say, "Right, we will not worry about it; we will reinforce our outposts." Not a bit. He devotes all his troops first to maintaining his base, and that is what the industrialist quite naturally and rightly thinks. If he is in difficulty in the home market he is going to have to throw his energies into putting that right and will not be able to concentrate on his exports. What is wanted is not a stick to beat him out of the home market but a nice juicy carrot to lead him into the export field. It must be quite obvious that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. The problem is how to make that obvious; and while it has generally been turned down, I find myself more and more turning to the thought, the serious thought, that there must be financial incentive to exports. It is given by other countries, although they may not say so, and I cannot help feeling that some kind of system could be devised, say by remitting profits tax on that portion of turnover related to export. I believe it would go a long way to securing results.

439
Then I come to my second point, which is this. It is agreed, I think, that much of our troubles stem from an overloaded economy, a point on the standard of living which we are now earning by our own efforts. I ask the Government, in contemplating the measures that they have in mind, to remember that not all of the United Kingdom is in quite such a bloated condition. We still have a high rate of unemployment in some areas; Northern Ireland has the highest rate of all, some 7 per cent. unemployed, compared with some 1½2 per cent. for Great Britain and Northern Ireland combined. Scotland has 2½8 per cent. It is unevenly spread; it is quite a lot in some areas but is better in others. Still the fact that there are 60,000 out of work in Scotland is not a cause for complacency, because it represents a waste of productive assets.
Now I recognise that successive Governments, by their legislation and in other ways, have taken the view that this situation should be put right. We have had the Local Employment Act, now nearly two years old, and we have had continuous efforts by the Government and by other bodies to improve the position. The aim is to keep unemployment down to the national average—that must be our immediate target—and to staunch the migration of workers away from Scotland. We are very grateful in Scotland for the remarkable and inspiring efforts that have been put into this matter by the present Secretary of State and by his assistants, including the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, who is with us here to-day. Few people in Scotland realise entirely the detailed and persistent effort that the Secretary of State has devoted to this field of industry, while at the same time hiding his light under a bushel. I think we owe a lot too to him and his Department, although I think there are many improvements which could be made in the working of the local employment machinery. But that is a subject for another day.
There are also a great many people in Scotland who have been working hard on this problem and with a fine measure of success. Of course, we have our troubles. We are still too dependent on our basic industries. The coalmines are obviously going to employ
440
fewer men because of increased efficiency, and shipbuilding and its associated industries are making sterling efforts in the face of the much smaller market for ships. But some of these industries have had setbacks in the near past and we have had a number of closures of companies announced recently.
In spite of that, I think we have a great many reasons for encouragement. The range of our production has been greatly increased now. There is a much wider range of industries, and now we have the motor industry and all that I hope it will bring in its trail. But here again is an industry particularly affected by upsets caused by changing rates, taxes, hire-purchase restrictions and other things Quite a lot of our industrial field, it is fair to say, is in a state of increased new growth. That is due to the cultivation of the ground, selection of the seed, planting, fertilising and sowing both by Government and by private enterprise. It is in this new growth that our hopes lie for the future, and it is a growth remarkably free from the weeds of over-employment and inflation which have appeared so much in other parts of the country.
The noble Earl who opened the debate said that in applying these measures the difficulty was to avoid restriction of industrial growth. I agree that this is desperately important, so it is with some apprehension that we watch the Chancellor of the Exchequer approaching with his two new weed-killers (if I may continue the metaphor), and no doubt others also, which are still on the secret list until Tuesday week. As your Lordships who are gardeners know, one of the characteristics of weed-killers is that they are most effective on young and vigorous growth, and these particular ones which he has in mind seem to me to be very far from being selective in their operation. These two new taxes look like killing not only the weeds but a good deal of the healthy growth at the same time.
In this field of new development, as in the field of exports, we must have this reasonable certainty and continuity if industry is to flourish. Look at what happened in the previous crisis of 1957. There was already an upsurge of new industrial development at the time, particularly in Scotland, greatly encouraged

441
by the availability of new factories to rent. Along came the credit squeeze and, I think, a virtual cessation of all building of new factories. That freeze cost Scotland and other parts of the country dear in terms of new industry and expansion of existing industry. Those companies expanded elsewhere, either in the South or overseas.
As a side line, though I am not concerned with that to-day, the Government will remember that the consequences in terms of employment or unemployment also cost the Government something in the way of votes in Scotland at the 1959 Election. So I hope that the Chancellor will remember both 1957 and 1959 when he thinks about his two new toys and, in particular, this possible payroll tax. I make no bones about it, my Lords; I think that in its present form it is a thoroughly bad tax. At the level at which it is proposed, the maximum level, I do not believe that it will discourage companies from keeping on labour. I think it will bear hardly on those companies which are labour intensive and, by their nature, cannot cut down on labour. It will, in fact, merely add to the costs of production and, therefore, to inflation.
I congratulate the Government of Northern Ireland upon having already secured in advance exemption from this tax. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer might go a bit further, and I would make the concrete suggestion that, if it is found necessary to apply it at all, it should not be applied to employers of labour situated in the development districts; in other words, the districts where the Government are trying to encourage new industrial growth. It would be criminal to discourage growth in these areas by unnecessary imposts and by uncertainty.
My Lords, having said this, and having spoken in particular about Scotland, may I make it quite clear that we are all in this together? We are all ready to play our part in putting the situation in order, and in agreeing to any measures that are really necessary to do so. The only thing that I do beseech the Government, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in particular, is: do not, in the course of those measures, frustrate our efforts to expand our industry and increase its productivity, because those
442
are the real keys to our future wellbeing.
5.45 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I welcome the Finance Bill as being more original in thought than any I have met for many years. I should welcome still more radical changes, and I have the feeling that perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer is feeling his way. The country has undoubtedly prepared for a drastic overhaul of the whole taxation system, and my feeling is that the Chancellor was not entirely unsympathetic. But, though the spirit was willing, I have no doubt that the flesh was weak, in that I doubt whether the Inland Revenue would have been able to cope with a vast amount of new work; because—and there is no doubt about it, my Lords—our taxation system has got into the most awful mess.
Monetary receipts which can be classified as income are very heavily taxed; on the other hand, monetary receipts which can be classified as capital get off scot-free. The result is that some of the best brains of the country are employed in switching natural income into unnatural capital. Such is the weight of tax on the higher incomes—and the Chancellor has given relief only in a limited field—that an insidious system of business expense allowances has had to spring up. Like so many things starting legitimately and harmlessly, it is now a subject of grave abuse, and in many quarters it has created a great sense of injustice. It is greatly exercising the minds of the professional middle classes of this country, who are the backbone of the brains and the conscience of the country. President Kennedy seems to be of the same mind. He has gone to his Congress with precisely the same problems, to seek changes to end the widespread abuse of business expense accounts. He has not got all he asked, but apparently the Committee in question have agreed to make it much more difficult for American businessmen in future to claim tax deductions for entertainment, yachts and hunting lodges; and tax deductions for club dues and fees will be prohibited completely. Note that, my Lords.
I suggest that, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to insert the word "necessarily" as applying to expenses charged against both Schedule D and

443
Schedule E, probably the whole situation would immediately come under control. Chancellors of the Exchequer in the last two years have aimed a mild blow at one or two of these things, first at the super-tax farms and now at the more expensive motor cars. It would be unfair to deny business men the opportunity of charging transportation expenses, because they do need transportation to carry on their business; but it should be transportation, and not necessarily luxury. One can buy excellent transportation for £1,000—transportation 'that will go at 80 Miles an hour, and keep up 60 m.p.h. all day, so I do not quite see the logic of the Chancellor's limit of £2,000. Perhaps next time he will think better.
I am glad that he has got his regulators, though I agree With my noble friend Lord Polwarth that it is difficult to see a situation in which the payroll surcharge could possibly serve any useful purpose. But I believe that the others definitely could. The surcharge on import duties 'would seem particularly relevant to our needs, were it not for the fact that I believe we have so hedged ourselves round with restrictions and undertakings to G.A.T.T. and the like that I do not know whether, in fact, that can be used.
I hope that next year we shall see a radical revision of the taxes on higher incomes, perhaps with the quid pro quo of a tax on realised capital gains. It is argued that this would bring in nothing, because one would have to set off capital losses; but I have never seen the moral necessity for having that, although there should certainly be a set-off for immediately reinvestment. In other words, the object of the exercise would be to tax capital gains spent as income, and not capital gains made in the switch from one investment to another. The grand strategy would be to try to bring the country back to the old Victorian conception whereby the better-off citizens lived and saved out of their genuine income. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might look at death duties from the same angle. If the made the rates reasonable I believe that he would be perfectly justified in rounding up properties in the Bahamas, and so on. As it is, the Chancellor is merely encouraging rich men to die poor after
444
disposing of all their assets among their various relatives, who possibly live a life of extravagance upon them. The traditional friend of the Chancellor, the miserly millionaire, has no encouragement in our fiscal system to-day.
However, it is the balance-of-payments situation that is worrying us today much more than our fiscal system, and what is a disquieting situation is terribly complicated by this ever-increasing volume of mobile money in the world, able to move at will between various money markets and stock exchanges of the world. It is nervous money; it is timid money, some of it aiming at safety in Government bonds and banks, some of it at gain on stock exchanges. But it is directed by skilled professionals who are sensitive to every slight puff of wind of change in the world—in fact probably rather too sensitive. And this is in a world where the monetary reserves are quite inadequate to provide a means of settlement for the existing volume of this mobile money. Moreover, the mobile money is probably coming into being at a faster rate than the reserves are increasing.
The central bankers of the world know this problem perfectly well, but they cannot agree on a worthwhile solution. The recent solution they thought up was obviously only stop-gap; that is, to take in each other's currencies; for the moment any currency becomes under some suspicion, naturally the operation tends to break down. They unanimously reject, however, the solution which I believe is the only feasible and simple one, which is to increase the price of gold in terms of all currencies. Meanwhile, currencies are under suspicion in turn: the United States dollar, the Canadian dollar, now the pound. When will it be the turn of a European currency? If we see a Berlin crisis in the autumn we shall see a tremendous flight of money from somewhere to somewhere else; I cannot pretend to predict where, but it will certainly flit.
Our own position appears rather bad, but I do not think we should exaggerate. As a nation we simply love to exaggerate our difficulties. We are never happier than when our backs are to the wall: when the Australians are about 500 for two, and we can wallow in our miseries; and there is a very grave danger of that happening to-day, I believe. Then we

445
get on to the stage of wanting to cut down everything. Some of my noble friends wanted to do that this afternoon. I cannot imagine a more disastrous policy for the Commonwealth, for ourselves and for the world at large. Yet I thought we had learned our lessons from the disastrous mistakes we made in the days of Mr. Snowden.
At the same time, my Lords, we must not minimise our difficulties. What is the cause of them? Some of our traditional markets are undoubtedly rather fiat. Who in Africa is going to invest confidently at the moment in British capital goods? Commodity prices, on the whole, are rather low, probably because America has been very slow to get out of its depression; and the same is true of Canada. But the United States and Canada are coming again, and if that is the case they will once more start using commodities on a big scale. Then, of course, we have had the resurgence of Japan and the Continent, and anybody who, like me, has had to sell goods against the Japanese in pre-war days, knows that is a pretty impossible business. In fact, there is a bigger manufacturing capacity at the moment than there is consuming power in the markets of the world. In some cases our prices are alleged to be too high, and perhaps in shipbuilding they are. But we are exporting at a high level, and the figures look like going up. As I say, we must not exaggerate.
Our invisibles, on the other hand, are doing badly and we are importing a lot more than we did a year or two ago—more than we can afford—and most of the excess imports are coming from the non-sterling area, particularly from North America and, to some extent, from the Continent. Some people have suggested that this is because British industry is not competitive. I do not think that at all. I think that people are buying American and Continental goods in the shops for psychological reasons. An affluent society likes American gadgets, and so many people have travelled abroad that they have a taste for Continental artistry, in apparel, in foodstuffs and the like, and they will go on buying more of those imported goods if they can. That is all very well if we can export enough to pay for them. But with many of our best export markets rather in the doldrums we cannot afford
446
to indulge ourselves quite so freely as we have been doing.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer is in a most terrible dilemma. We are so completely bound up by trade treaties and the like that it is uncommonly difficult for him to reduce imports without calling in some emergency operation, as so many other countries do, and possibly inviting unpleasantness. One must remember in these matters that there always appears to be one law for the foreigner and one for the British. If other nations get into a jam of this sort the first thing they do is put on quotas and licences on British goods. This course apparently is closed to us because we are British. The only other course the Chancellor can take is to take so much purchasing power out of the market that our citizens cannot afford to buy either British goods or foreign goods. Both of those courses are very unsatisfactory. I believe that the proper remedy is for a little of everything, to aim at keeping our export costs down and encouraging our manufacturers to get business overseas, and particularly to improve their selling organisations and employ salesmen who talk the languages and so on. At the same time, I suggest that he should explore every possible method of doing what every other country does in balance-of-payments difficulties; that is, to cut down some of the imports, particularly the dollar imports, which it has been importing too freely. If we find that we cannot afford to buy deutschmarks to keep our troops in Germany it will look rather silly if our shops are full of hock and German cameras.
The Chancellor will undoubtedly have to take steam out of some portion of the home market. I suggest that the building and construction industry is particularly overloaded at the moment. I have been one of the few Conservatives who have consistently maintained that there should always have been some small measure of building control kept on. I was led to that conclusion by seeing what went on in South America, where there was nothing of the kind and essential construction was never done at all because the private sector was too attractive. In previous difficulties we have always had to cut down Government construction because there was no method of cutting down private construction, except by rather clumsy monetary means. To-day,

447
I suggest the priorities are quite clear: they are homes, roads and various Government work such as prisons and hospitals which we know we need so badly. Shops and office buildings and administrative buildings are not nearly so urgent, and I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take steps to give expression to priorities of that sort.
It is platitudinous to say that we cannot go on increasing personal incomes at the present rate unless we can produce more for export. But it is extremely difficult to stop any wage claims. There are subversive elements in industry which are bent on the downfall of Britain, and if the unions will not back wage claims the Communists and the Syndicalists undoubtedly will. So the unions too are going to be in a grave dilemma. My noble friend Lord Amory suggested a grand council of industry. I must say that I was always much more attracted by Lord Chandos's plan, which was that there should be a bargain with the trade union side of industry for a regular wage increase of 2 per cent., or whatever it was, per annum, for five years. I would qualify that by saying that it should either be an increase of monetary wages or a corresponding decrease of taxation, which I believe would be the right way of increasing purchasing power at a steady rate per annum.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot do much more than create an atmosphere in which employers will resist unreasonable demands and in which strikes to enforce those demands would not get any public support. But it is the Prime Minister who must put the issue before the nation. That is not at all an easy task when the margin of austerity required is not a large one. The British people will always respond to an appeal to tighten their belts by six holes, but it is much more difficult to put over the idea of tightening a belt by one or two holes. At any rate, the Prime Minister would have to show that we believe in Britain and that, in the past, it has always proved unprofitable to sell Britain short.
6.4 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, to-day we have not had quite the attendance in your Lordships' House that some of us would
448
have expected at such a stage in our country's economic history as has been revealed in the course of the speeches by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, both in the House and in the country. I must say that I find it a little difficult to get very excited (shall I say?) about the main features of the debate that we have listened to so far, except that I must at the outset pay a tribute to my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence for having once again given such a calm, deliberate and completely reliable analysis of the situation as he has given us this afternoon. I personally am most grateful to him.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, who introduced this debate upon the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, obviously seemed to speak from a sense of responsibility, not being quite so free in speech, as he so often is when speaking without notes. We all like to hear him when he speaks freely, but he seemed to have a burden upon him this afternoon. No doubt, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, said, there is enough in the situation to be able to prove, in spite of the gentle words of the noble Earl, that we are in a crisis. It seemed to me that the noble Earl did his best to try to reassure us that everything was going to be all right so long as the workers and perhaps, in a lesser degree, the employers might be got together to do something about it.
It really is not quite so easy as that. The noble Earl said something which was not out of accord with the spirit of what the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, said later in the debate. I took down the phrase he used—namely: How much better to have agreed control of wages! That is what the noble Earl said. I wonder whether he would go so far as to say: How much better it would be to have agreed control of profits! You have nothing like the kind of general principle in what is being recommended on the one side as on the other. Whilst of course you check profits by means of increasing from time to time your excess profits duty overall, you have been giving a fair measure of largesse in relief to the surtax payer which is not in accordance with that principle.
The other particular point in the speech of the noble Earl to which I wished to draw attention was that he said that one

449
of the troubles, at any rate, that we have to deal with is that we have been spending more quickly than we earn. That is true of many fields—certainly of the home market. I am not sure that in one part of their career the Government have not helped in making that operative. Having read the comments in the Sunday Press of yesterday and in The Times and the Guardian this morning, for example, on the publication of the feature by Professor Wilson on Independent Television, I should say that one of the reasons for that statement made by the noble Earl about spending more quickly than we earn is the extraordinary increase in what I call pressure salesmanship by the introduction of the entirely new system, from 1953 onwards, of Independent Television and its extraordinary spate of advertising.
It is perhaps a happy thought in the mind of the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House that he foresaw this. He made good speeches against the Bill which gave the authority for this. But I am quite sure that he did not anticipate that there would be quite the result in the home market that has supervened. I do not see why we should not come back to a further study of this question before Parliament is much older. Then the noble Earl said just a word or two on the main points in the Finance Bill.
There it is. You have a serious position with regard to the balance of payments. The Chancellor of the Exchequer wants to cut down spending power. The noble Earl says to us this afternoon that the Bill seeks to do just that in all its provisions except one, and that the one in which it does not seek to do it is that which deals with the relief to the surtax payers—and that is perfectly true.
This afternoon Conservative Peers have been pretty well in accord in trying to show that it is necessary, in order to deal with the economic position, to have much more co-operation between the two great powers of industry, the workers and the employers yet they say there is nothing unsocial or unfair in the Chancellor's introduction of this relief to surtax payers. I was 100 per cent. with my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence in the way in which he put the matter this afternoon. He was seeking to show that when the country may be up against it at any time, especially in an economic difficulty, it is astounding how the people get together
450
in the general cause if they can be shown that they are not themselves going to be treated unfairly. It is a question of fairness. So it has been the intention of many speakers since to show that there is no unfairness in this extraordinary relief which is to be given to surtax payers in this Budget.
My Lords, is that so? We on this side of politics have got out for ourselves a little table of comparison in this matter. The relief to the surtax payers, in the first year in which it is fully operative, will amount to a larger total sum than, for example, the increased charges in National Health Insurance. Really, there was no need to have what I might call the special, emergency Budget of the spring of this year, raising the National Health charges, unless you were going to give the relief to the surtax payers. You are giving more to surtax payers in this Budget than you will get under the additional charges for National Health Insurance. When we look at the actual comparison of the effect on different classes of income in the community over the last five years of Conservative Budgets, including the present one, we have a few figures which are extraordinarily interesting. All these figures can be obtained, I think, by putting them together from the Financial Statements which were issued in those years.
In the first year, for a man with an income up to £600 a year, you have tax at the rate of about ld. in the pound for a married couple with two children under the age of eleven. By 1961–62, there has been a reduction in the total tax of 13s. 4d., but with the increase in insurance contributions, operative from the emergency Budgeting position of last spring, instead of being that much better off, 13s. 4d. a year, the income of that group will now be minus £12 18s. 3d. a year. Now let us take the other extreme.
LORD HAWKE: Would the noble Viscount repeat the years he is comparing?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I am comparing 1961–62 with 1956–57.
LORD HAWKE: The 1956–57 income ought to be adjusted upwards, naturally, for the fall in the value of money, so the noble Viscount ought to compare it with a man with an income of, roughly, £750.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I do not think so. I am taking the figures on the actual incomes as they are subject to payment of tax to the tax collector.
LORD HAWKE: We are dealing with two different pounds of income. The noble Viscount is comparing 1957 pounds with 1961 pounds. They do not compare.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: These figures are taken from the Financial Statements issued by the Government, and I do not think I can be accused of unfairness in quoting the Government's figures. Now I take it at the other end, the larger surtax payers. If you take a family of a man with two children who had an income of £2,000 a year, his net rate, after all his allowances in the 1956–57 Budget, was 4s. lid. Under this Budget, in the year in which the surtax relief becomes fully operative, if the income tax rates do not change, and after allowing for the reduction of income tax in between, the married man with two children earning £2,000 a year will be £23 15s. Od. a year better off. At £3,000 he will be £257 10s. Od. better off; at £5,000 he will be £861 17s. 8d. better off; at £10,000 he will be £2,101 10s. Od. better off; and a £20,000-a-year man will be £3,049 15s. Od. better off.
Compare that with a net loss in benefit to the man earning £600 a year who has two children and a wife. He will make a net loss on the whole of those five Budgets combined, compared with what the Government are now proposing to do for surtax payers. Is that the basis for getting that recognition of fairness between the main classes for which the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, and others, are now pressing in their appeal to the workers for co-operation? Of course it is not. That is why I think my noble friend was right to point out that if you want to get together like that you must have circumstances and facts which will make the working people themselves recognise that there is no unfairness. And it seems to me that at present such circumstances do not exist.
If you read the leading article in The Times of last Thursday, you will see that there is a pretty genuine concern in other places than, say, the leadership of the Labour Party about this matter. The article says that the
452
"surtax reductions have aggravated the Government's problem. The dilemma is not stated merely to deplore it. It is the heart of the whole matter. In spite of the virtual abolition of poverty, in spite of the rise there has been in the rewards of labour, in spite of the fact that one of the disadvantages the Labour Party has to contend with is that the great bulk of the nation now regards itself as middle class, Britain is still a jealous and divided nation."
I have not seen anything very much in the Government's action in the last nine and a half years that would be likely to remove that. The Times goes on to say:
"For this it is not enough to blame the contumacy of the workers. Short-sighted and unduly suspicious they may be.… An effective answer to those who say all that is wrong is that wages are too high would be to publish the menu of one of those luxury hotels that cater for expense accounts."
I think the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, was quite correct when he referred to business expenses in the circumstances that he did this afternoon.
The leader in The Times goes on:
"Britain's failure to improve exports is more due to the apathy of managements than to the shortcomings of workers."
The ordinary Labour speaker who goes to address a meeting and who says things like that is, as a rule, either entirely ignored in the news section of the Press, or criticised for having over-stated the case. But when the country comes up against an economic crisis, such as we now see we are going to be faced with, then an appeal is made from the other side. It was interesting to me when I heard from the lips of the noble Viscount, Lord Amory (I took his words down this afternoon, and I think I have them correctly) that "You never had it so good" was a dangerous basis.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, would the noble Viscount just complete my words? I said that, though factually correct, it was a dangerous basis for future acts and conduct.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: "Though factually correct." Well, I beg to challenge that, if I may. I notice, on going back over my papers, that at the time of the General Election, on September 23, 1959, the Leader of the Conservative Party, the present Prime Minister, said:
"To-day the British economy is sounder than at any time since the First World War. Sterling has been re-established as a strong and respected currency. Our balance of payments is strong. I do not remember any time in my life when the economy has been so sound."

453
Does the noble Viscount agree that that was the true position?
VISCOUNT AMORY: Yes.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: He does. Well, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer does not seem to agree about that. Nor did it match up with the statement made by a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Thorneycroft. There is a grave dichotomy between the two. I wish I had time—I will have at some time—to go back and point out the differences between those statements.
Let us look at what Mr. Selwyn Lloyd says about it. This is what he said on April 17 of this year in the House of Commons [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 638 (No. 90), col. 797]:
"… it cannot be disputed that prosperity did not rest on a sufficiently sure foundation."
He also said:
"… 1960 was … a year of rapidly rising real personal income … But the other side of the medal was the dangerously high pressure of demand on productive resources, the signs of a return of increasing costs and prices, the failure of our exports to increase sufficiently, and the consequent serious weakness in our balance of payments."
On any basis of calculation, the balance of payments during 1960 was very unsatisfactory.
That statement was made a little more than three months after the statement the Prime Minister made in his propaganda appeal in 1959 for the voters' confidence, Moreover, when you consider the differences that we have had in the last 9½ years in this balance-of-payments position, there has surely been an enormous amount of ground for the critics, some of them in the City and more outside the City, to complain about the Government's failure to deal with the balance of payments on a long-term and steady basis. They have complained, as Mr. Selwyn Lloyd was saying only last week, that the Government have been constantly accused of "Stop and Go". The electors may well have to say to the Conservative Party at the next Election that they have done some of their "Stops" and some of their "Goes" to fit in with Elections.
The careful examinations of the Budgets of 1955 and 1959 were surely calculated to encourage the mass voter to feel that the Government were doing wonderful things for them; yet within
454
a few months, each time, the exact reverse has been stated. They have said "You go and do this. You get their vote". Then you get the extraordinary effect on the balance of payments of the lack of proper economic planning, and there has to be a special appeal to the people to get together. The Government say: "Don't ask for any more increases of wages. Of course, we will do a little by putting an extra tax or two on profits. We may beg them not to pay out so many dividends, but we are forced, out of social justice to give this relief on surtax to people with large incomes." Nevertheless, they will go on increasing the cost, if necessary, as I gathered from the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, this afternoon, of every piece of extra service put into the Health Service and the Welfare State. They say it is reasonable to ask the people themselves to pay for that. Therefore, it goes on adding up.
In the long run, except by application to the National Assistance Board, the size of income of the people is getting more 'serious under the Welfare State. It is a very perilous way in which to try to induce a sense of fairness into the minds of the people in the country. I thought it was just as well to put that before your Lordships this afternoon.
With regard to the body that it is proposed to set up, the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, said that he was rather encouraged to go on in that direction because of his experience with the agricultural side of industry and what is called the Review of Prices. He said that the great thing was to get to understand and to know the facts, to have working parties, and so on and so forth. Believe me, I can assure the noble Viscount that if he went to the thoughtful people in the trade union movement, not only at headquarters but at branches, he would find they have a pretty good idea of What are the facts. I am all in favour of such consultation between trade unions and employers as will produce (shall I say?) an expanded explanation of the facts of the situation concerning either the particular industry or the national economy. But believe me, the working class of this country are not quite so ignorant of these matters as is suggested, I think, in the noble Viscount's statement.
However, I will say that I myself arm concerned about the poor attendance at

455
the branch meetings of trade unions, and that very large parts of the population, not only the working class, are perhaps very much of the spirit of a text that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will know very well. It is a very rarely quoted one and is contained in a very small book of the Prophets, Zephaniah, where punishment is proposed for those who settle on their lees and say that the Lord will do no evil, neither will he do any good. In other words (I think it was the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, who recalled this expression to my mind this afternoon), they say, "I couldn't care less". I think that charge could be made of some of the people found in all sections of our population—they "couldn't care less".
Nevertheless, there is enough knowledge and experience in the trade union movement for them to see that they have to go on safeguarding the rights of their members, and that they have to examine very closely the economic measures proposed. When you come to speak about restricting spending power, I wonder What are the facts in the real restraint of the spending power of the worker? The workers are the largest consumers of ordinary goods in the home market. Let us go back over the last 9½ years and see how far the cost of living has gone down because of a restriction of spending power. Every time the Government put a tax upon goods—and how right the noble Lord, Lord Brocket was on this this afternoon!—we have an increase in prices. Unless you control prices at the same time as you put on taxes—and you have always been unwilling to do that in the Conservative Party—up go the applications for increases in wages; and as the cost of living goes up it is reflected in the increased cost of wages in every section of production.
If we want to get an idea of the effect of this policy of the Government, which they have applied from the moment they became the Government in 1951, on the basis of "Set the people free!," "Stop rationing", "Give up controls: let the people have what they like!", we have to look at the grave results which this has had upon the national economy. Let us take the matter that is now being
456
freely bandied about—the cost of our defence, and the suggestion that we ought greatly to reduce the money which is being spent on our defence commitments overseas. I wonder how many of us have looked at the comparison of the cost of our defence in the last few years. In the last year for which I was responsible as Minister of Defence, the total of the military budget was £759 million, and the number of personnel 850,000. If we take another crucial year, 1951–52, the year of Korea and of greatly increased demand for the Services, which was started by the Labour Government and carried on by the first post-war Conservative Government, the military budget was £1,131½ million, and the personnel 866,000. In the year 1961–62, the budget was £1,655 million and the personnel 444,000.
This increased cost, reflected in every Department providing for defence, was the result, not completely but largely, of the Government's failure to deal with the economic problem of the State. Economic writers in the newspapers who are critical of Government policy come back again and again to the point that somehow Government expenditure must be reduced. The question is whether Government expenditure is being reduced on the right things, and whether things are being expanded which ought not to be expanded. In his Liberal days, Sir Winston Churchill used a saying which I repeated many times 50 years ago, and which is not altogether out of relation to the 1961 political programme of Conservatism. You will not bother with the Weights and Measures Bill. You do away with the Road Traffic Bill until some other time. But you must have a Budget for reducing surtax for the rich and must force through a Licensing Bill that no true lover of temperance wants. Sir Winston's comment on that side of Toryism was:
"The Tory Party is the Party of vested interests, with the open hand at the Treasury and the oven door in the public house."
Nobody can use language quite so appropriate on matters of this kind as this great master of invective.
To-day we are facing a coming economic crisis—and what is promised? Apparently a soft-hearted appeal to the workers of this country to come together to try to get you out of economic difficulties into which you have so largely

457
been responsible for leading them. On the other hand, there is no need to be downhearted about the position that could be attained, if you had a policy of real economic planning. It is stimulating to find that now in certain capitalistic circles they are no longer against national economic planning. They are for some planning. They find that they are gradually being converted. Like the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, they see that they cannot rely merely on an increased bank rate, which is as capable of producing inflation as not; they want planning. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, just now said something about how other countries would deal with the situation with which we are faced—I cannot remember his exact words and will look it up in the morning. But he said that we cannot do that—we are British.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I refresh the noble Viscount's memory now? I said that other countries were able to impose quotas, licences and tariffs when they got into difficulties, but that apparently there is a different rule for the British.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, I am not at all loth to practice anything which is reasonable in an economic plan which will bring about what we want—an expansion of British production which will not simply go to expand the home market but will go into export and so maintain that vital thing, our balance of payments. Other countries are doing that successfully, and at last, apparently, even some experts in industry and finance are beginning to see the daylight in this respect.
No doubt, with my colleagues, I shall have an opportunity of bringing our views again before the House, when the expected statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is made. The papers say to-day that it is possible that this most important statement will be made tomorrow in another place by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope that he will announce as quickly as possible what he intends to do because, as noble Lords have already said, uncertainty is one of the worst factors of the present situation.
The last thing I want to draw attention to is the position of the local autho-
458
rities, who are so often attacked about their public works. Perhaps they are the most hard hit of all by the Government's general financial plans to deal with crises. Their expanding programmes of school building, health work and, in particular, housing have to be financed by money borrowed at 6¼, 6½ or 6¾ per cent., and this creates such a charge for them to pass on to people who are engaged in educating their children, or those who have to pay higher rates for council houses, or those who are building their own houses or buying their houses by mortgage from building societies and have to pay higher site costs plus rates, that you cannot expect to get a united effort from these people, until you have some better change to offer them than that which is facing them at the present time. I beg the Government to come down to brass tacks and to consider, as the first brass tack that has to be taken out, departing from the policy on which they have so far relied in dealing with economic difficulties, and to come to economic planning and to a fairness of taxation as between the various classes of the community.
6.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, we are, I am afraid, all "waiting for Godot", in the sense of waiting for a statement from my right honourable friend, and I think the debate we have had this afternoon has to some extent been inhibited by that understanding, which is as common to Members of these Benches as it is to Members opposite. Nevertheless, if I may say so, I think the debate has been a useful one and has revealed a much closer agreement on all sides than perhaps might be assumed from the vigorous tone of the noble Viscount who has just resumed his seat. I think we are all agreed about the inadequacy of the attitude of mind exhibited by such phrases as: "I'm all right Jack", or "You never had it so good", or "I couldn't care less", or "A free-for-all"; but then, I think we always have been agreed about these things.
I would only suggest, quite humbly, that we should stop trying to attach these phrases to one another and unite in saying that they are inadequate phrases: because it will be within the recollection of noble Lords that I have again and again pointed out in this

459
House that the original context of the only one which could by any stretch of the imagination be attributed to a member of the Government is that it was said by way of rebuke to a particular audience which had complained of its lot when it had no right to do so. I would suggest, therefore, that we can unite upon a view of the national necessity which points out the weakness and the limitations of such a phrase: indeed, I would say, quite gently and I hope without offence, to the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, whose contributions year by year in this debate are so valuable and so much appreciated by all sides of the House, that "I'm all right, Jack" was not a film about the Primrose League or even about the Conservative Government, but was a film about the trade union movement. Although I should probably be the first to agree that I'm all right Jack" is about the opposite of the real and the best traditions of the trade unions, there are people who have discerned in certain elements of the trade union movement in recent years a tendency towards just that attitude of mind.
That brings me to the second point upon which I think we can claim to be agreed, and also the point at which there has been some divergence of opinion—because I should like to discuss that, too. I think we are all agreed that if we are going to approach our national economic problems we must do so in the belief that the kind of policy which we are seeking to carry out is one which can be described as fair. The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, used the phrase "fair do's", and I do not complain of that. He went on to say that it should not only be fair, but should be seen to be fair. Again, I do not think I quarrel with that. But here I would make a serious qualification. In my view, at least, the necessity of economic policy is to be fair; and the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, will remember that to be fair is not the same thing as to seem to be fair; and to seem to be fair is not the same thing as to be seen to be fair. I agree that the policy must start by being fair, and I then say that it must be seen to be fair, because everyone must unite to show that it is fair.
But I fear that underlying some of the strictures from the other side of the
460
House this evening there has been a confusion of thought attached to being seen to be fair. I think we are always rather apt, on all sides in this country at the present time, to be afraid of being really fair, for fear lest somebody call us unfair if we are. Here is the point at which I join issue with the criticism which has been levelled against us by noble Lords on the Benches opposite, and especially, I would say, by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, because I think, at least, that this attack upon the surtax reliefs is not a case of attacking a real injustice, but a case of a demagogic attempt to represent as an injustice what is in fact a belated act of social justice. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, quoted certain figures which he had got, as he quite frankly said, from his Party sources, as he is well entitled to do. The comparison he made was between a man earning, I think, £12 a week, or £600 a year, in 1956—then and now. But his comparison is fallacious, because he omitted to state that even in the last eighteen months wages had risen 8½ per cent., and therefore the truth is that the man who was earning £600 a year in 1956 would now be earning £15 a week—that much more. This is the fallacy of the noble Viscount's whole attitude of mind, which I wish now to analyse at a little greater length.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, I must point out that I was not dealing with how the wages of individuals in the community have increased in any of the examples I quoted. I was talking about what is the rate of net taxation upon that sum of income gained by anybody. I am entitled to quote it from that point of view and examine its fair social justice from the point of the income quoted.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: And I am entitled to point out the fallacy of that attitude, and that is what I propose to do. I think we must examine this a little more fully. My noble friend Lord Dundee, when he opened the debate earlier in the afternoon, pointed out that, broadly speaking, the internal wealth of this country—the standard of living, if you choose to call it that—has risen more in the last ten years than in the hundred years before that; and that has largely been made up (and I am glad to know that it has been made up; I do

461
not want any mistake about that) by increases in wages which have gone on consecutively since the war. I am delighted that that has been so, because that seems to me to be something which has been a real gain in our time. When I was a boy, and when I was a young man, we were constantly having to deal with problems of malnutrition, unemployment and poverty. This has all been swept away, and in the last ten years, at any rate there has never been such an increase in the standard of life of the whole community. But I must say this bluntly to noble Lords opposite: the bulk of that has gone to the wage-earning classes.
These surtax reliefs are not going to the great industrialists. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, represents a type of enlightened employer in the industrial and agricultural life of this country. But the independent professional classes, others who earn salaries, and smaller businessmen, have not gained in proportion either to the capital wealth of the great concerns or to the wage-earning classes. And it is they who will in fact be benefiting to a large extent by these reliefs which we are now discussing. They do not necessarily have much capital. The noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, was putting to me in this House, only about five days ago, "If you want your research workers in a particular field, you have got to pay them properly". What we are talking about when we are talking about these surtax reliefs is precisely the first-class scientific research workers, precisely the professors, precisely that level in industry. It is they who have not enjoyed the increase of benefit in the last ten years about which I have been talking. Perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me. I will give way, but I want to conclude this point or, at any rate, to develop it a little further.
The fact of the matter is that the level of surtax placed at £2,000 and remaining at £2,000 since, I think, 1920, is an anomaly and an anachronism in our time. It is pure demagoguery to pretend the contrary. The other day I made an inquiry as to What the average male wage-earnings would be in 1984 if we continued the present trend. The average would then be £2,000 a year. It is really absurd to pretend that this level
462
of £2,000 is otherwise than an anachronism at the present time, or to denigrate as amongst the more wealthy members of the community—as amongst the kind of rich who are supposed to be trampling down the faces of the poor—these people who are going to get this income relief. The big industrialists may not need it. By and large their salaries have risen high enough at the top of industry, and their capital investments have appreciated enough for them not to worry about surtax. But the people you are attacking when you attack the surtax relief are the ordinary professional class people who have not enjoyed an increase of Standard of life at all comparable to those which I have been describing. It is in fact the middle class who are being attacked by this kind of demagoguery, and not the very wealthy.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I hope the noble Viscount will pardon my interruption, but I want to make a suggestion. I am at a loss to understand the argument the noble Viscount has advanced concerning the connection between the change in the standard of living over the past decade as compared with a hundred years ago. Is he telling the House that the standard of living over the past ten years, from 1951 to 1961, is greater than the increase in the standard of living of the workers from 1851 to 1961?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I was referring to something in the earlier part of this debate, which I do not think the noble Lord heard. I was not claiming a statistical analysis of my own. I was only referring to what had taken place. The actual statistical analysis matters nothing compared with the fact (with which the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and my noble friend Lord Dundee are agreed) that in the last ten years the internal wealth of the country has increased, at any rate, on the scale and of the order of that which I have described. I say, therefore, that we must avoid, in our determination to be fair, the fear of being called unfair. On the contrary, we must seek to be fair.
Now I turn from that to the economic situation and to the Budget proposals. I think the first decision which had to be made by my right honourable friend when he introduced his Budget was

463
whether he was going to introduce a counter-inflationary Budget or some other kind of Budget. His primary decision was to raise a surplus above the line of £506 million a year, which he did by increasing taxation by a net total in the full year of £80 million. No one, at any rate, has questioned that decision. The more striking proposal which he included was the proposal, which has been much discussed in this debate, of adopting two new so-called economic regulators to deal with the threat of inflation. I should be the first to agree that any form of proposal by which an attempt is made to deal with inflation by putting on taxes is very much a pis aller. It will have the difficulties which have been urged on both sides of this House. In other words, it will, by the imposition of taxation, either cause hardship or add to cost. That is the common feature of all taxation demands. It is also the feature of all the economic regulators at the hand of any Government by which to attack inflation.
We know that hire purchase restrictions, for example, bear hardly on particular sections of industry, and they are unjust in that respect. We know that the higher bank rate has the disadvantage which the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, described; it raises the interest rates, and this may hit both the ratepayers and others who legitimately need finance. It may affect the level of rents and that can cause hardship. And so on. The choice of whatever regulator you choose will cause economic hardship, and none of them can be justified except in terms of an over-riding necessity to defend the economy against inflation. It is a second-best. It is a pis aller to take money out of internal demand, by Government action, to achieve that purpose.
It has the effect, of course, to which noble Lords have referred when they speak of this "Stop and Start" and of the sudden jerks in the economy brought about by Government action to control inflation. Of course there is a better policy. But a better policy demands acceptance by the great mass of the people—and that means the wage earner, because wage earners constitute the great mass of the people—of voluntary restraint in the extent to which they seek higher returns for their labour. If
464
that is not the case, then if a Government does its duty it will be compelled, in one way or another, to introduce new regulators, or to take other steps by means of law, to stop and start as the economy requires it. I will return to that at a later stage of my argument.
I think one can say that the novel experiment which my right honourable friend has taken in his Budget, which consists in seeking the right from Parliament to introduce new rebates or new taxes during the course of the financial year, has not been criticised as a constitutional device. Indeed, one noble Lord—I think it was my noble friend Lord Hawke—congratulated the Chancellor on an imaginative and original Budget. I fancy that he had this particular feature in mind. It is a feature of the Budget which I think ought to come in for praise. My right honourable friend has taken this now course to add, as I think my noble friend Lord Amory said, a new club to his bag—a new means of dealing with inflation, not instead of but in addition to the other instruments which previous Chancellors have enjoyed.
I come from that to what I think is a melancholy feature of this debate. This is the point upon which my noble friend Lord Amory dwelt in what. I must acknowledge, was a most helpful and, I should have said, a most brilliant speech. It is of course true that in this Budget we have been driven again to the use of counter-inflationary devices which we should gladly have avoided if the pressure of inflation had not compelled us to adopt them. My Lords, it means, I think, just this. Since the war there have been a series of what I will call financial crises or economic crises—the word has been criticised on both sides of the House, but it is not a bad word, because we understand what it means. It is true that there have been a series since the present Government took office in 1951–1951, 1955 and 1957 we can remember.
The prime feature of all these crises is that they entail painful and unpopular Government action. They received painful and unpopular Government action. But we weathered them. The only difference from the two previous crises under the Labour Government is that the first drove them into a devaluation which

465
they did not weather, and the second into a General Election, when they left us to clear up the mess. But what has been common to both Parties since the war has been the liability of the British economy to recurrent emergencies of this kind. I have no doubt whatever that we shall weather the present emergency; all experience leaves us to believe that we shall. But I think my noble friend was perfectly right, that what should give us pause at this moment in our history, what ought to cause us momentary reflection and, I think, a new departure in policy, is the recurrence of the disease for so many times under so many different Governments, and met by so many different methods. It is this which ought to give rise to a more national and possibly less partisan approach than has been possible in recent years.
It was for that reason that I welcomed the speech by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye, because, unless I am mistaken, he was very much of that opinion too. I must say that I have come to the conclusion, as I think he has done, that the time has arrived when the British people, quite apart from Party politics, should make a new, resolute and prolonged effort to get out of this recurring sequence of balance of payments crises and into a situation when, if regulators are necessary from time to time, they do not involve sudden changes in the pattern of economic life. I would agree with him too, and I would agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, that if this is to be done we must face, without political preconceptions, certain facts of life which I think all Parties have been reluctant or unable to grapple with hitherto, and we must face them in the knowledge that the Government will fail unless the people recognise that the effort cannot be made by the Government alone—or by any section of the people alone—and that national efficiency demands a whole series of efforts. And I would say, sadly, but still with some conviction, that in my judgment those efforts would not be complete at the end of one year as my noble friend suggested. I think it will require an absolutely concerted, determined direction of policy stretching over several years at least.
And I would say that my noble friend Viscount Amory was right in drawing attention to one underlying fact. In our
466
country the working population is growing in numbers by only one half of 1 per cent. a year. Any increase in national wealth, if it is to be enjoyed without inflation, must therefore depend mainly upon the growth of output per worker. Output, if I may say so, is a word I would use to describe various kinds of efficiency and production.
In the past ten years the average growth of output per worker has been approximately 2 per cent. per year. Now, my Lords, no increase in personal income of any sort, no increase in wages and salaries, which in total exceeds this figure, can be other than inflationary. It does not matter what political or social philosophy we adopt. No increase above the average increase in output per worker can be other than inflationary. Until this record is improved, every attempted wage or salary increase, by any organised body whatever, which exceeds it, is, in substance—however reasonable it may seem to those who make it—an attempt to get something at the expense of everybody else. There may be cases, of course, when such an attempt is justified. We all know that relativities cannot be permanent everywhere. But it cannot be justified in every case. In the great majority of cases my conviction is that it has not been justified at all.
The fact is that during most of the 1950s, whilst the average annual growth of output per worker has been of the order of 2 per cent., the average annual increase in wages and salaries was 6½ per cent. against the figure of 2 per cent. In 1959, it was 5½ per cent., but it has grown much more rapidly since.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I just ask the noble and learned Viscount, while he is speaking of wages and salaries, whether he would not say a word about profits? Have they not been rising even more rapidly than the figures quoted?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The answers to the two questions put by the noble Lord are, respectively, "Yes" and "No", and he will hear in about two minutes' time, I hope, exactly why the answer is "Yes" to the first part of the question, and "No" to the second. But it is a fundamental fact that one has to look to the future to get to the bottom of this matter. No remedy which does

467
not acknowledge that fact is fundamental. Every successive Government has tried to tackle it, and no Government has succeeded. It is no good noble Lords opposite, and, may I add, no good for highly respected leaders of the trade union movement, trying to strike defiant attitudes at successive Chancellors who draw attention to a fact as fundamental and obvious as this. If the country does not in this matter accept some voluntary restraint it must get restraint which is not voluntary. If the Government does its duty it will come from the Government. If it does not, the restraint will come from outside this country, by way of a flight from the pound, which is only another way of describing a lack of belief, by people outside this country, that we can be trusted any more as a nation.
It is a perfectly fair point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, when he spoke, and by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, a moment ago, to say that when we talk about wages and salaries it is also equally imperative to talk about profits and dividends. I think that of course one must compare the difference in nature between the two kinds of personal income, but it also happens that there is a perfectly fair answer. I think the House should know, although it is not in my judgment a conclusive point at all, that while wages and salaries have risen steadily profits have, in fact, shown no such steady rise. Between the first quarter of 1960 and the first quarter of 1961 profits actually fell by as much as 61 per cent. whereas wages and salaries during the same period rose by 8½ per cent. And if one takes a longer period, which I think one should, profits have certainly not risen in the same proportion as wages and salaries. Between 1954 and 1961, for example, the total rise in wages and salaries was 53 per cent., whilst the total rise in profits was 42 per cent. Moreover, it must be remembered that in absolute magnitude—and, therefore, in the size of the contribution which they make to the inflationary pressure—company profits amount to little more than one-quarter of the amount of wages and salaries.
I accept, however, the fundamental point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, that it is necessary to ensure that a fundamental balance
468
of justice remains and that one cannot deal with the one problem without discussing the other. I would simply say to the noble Lord that while profits are, in fact, at least controllable in principle by an appropriate instrument, that is, by taxation—and it is not altogether irrelevant to point out that the taxation of profits of companies has been put up this year in order to countervail the relief in surtax, and last year by my right honourable and learned friend's predecessor—no appropriate instrument for the direct control of wage and salary increases has as yet been devised. We are, therefore, put into the position that one has been rising uncontrollably and the other has risen less, and on occasion recently has, in fact, fallen, and is controlled and controllable.
It is for that reason that I was particularly attracted by the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Amory, which he agreed, if he received support from the other side, to call the Citrine plan. I, of course, can say nothing about that this afternoon, but I promise to put that suggestion to my right honourable and learned friend and see whether it is favourably received. I would close, because I fear that at this late hour I have strained your Lordships' patience somewhat long. I feel that the time has come to get to grips with what my noble friend Lord Amory has described as the fundamental problem of the recurrent series of crises from which the nation has suffered since the war.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the noble Viscount has just said that profits were controllable by means of taxation and that wages and salaries were not, and that if the Government did not control them they would be controlled from outside by means of a flight from the pound. In those circumstances, what do the Government propose to do?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, said clearly, throughout my speech, that I do not propose this evening to anticipate my right honourable and learned friend's statement, and I should not be expected to do so. If, however, the noble Lord reads what I have said during the course of my speech, he will see that I have said a good deal of what needs to be done. I was about to end by giving what can only be a personal opinion about certain other matters.

469
My Lords, we have deliberately made full employment the policy of this country since 1945. In times of boom this has created a difficult labour shortage over some parts of the country, although I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, when he pointed out that other parts of the country did not enjoy that situation to the full. It would, I suppose, be possible, for a Government that was sufficiently ruthless, to slow down economic activity to the point at which jobs and vacancies were in balance. But it is surely a curious, even a Gilbertian, situation which would require one to create spare capacity in order to avoid inflation. It would be impossible to act in such a way without creating unemployment in areas where, at the moment, economic activity has not yet reached its fullest extent.
Rather we should set ourselves the deliberate task of adding, to the concepts of full employment and social security which on the whole have been common to the parties since the war, a third concept—that of national efficiency. Statistically, this might be measured in terms of gross domestic product per worker—t hat is, the total output of goods and services per worker. We should then seek to identify in each realm of economic activity the steps necessary to achieve or to improve it, and let nothing, neither vested interest, restrictive practice nor, as my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye said, political doctrine, stand in our way. Let us in that spirit look at the entire economic theme: investment, mobility and training of labour; the level of wages and salaries; the level of profits and dividends; aids to industry; restrictive practices; tariffs; taxation; public expenditure and administration. Let us acid the third concept of national efficiency to our other public aims, and I think what we shall get to an end of our recurrent crises over a period of years.
There is, however, another factor without which we cannot succeed, and that is the factor upon which many noble Lords, from all parts of the House, have rightly laid stress. That is the need to call upon the feeling of patriotism which is never far beneath the surface of the people of this country. I do not think that they will fail to respond when they are shown the need. I do not suppose for an instant that a Government composed, as it in-
470
evitably is, of members of one Party can succeed by themselves in making an appeal of this kind. I recognise, of course, the substantial justice of the demand with which we have been faced from the Benches opposite, that whatever proposals we make should be shown to be fair. I sincerely ask noble Lords, in all quarters of the House, to take this as what it is, not a challenge to remedy the defects of policy of a single Party, but at attempt to overcome a recurrent difficulty with which our country is faced.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 35 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 13), Bill read 3a, and passed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, this may be a convenient moment to adjourn for dinner. I hope your Lordships will agree with me that three-quarters of an hour will be enough.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, before the House adjourns, I should like to make one objection to adjourning, which, I understand, is to some extent due to the Hansard staff, with whom I have great sympathy and who have our admiration for the way they carry out their duties. I do not think that the Government's allocation of time for the Licensing Bill is a proper one. Licensing is a most important subject. The Bill will affect the social conditions of our people for many generations. With much of the Bill I wholeheartedly agree; there are certain parts which I do not oppose. The Bill, however, is coming on on three occasions at a late hour in the evening. On Thursday night it came on after a long, heated and interesting debate on whether we should sell broccoli in one part of London or another. It came on in a very small House, I may say. I do not think there were more than four or five people listening to this important Bill last Thursday; a few more turned up for the Division, but the actual people listening were very few.
To-night it will come on at about 8 o'clock, again after an interesting and important debate on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, and I do not

471
think many people will really be fresh enough to give it the consideration that it ought to have. To-morrow it is to come on after the debate on the Committee stage of the North Atlantic Shipping Bill, another important Bill, which, no doubt in its Committee stage will give rise to quite a number of differences of opinion, and there are several Amendments down. In these circumstances, one cannot but say that this Bill is not having the consideration that we should give it. One of our major tasks is to be a revising medium, and I do not think this House is being given the time or the opportunity to give this Bill in Committee the consideration it ought to have.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, might I, in just a sentence or two, support the noble Lord? Over the week-end I have met quite a number of people. They asked me what happened last Thursday night in the House of Lords. They have not seen or heard of it in a single paper—not a word—and they wondered why it was kept out of the Press. I told them that this came on so late, because of other important matters and procedures, and that it was not likely that the Press would take notice. But the people of Wales are concerned about this Bill, and they think that although the Bill itself is shabby treatment for Wales, this is making the shabby treatment shabbier still.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, whatever else can be put to the door of the Government, we cannot be blamed for the Press coverage that this Bill received, especially during a week when other things were happening which attracted a good deal of public notice. The actual allocation of time to this Bill has, as noble Lords will be aware, been fully discussed through the usual channels. The Government have changed their plans two or three times to my knowledge, in order to meet the convenience of as many noble Lords as possible in the requirements of the Bill, and I do not think we can be charged with being unreasonable or unthoughtful in the matter. Naturally, nobody could be sorrier than I am that any noble Lord is inconvenienced at any time, but at this time of the year we always find difficulty. The other place sends its
472
legislation to us about now, and this happens every year. We do our best to carry through our business, and I can only say how grateful the Government is to Members of the House for giving so much of their time and undergoing so much inconvenience, in order to do the legislative business which is required by Parliament.
[The Sitting was suspended at twenty-four minutes past seven o'clock, and resumed at five minutes past eight o'clock.]

LICENSING BILL
8.5 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]
Clause 6:
Sunday closing in Wales and Monmouthshire
6.—
(2) There shall be no poll under this section for a county or county borough unless it is requisitioned by not less than five hundred local government electors for the county or county borough, and a requisition shall not be effective unless—
(a) it is contained in one or more requisition papers in the form in the appendix to the Second Schedule to this Act, signed by the requisitioning electors and giving the particulars of them required by that form; and
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR moved, in subsection (2) (a), after "electors" to insert:
"in the presence of a person and at a place appointed for the purpose by the council of the county or county borough".
The noble Lord said: One term that was used by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House was "We must be fair", and I agree, and all I ask for is fairness regarding not only this Amendment but all subsequent Amendments. May I add—I hope I shall not be misunderstood—that I am a little worried that the Bishops' Bench has been empty throughout the debate on this Bill. I know that they are people active in the Temperance Council of the Christian Churches. I am

473
delighted to see the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Liverpool this evening.
The noble Lord, Lord Amwell, seemed concerned when discussing Lord Ogmore's Amendment as to where I really stood. Did I think that legislation could make people good morally? I had better read his own words because I want to link up [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 233 (No. 109) col. 378]:
"I do not believe you can make people moral by Act of Parliament. This is the way in which certain sections of people with strong and honest convictions, like the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, seem to think this can be done."
I would assure noble Lords present that I do not take that attitude. I do not think legislation will make us a moral nation in itself. I agree with him. I have been an anti-prohibitionist. My method of dealing with the drink issue has always been, and still is, a very direct method: slow maybe, a roundabout way—that is, first of all by the right type of education, especially in the schools.
LORD OGMORE: Was the noble Lord ascribing that sentence to me?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: No; to the noble Lord, Lord Amwell. What I was referring to was my personal position. I think the best approach to the drink problem is first of all the right type of education, especially in our schools and colleges; wise legislation—I think that is necessary; but I would also emphasise the example of the older generation. Those three ways, in my opinion, are the best ways of handling this problem. They may be slow and hard, and they may take a long time; but I cannot think of any other method that would be permanently effective.
The Amendment I now move and the two following Amendments are all related. To some extent it is a waste of time to move them separately. I have them all in mind in making my brief submission. When this Bill is passed and the ballot has been arranged, it is important that this House along with another place gives guidance. Here we have seventeen different areas in Wales needing seventeen officers of one kind or another to supervise the ballots, and we feel that we, as Parliament, ought to give guidance. This machinery has been
474
decided on, and we do not think it ought to be left to each official in his own area to deal with this matter in the way he desires. We want to add dignity to this ballot. We want it to be a ballot of importance. We do not want there to be an idea that anything we do is good enough and that we can get away with it, as is the tendency in regard to cinemas. This is not a cinema issue, not by any means. The cinema issue is quite different from this issue. I am anxious that we should give guidance to the people who are responsible in these seventeen areas as to how to conduct the ballot in such a way that they know that the future of Wales is involved. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 44, after ("electors") insert the said words.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR WELSH AFFAIRS (LORD BRECON): I can quite understand the reason for the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, proposing these Amendments. The effect of accepting the Amendments would mean that requisition papers for a poll would be signed in the presence of a person and at a place appointed for the purpose by the County Council or County Borough Council concerned. The purpose of the Amendments, I take it, is to ensure that all signatures to a requisition paper are the valid signatures of duly qualified electors.
I would point out that it has not been thought necessary to make similar provision about signing requisition papers in a particular place, and in the presence of a particular person, in legislation relating to other kinds of local polls—as the noble Lord has said, a poll for Sunday cinemas, which he refers to as being in a different category to this one. In particular, there is no such provision in the law relating to requisition for "temperance polls" under the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1959. I am sure that the noble Lord would not wish Ito give the impression that stricter safeguards are needed for the people of Wales than have been found necessary for the people of Scotland. Temperance polls in Scotland have been part of the law since 1920. In any event, Clause 6 (8) (b) of the Bill, by attracting paragraphs 18 or 19 of the Ninth Schedule to the Local Gov-

475
ernment Act, 1933, already makes it an offence for any person fraudulently to sign or forge a signature to a requisition paper or to attempt to do so.
I think the point here is that if a particular person is appointed say, in the City of Cardiff, to receive these signatures, he is not in any position to check the person. He gives his name; he does not know him, but he can give his number from the voters' list. I cannot believe that those in favour of Sunday opening and those against will have any difficulty in getting 500 valid signatures, and these proposed Amendments, I think, make it just more difficult and inconvenient for people, by requiring them to go to some central point—probably at specified hours—to sign the requisition paper. Perhaps in a large county like Cardiganshire one spot would be most inconvenient for everyone to go to. I hope that, for these reasons, the noble Lord will not press his Amendments.
LORD OGMORE: Before we leave this particular part of Clause 6 may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, whether he can clear up a point which I raised last Thursday as to the position of Servicemen who are away from home on Service, in Kenya or Malaya, Hongkong or anywhere else? I have been informed that such Servicemen or women will not be able to vote at a poll under Clause 6 because they are not on the local government register. The noble Lord was not absolutely certain about that. So that we may know where we are, perhaps he will try to find out, if it is possible, and clarify the position.
LORD BRECON: I shall be very happy to look at that question. I understand the postal vote does apply to the elections; but, in so far as the Servicemen are concerned, I will make inquiries and write to the noble Lord in a day or so.
LORD OGMORE: One point is that there is bound to be some delay before the papers come back, if they have to go out to Hong Kong, Malaya and so on. There would be delay which may not be allowed for in the clause.
LORD BRECON: Very well.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
8.16 p.m.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: In his absence, my noble friend Lord Silkin has asked me to move the next Amendment, which is to leave out Clause 6. The question I am being repeatedly asked nowadays is: how did this clause get into this Bill? That is a difficult question for me, because I have no idea, and that is my usual reply—"I have no idea." But these friends of mine seem to have some ideas, and in North Wales they are rather shrewd people. They put their point of view in question form. Let me just give your Lordships the questions. Is it because the Government have no views on Sunday opening of public houses in Wales? Or is it that they favour Sunday opening but are inclined to the view that it would be unwise politically, in this respect, to put those views in legislative form, in the form of a Bill? They go on to say that that would mean that the Welsh Grand Committee would meet to adjudicate upon the Bill, and that would be discrediting the Government. Somebody else disagreed: he thought the Government would make a better effort to find out what is the feeling in Wales on this issue.
Now for months—I think I could say, for years—this question of opening a public house on Sunday in Wales has been before the people in one way or another. Licensees and victuallers—not all the licensees, by any means—have seen to it in various forms that somebody is impressed (and I rather think it is the Minister for Welsh Affairs and the noble Lord, Lord Brecon) that there is a big demand for this in Wales. I would say that the demand for the closing of the clubs is, if anything, bigger than that for the opening of the pubs in Wales. Now the demand for the closing of the clubs comes from one section of the population: the demand for the opening of the pubs comes from another section. So far as the demand for closing or opening is concerned, that is a matter to be decided, but I am quite satisfied in my own mind that so far as the demand in Wales is concerned there is nobody entitled to say that there has been a bigger demand one way or the other.
Of course, what I feel has been happening is that somebody has been

477
arranging for people to go around Wales to eavesdrop here and have a chat there and bring back information. Then, as a result of all this investigation, it has become known that the majority in Wales would vote for Sunday opening. Now, the Government could bring in a Bill, but the M.P.s of the Tory Party in Wales would never approve of that. They would realise that for the Government to bring in a Bill putting forward Sunday opening would be electorally disadvantageous to them. That would not do at all. No; they must find a means of getting the pubs open on a Sunday which does not discredit the Government. And the way to do it is to organise something: get a scheme; work it out; get your clever men on the job—and this is the result of the cleverness. That is what they say to Wales now, having consulted I do not know whom.
I know the leaders in Welsh thought and in Welsh life as well as anybody else in the world. I see them frequently. We seldom meet without discussing this. Those men have not been consulted. Men in very high positions have not been consulted in any shape or form. As I said on Second Reading, it is easy to pretend that you have consulted this, that or the other person. I have seen that game going on in the industrial world. You consult those who you think matter. Then you say to yourselves, "Ah, if we don't consult somebody else, they might be concerned," so you consult them just to put them off. They accept what you suggest because you have talked to them. I am afraid there is a lot of that going on in Wales.
What we want to ask ourselves is this: is it the right thing to throw this matter at Wales in this way? Is it right to say to Wales, "We have our views as a Government. It does not need a very keen or acute mind to read between the lines of every statement made by every member of the Government. They are all obviously leaning towards the opening of the pubs on a Sunday." What should the Government do? Are they frightened because it happens to be an unpopular issue, and they then try to avoid a decision on the matter and say, "No, it is not our policy. Wales has had a chance to vote; they voted this way and therefore we must respect the wishes of Wales and arrange legislation accordingly."? On Thursday last we discussed
478
the method. I thought and still think that Lord Ogmore's Amendment took the right lines. We should not have seventeen separate ballots in separate places on the same day. To have the people voting in local areas is not the way to treat Wales. Give Wales a national ballot, if you give them a ballot at all.
What this Amendment will do is this. At the moment the Government have nothing whatever to lose by accepting it, nothing to lose at all. Wales will realise that the Government have intended to be fair, as was emphasised before in the previous debate by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, who constantly said when addressing my noble Leader, "We must be fair. That is all we ask." Let this clause go entirely for the time being. Go back to Wales; talk to those who matter in Wales. Have a commission for whatever you may call it) to go into the matter.
After all, we must now realise that Wales will have something new if the pubs open; but, in addition to the pubs opening, these refreshment rooms and cafés will open too in Wales. I myself am very anxious that Wales should be recognised for what she is. She is a nation. There is a danger of those in England not always recognising that. The feeling of nationhood is stronger than ever at the moment. This clause is rather in the direction of denying that nationhood and unity. A united Wales is a possibility, but not with a clause like this. If this machinery operates, I feel very much that there will be disunity and division in Wales because of the operation of this clause. That is why I am so anxious that this clause should not remain in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment proposed—
Leave out Clause 6.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
8.24 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: I have a good deal of sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, because, quite frankly, I am in my own mind genuinely very doubtful whether the clause as it stands at present will be satisfactory so far as Wales is concerned. As the noble Lord, Lord

479
Brecon, knows, I have for years pressed for Sunday opening for licensed premises in Wales, under certain conditions. I pressed for that when it was very unpopular to do so. In fact, I was more or less—I will not say turned off the Tourist Board, but because nobody else on the Tourist Board agreed with me, it was better to leave it. Several Ministers came down to speak at the various clubs in Wales—at least Conservative clubs. They also failed to support my line of thinking. The Labour Party failed to support me. As the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, knows, I was alone on this point.
I believe that the club system in Wales is pernicious and that the proper way of dealing with it is not to close the clubs, which is impracticable, but to allow public houses to open under certain conditions. I had a deputation of licensed victuallers to see me, although I had no connection with them. It was all reported in the Press and can be verified. They said that they agreed with my proposal that licensed premises should be allowed to open on Sunday provided they made the necessary provision for those who wanted to eat a meal. One of the great problems in a country like Wales, especially in West Wales, where there are long distances from one town to another, is that it is difficult to get anything to eat on Sunday. One can go a long distance before getting anything.
It seems to me that this goes back to the old idea of the innkeeper who has to provide accommodation and fare for man and beast. We can go back to the time of Chaucer and the Tabard Inn, from which the Pilgrims set off on their journey to Canterbury. Chaucer sets out in clear language what a great man the innkeeper was, because he provided victuals and wine and accommodation. I had hoped that in Wales we would have the same sort of spirit. At that time that was my proposal: that if premises were prepared to make the necessary alterations or provide the necessary accommodation for people who wanted to use the house as it should be used, then they could have a licence on Sunday.
I still think it is a pity that the Government did not make this qualification in the Bill. But the great opponents of
480
this idea have been the brewers in Wales, who do not wish in any way that public houses should reoccupy their traditional position. They have been interested only in how much beer and other intoxicants they could sell. This has been particularly vicious because, of course, they sell more beer on Sunday in the clubs than they sell in any public house on any single day in the week. So far, so good. Your Lordships can see that I have been no enemy to public house opening, and, in fact, have supported it.
The Government have put the ridiculous provision in this Bill for seventeen polls on whether licensed premises should be open or not on Sunday. I do not want to reiterate what I said previously because it would only delay the Committee, but what we have to see to-day is that this absurd provision for seventeen polling disticts in a small country like Wales is so harmful that it will vitiate any good consequencies that the Bill will bring. I confess I am in some doubt about whether it will bring more benefit or otherwise. If all districts decide one way or all decide the other, then it will not matter; but it is hardly likely that all the seventeen will decide one way and we will be in the position of having six or eight of them "dry" on Sunday and the remainder "wet". If that be the position, I think that this Bill will do far more harm than it will do good. Unfortunately, the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill cannot tell us what the result will be. What the Committee are being asked to do is put its money on a very uncertain horse—or, rather, seventeen very uncertain horses. Nobody knows which of these horses will win or in what order they will come home. Although this is all right for Ascot, it is not the sort of proposition that ought to be put up to Parliament. I should like to hear what the noble Lord has to say, because, as I say, I am very dubious about this. I am only sorry that the Government did not accept my Amendment to allow Wales as a country to decide one way or the other, because this, I believe, would have been the statesmanlike course.
LORD BOSTON: While I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, I think we should remember the number of English people who live in Wales. This Bill will also affect the

481
thousands of visitors from England and elsewhere who go to Wales. Their point of view ought to be taken into consideration, as well as those people of Wales who feel sincerely that public houses should remain closed.
LORD BRECON: We have listened with great interest to the speeches from noble Lords, and we can all agree on the sincerity that they have shown on this question of whether public houses in Wales should open on Sundays. Your Lordships will have realised the great and sincere differences of opinion that are held in the Principality, and as time passes I believe that these differences are becoming greater. In bringing forward a Licensing Bill the Government could not remain silent on the question of Sunday opening in Wales. Since the Bill was published, strong views on both sides have been heard throughout the Principality and also in another place. I believe that had the Government ignored the question, without doubt an Amendment would have been put forward when the Bill was in another place and the Government would have had to declare their views. These considered views of the Government have been declared in Clause 6, and we believe the only way in which the views of the people of Wales can be consulted is to allow them the right of local option in counties and county boroughs.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has again raised the question of local polls as against the national referendum. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor replied to the point about a national referendum at our last Committee meeting.
LORD OGMORE: May I say that the Lord Chancellor tried to prove conclusively that the referendum was un-English, and then suggested that, as it was un-English, we should have seventeen referendums.
LORD BRECON: The referendum for which the noble Lord was asking was for the whole of Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, said on Second Reading that my right honourable friend the Minister for Welsh Affairs and I trot around the country having conversations with the wrong people. I should like to assure the noble Lord, and the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition as well, that
482
that is quite wrong. My right honourable friend and I meet as many people as we can, who can and do represent to us all opinions on many topics; and I believe we do this with reasonable success. The case for Sunday opening was put to me in 1958 by the Licensed Victuallers Defence League for England and Wales, and at that time I said that if I was to receive a deputation from that organisation I must receive and hear a deputation from those who took an opposite view. One month later I received the Temperance Council of the Christian Churches of Wales. I was in no doubt, after receiving these deputations, that there were strongly-held and very sincere opinions on both sides.
I am sure that the only way this question can be solved is in the manner suggested in Clause 6, because this will allow the people of Wales—and not only the leaders—to voice their opinions and make their own decision. By having local option, it will allow for the different feelings held in various parts of Wales, and they will be able to express themselves. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said on Second Reading that the position in Wales at the present time is a complete and utter farce; that clubs are increasing, and we have 1,400 at the moment; and that the present laws are being circumvented every Sunday. We believe that Clause 6 will give to Wales the more realistic approach to the present most unsatisfactory state of affairs.
The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, spoke of his visits to Wales and what went on. Since the Act of 1888, Wales has changed out of all recognition. Our industries are to-day more diversified than they have ever been. We have industries which work three shifts a day, seven days a week, throughout the year; and there are men and women who do not regularly get every Saturday off. This change of the industrial pattern changes men's habits, and our laws should from time to time take account of these changes. We in Wales also have a considerable tourist industry. While the Welsh Tourist Holidays Board have declared themselves only in favour of drinks with meals, I am sure that visitors to Wales will welcome the change. Perhaps we shall see fewer people going out of Wales on a Sunday and an increase in our tourist industry, which will bring

483
prosperity to many small hotels that are at present able to keep open only for such short periods of the year.
This Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin (I am sorry he is not here now), is to omit Clause 6, and there would then be no specific provision at all in the Bill relating to Sunday opening in Wales. This I believe would be wrong, and what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said on Second Reading was this [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 232 (No. 103) col. 1339]:
"The question is: what is to be done? Should we permit complete freedom to open public-houses in Wales? I would have said Yes".
I was glad to hear the noble Lord continue to say that, as the present law has been the law for many generations, the Government should have some form of consultation with the Welsh people. This is exactly what the Government are proposing in Clause 6. The very sincere views put forward by noble Lords are that the people of Wales do not want Sunday opening. If that is so, then why not let the people have this local option, and the result of the polls would declare those views expressed by noble Lords, so that they would have nothing to fear. But those of us who have lived all our lives in Wales know that very differing views are held in various parts of Wales, and the only way in which this very important question can be settled is through the local poll. I ask your Lordships, for the reasons I have given, not to accept this Amendment.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Let me say at once that I was rather surprised to hear that there was nothing which could be done except to introduce this clause. What prevented the Government from bringing in a Bill? If the Government believe that Sunday opening is the right thing for Wales, well, Wales is part of the United Kingdom, and the Government ought not to create a scheme which prevents them
from declaring where they stand. Every member of the Government in his speech on this question has indicated his sympathy with the opening of pubs on Sunday in Wales. My personal complaint is that that is not governing; it is avoiding the issue. That is shifting the responsibility on to somebody else, rather than run the risk of some electoral disadvantage in consequence of bringing in a Bill. This is a question which should be dealt with by a Bill. Though I should oppose it, that is the way to do it.
With regard to the tourist industry, when are the Government going to drop this idea? Last year the tourist industry reported the highest ever influx into Wales, and the pubs were closed. Why keep on talking about this tourist business? I have met scores of these visitors, but never one who said, "Wales would be more attractive if your pubs opened on Sunday." Not a single person on earth have I met who said that. I am tired of the argument about the tourist industry. The tourist industry made its biggest impression on Wales last year, with the pubs closed.
This is a grave issue for Wales. This Bill would be a far better Bill without this clause and the Government would still be the Government, believing what they thought best. I suggest that this clause should be withdrawn, and I appeal to Members of the House. I appreciate very much the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Boston. He lives in Wales, and speaks for Wales, although he is not a Welshman. I appeal to all members present to give Wales further consideration. Lot this clause go out of this Bill for the time being, and later on, after further consultation and further consideration, bring in some other method of dealing with this problem.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 8; Not-Contents, 35.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Peddie, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L.

Stonham, L.

Colwyn, L.

Ogmore, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Brecon, L.

Auckland, L.

Bathurst, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Boston, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Chesham, L.

Hampton, L.

Newton, L. [Teller.]

Craigton, L.

Hastings, L.

Northesk, E.

Crathorne, L.

Hawke, L.

St. Oswald, L. [Teller.]

Denham, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Strang, L.

Dundee, E.

Lansdowne, M.

Strathclyde, L.

Fortescue, E.

Liverpool, L. Bp.

Torrington, V.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Merrivale, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Goschen, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Waleran, L.

Grenfell, L.

Newall, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Special hours certificates for premises providing music and dancing
8.—(1) Sections one hundred and thirteen to one hundred and nineteen of the Licensing Act, 1953 (which provide for extended hours in premises providing music and dancing, but apply only to specified parts of the metropolis), Shall extend to any area in England or Wales which is subject to statutory regulations for music and dancing, and shall accordingly be modified in accordance with the Third Schedule to this Act.
(6) The permitted hours on Saturdays under section one hundred and seventeen of the Licensing Act, 1953, shall be the same as on other week-days, and accordingly proviso (a) to subsection (2) of that section (under which on Saturdays those hours end at midnight) shall be omitted; and in that section "weekday" shall include, and be deemed always to have included, Christmas Day, when not a Sunday, and Good Friday.
8.49 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved to leave out subsection (1). The noble Lord said: It may be as well for an Anglican to follow the Nonconformists in these matters, and also one who, as probably your Lordships know, is not an abstainer. In fact, I may well say that if there is one thing that I like better than one glass of wine, it is two glasses of wine. But then I leave it, and I do not think that that makes me other than an advocate of temperance.
Now this Amendment and the two subsequent Amendments are supported by the Temperance Council of Churches, and your Lordships doubtless received, as I did, a letter from the Temperance Council. In these days of pressure groups about which we hear so much, I personally thought that that letter was a model of what all kinds of similar communications addressed to your Lordships should be. It seemed to me to express views firmly but with a true and proper
486
sense of humility, which I found very convincing indeed.
This particular subsection, which my noble friends and I propose to delete, would extend to all parts of England and Wales the provisions for special hours certificates which at present obtain only in the metropolis. At present those special hours are allowed only up to 2 a.m., but under the provisions of this Bill they will be allowed until 3 a.m. Your Lordships know as well as I do that, in the West End of London, 2 a.m. under the present Act has meant just nothing at all. If the clubs or establishments have wanted to carry on until 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning they have done so, and the police have been virtually—not utterly, but virtually—powerless to prevent them, such is the difficulty of getting evidence and, when that evidence is obtained, such is the difficulty of getting a conviction, and also the sheer impossibility when a conviction has been obtained of effectually closing down the premises or putting a stop to offence. It is that kind of thing which it is now proposed shall be extended over the whole of the country, and I wonder what case the Government is going to put up for it. Will they tell us what is the demand? Has there been this tremendous enthusiasm all over the country for licences to extend hours in licensed restaurants and clubs to 3 o'clock in the morning? I just do not believe it.
I have no great experience of night life, either in London or in the Provinces, but it does so happen that next month, towards the end of August, I am going to Manchester which, as the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, will know, is one of the largest provincial towns; therefore, if there is a night life in the very early hours of the morning in the Provinces, one would expect it to be in Manchester. I am going there for the purpose of attending a very large exhibition, which is being held at Belle Vue, Manchester, and at the City Hall, and during the

487
week there is going to be a dinner for the exhibitors and others. I saw the card this morning and it is marked "Men only", and I noticed that there is to be a cabaret and we shall be entertained by Mr. Tommy Trinder. It is going to be an absolute whale of an evening, and it is for men only. But I also notice that it ends at 1 a.m., which means that the function will be ended and the drinks will be ended at 1 o'clock in the morning, although it is a special function, and presumably everybody will be safely tucked up in his bed long before 2 o'clock. That is, I would submit, a fair sample of the demand and the night life in one of the largest provincial cities in the country, which now, presumably, if this subsection is left in the Bill, is to have the opportunity of extending hours until 3 o'clock in the morning.
I used to live, and I wish I lived there now, in a lovely West Country town, Taunton, which has 30,000-odd people. Anyone who has ever lived in the West Country loves it and knows it. I am thinking that it is not only Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Coventry, Wolverhampton and all those places where this can happen, but in my Taunton somebody can open a place like this. Well, anybody who goes through the streets there at half past ten at night, winter and summer, knows that there is not a soul about except the policeman. We are told nevertheless that they want a night life and to stay up to three o'clock in the morning. There is absolutely no demand whatever, except that when the facilities are there there will be people who will come forward and endeavour to use and exploit those facilities and create a demand. Presumbably it will be supported by a lot of undesirables, and perhaps young people will be induced to stay up until three o'clock in the morning drinking at these places, with disastrous results of all kinds.
Is it suggested that this is necessary outside London in order that we should earn a lot more dollars or foreign currency from the tourists who demand this kind of thing? The tourists who come to this country, having seen London and having perhaps sipped its night life, go into the provinces; they go to look at the real England or the real Wales and
488
Scotland, at our ancient history, our ancient buildings, our lovely countryside, and in the main they would be astonished and horrified if, as it were, having visited Stratford-on-Avon, Anne Hathaway's cottage and perhaps attended a play at the Memorial Theatre, they were then asked, "Would you like to come and see the Stratford-on-Avon red light district and sit up until the early hours of the morning?" It really is absolute nonsense.
There is another aspect of this, quite apart from the fact that there is no demand at all. When this 2 a.m. special hour was introduced it was at the time when my right honourable friend Mr. Chuter Ede was Home Secretary, and it is thought that at that time he largely introduced this extension because of the difficulties which the police had in policing the illegalities which were going on. It was thought, vainly of course, that if it became legal through extended hours certificates to stay open and serve drinks until two o'clock the police would not have the trouble and would not be subject to the temptations they were otherwise subject to. We all know that was vain. When it is legal to stay open and serve drinks until two o'clock, then a number of unscrupulous people will find that if they can go on into illegal hours, instead of charging £2 for a bottle of champagne they can charge £5 and make a great deal more money out of it. Is it suggested that that is the kind of thing that is wanted in the provinces? I do not think so.
There is also this. Our provincial towns, large and small, are not used and accustomed to a night life which extends to the early hours of the morning. Mostly the inhabitants are busy work-a-day people with their lives centred in the factories and shops. They have to get up in the morning to go to work, whether they are workpeople or executives. To have places of this kind, with cars arriving and roaring away and all kinds of disturbance, cannot do any good at all and will only cause endless annoyance and disturbance. There is the point, too, that if young people go to these places and stay up drinking until the early hours of the morning it may lead to additional accidents and many other kinds of trouble. I think we all agree that the case Q have stated is an accurate one and I think it is incumbent on the Government, if they are not prepared to accept

489
this Amendment, to show, first of all, because it is most important, what evidence there is from the licensed trade or the clubs or intending proprietors or restaurants for a demand for extended hours in this way until three o'clock in the morning—and if there is no such demand then surely there is no reason for making this concession—and secondly, whether the police and local authorities in the Provinces and in large towns have been consulted as to the possible effects of this extension in their areas. Unless the Government are prepared to give a satisfactory answer on those two points, they should accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 25, leave out subsection (1).— (Lord Stonham.)
LORD OGMORE: I should like to say a word in support of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, but from a rather different point of view. I agree with what he said; I think it is sound. But to my mind there is another reason which I think the Government should take into account, and I hope they will do so before the noble Earl replies. I refer to the impact that this Bill and the proposals in it will make upon the country as a whole. On Saturday last the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke at a Conservative Meeting at Hawarden Castle in Flintshire, the home of Mr. Gladstone, who would not have approved of many of the measures in this Bill. I say nothing about the fact that Mr. Selwyn Lloyd was prevented, because of traffic congestion, from arriving by car and had to start to walk. That is some indication of the failure of the Government's road transport policy. He had to "thumb" a lift on a motor cycle, and arrived about fifteen minutes late. I say nothing about that, although in certain circumstances it might call for comment if this were a different debate.
But when Mr. Lloyd got to Hawarden Castle he made a statement which has had a serious effect, and has been considered with great seriousness all over the world. I quote from the Sunday Times:
"He made no secret of his conviction that sacrifices and new disciplines would be needed to meet the economic challenge and that tough measures would have to be taken.… He gave a stern warning intended to brace all
490
sections of the nation for rigorous remedies: 'I am determined that some of the present trends in our economy should be changed. I shall recommend such action as I think necessary to secure this, however unpopular or unexpected. I am not afraid to ask the British people to bear the necessary burdens or accept the necessary disciplines designed to secure, not just survival, but also the maintenance of our position as an up-to-date progressive, dynamic influence in the world'."
After Mr. Lloyd made that serious statement of our position in the world to-day and the situation in which we find ourselves, the Government propose that, throughout England and Wales, premises of this sort shall be able to have an extension from 2 in the morning, which I should have thought quite late enough, to 3 o'clock.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (EARL BATHURST): In London.
LORD OGMORE: In London. I should have thought that this in itself was a complete refutation of all that Mr. Lloyd said. The Government cannot have it both ways. Either we are in a very serious economic situation and we need rigorous discipline and must forgo the sort of laxities provided in this Bill (as they may be in certain circumstances), or we are not. They cannot have it both ways; the Government cannot have their cake and eat it. I certainly think that to bring forward a measure of this kind only 48 hours after the speech of Mr. Selwyn Lloyd will not impress the public at all.
It seems to me that the difficulty in our economic situation to-day is to get people to realise that there is a serious economic crisis looming ahead in the near future. In these days, it is most difficult to persuade people of that fact. They just do not understand. I think the Government ought to do nothing which in any way obscures that issue, because unless we can persuade people to understand the dangerous economic situation this country is in the Government are going to find it very difficult to get us out of it.
We have been hearing something about the Continental Sunday and the Continental way of life. I would point out that in France General de Gaulle has had to take very severe measures with regard to drinking and the opening for long hours of licensed premises, clubs

491
and other establishments. He has been trying to close them down. So little is General de Gaulle enamoured of the Continental way of life that the noble Lord opposite has been extolling that he has been trying to revert to the British way of life. So we have the absurd position that here on this side of the Channel we are trying to go over to the French way of life, and 23 miles away across the Channel, in France, they are trying to go over to the British way of life. Of the two, I would back General de Gaulle. I think he is perfectly right. He has seen what these extended hours of drinking in clubs, restaurants, and so on, mean. I believe that the limits that are already in operation are correct and that no extension whatsoever is called for.
9.7 p.m.
EARL BATHURST: The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, moved one Amendment but really spoke on the three Amendments which are down in the name of his noble Leader.
LORD STONHAM: If I may interrupt the noble Earl, I certainly did not intend to. I did not say a word about Good Friday, Christmas Eve or Sundays: and I certainly intend, with your Lordships' permission, to move the next Amendment separately.
EARL BATHURST: I quite understand the noble Lord. I was going to ask him whether he would wish that, or whether he would have preferred me to speak on the principle of the three Amendments, which is, of course, this general extension. I quite understand what the noble Lord and his noble Leader mean, and I will keep myself to the Amendment before us on the Paper now, which is with regard to the specialised extension to two o'clock and the extension of drinking-up time to 2.30, which at present exist in London and which, under this Bill, will be allowed in the rest of England and Wales.
The noble Lord said that his Amendment is sponsored by the Temperance Council of the Christian Churches, and I received their letter as did many others of your Lordships. That is a point of view. As I have said to the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, I personally
492
appreciate the point of view which such people express. But, my Lords, there are others in this country, and in the course of our Second Reading debate and the first part of our Committee some days ago I mentioned the ordinary man and the ordinary woman. In the remarks that I shall be making, I shall be having in mind the ordinary men and the ordinary women who wish to take advantage of this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said in the course of his speech that in night clubs and in restaurants which must shut at 2 o'clock at present there is difficulty in the way of the police obtaining evidence in order to bring about a conviction. That is quite true, and that is one of the reasons for this extension, which is now going to cover the rest of England and Wales.
LORD STONHAM: May I put a point to the noble Earl? In some six burglaries out of ten the burglars are not caught. Would that be a good reason for giving licence to burglars?
EARL BATHURST: With great respect to the noble Lord, I really do think that that is a very different matter.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Very difficult to answer.
EARL BATHURST: People in London, who may be perfectly law-abiding folk normally, may wish to drink a little after two o'clock, but under the present law they are committing a crime. The people in the Provinces, if they are in the right sort of establishment, may drink until 12 o'clock with drinking-up time. We are going to allow those people in the Provinces in England and Wales to drink until 2 o'clock, with drinking-up time until 2.30. The difficulty with proving an offence in the Provinces, but one committed at a more modest hour, is, of course, exactly the same as exists in London.
The noble Lord mentioned his right honourable friend Mr. Chuter Ede and the measure which he brought in to enable establishments to remain open in London until 2 o'clock, with drinking-up time until 2.30. There is no doubt that London's West End night life (if that is what it should be called) is most popular in this country. One has only to see the numbers of people who go into the restaurants and night clubs of the West End, residents of London, visitors from

493
the Provinces, and overseas visitors as well, to realise that. I have heard from many friends on the Continent that the night life as it exists in the West End of London is by far the finest and, if I may say so, also the cleanest, that exists anywhere in the world, and it is the most enjoyable for the ordinary man and woman. That is what will be extended to such places in the Provinces, as I hope I shall show in a moment.
The noble Lord mentioned Manchester. Although I have been past the establishment to which he will be addressing himself shortly, I have not been inside, and I should be interested to hear a report upon the results of his evening. But ever since music and dancing licences have been granted in Manchester, I am quite certain that, whatver the entertainment sought, Manchester is a much brighter, gayer and pleasanter place to live in. I think the same will be true in other big centres, such as in Bristol, from which I do not live so far away, and other places as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, addressed himself to the question of economics, and mentioned the statements of my right honourable friend who braved a motor-cycle ride to his meeting All I can say on this point is that it is a delight to know that such members of the public do exist, and that there are such real "good Samaritans", in the old sense of the words, as Mr. Crate with his motor-cycle, who was, in fact, a member of the Socialist Party. I do not know whether this is the right place to thank him publicly, but it is very good to know that such good Samaritans are on the road. And I must say that I have always had a very much higher opinion of men or women who ride motor-cycles than is ordinarily held of them by Members of your Lordships' House and by people in many other places. But that is a long way from what the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, was saying.
Nevertheless, my right honourable friend will recommend such action as may be needed in the economic spheres—and my noble friend, Lord Dundee, is much nearer to that sort of sphere than I am. But I cannot believe that this Bill, which is a permissive relaxation of licensing laws, which all and sundry will agree are out of date in this country, can make any real impact upon our economic situation. If my right honourable
494
friend takes such measures or action as he may recommend, your Lordships or anybody else will be able to take advantage of these laws. But such is the Parliamentary timetable, and such are the programmes that must be brought about, that this is the time that this promised measure has come to fruition. It will not be the fault of this Bill if more money is spent on alcohol; it will be the effect of actions taken in the course of the next few days.
The noble Viscount also mentioned the Continental Sunday, During my Second Reading speech I said that one of the possibilities open to Her Majesty's Government was to adopt the Continental Sunday in toto, but we did not believe that that was what the ordinary man and woman wanted. It is for that reason this Bill comes before your Lordships with all the safeguards that take up so much space in the Bill.
Clause 8 (1), which the noble Lord's Amendment proposes to delete, extends to England and Wales generally the provisions at present limited to an area in the West End of London, which is specified by the Secretary of State—that is, the area with drinking hours until 2 o'clock in the morning and drinking-up time until 3.20. These are known as "special hours certificates". In the case of licensed premises, the licensing justices must be satisfied, first, that a music and dancing licence is in force for the premises, and secondly that the whole or any part of the premises is structurally adapted and bona fide used, or intended to be used, for the purpose of providing music and dancing and substantial refreshment, to which the sale of intoxicating liquors is ancillary.
In the case of registered clubs, where a music and dancing licence is not required by law, since music and dancing is not public—that is, in the case of the normal night club, so called, in the West End of London—the present law has the effect that the London County Council, as the music and dancing licensing authority for London, must have issued a certificate that they are satisfied that the premises fulfil the Council's requirements for the granting of a music and dancing licence. The stipendiary magistrate must be satisfied that the whole or any part of the premises is so structurally adapted for this purpose—that is, for music and dancing.

495
In extending these provisions to the country generally Clause 8 (1) and the Third Schedule have the effect that the control will in every respect be as adequate and strict as it is in the present law as regards London—that is, the law to which the noble Viscount referred, which was introduced by his right honourable friend Mr. Chuter Ede. The proposal to extend these facilities to the country generally will implement the recommendation that has been urged by the British Travel and Holidays Association, among many others, for the benefit of tourists and visitors.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, we get this general reference to "many others". Could the noble Earl identify any of these associations? I have never been able to find out what associations have been approached and consulted.
EARL BATHURST: The British Hotels and Restaurants Association is one of them, and no doubt the licensed victuallers and the people who run such establishments. There is no doubt that they are keen to be able to run such establishments, which they have not been able to do in the past.
It has been represented that it will assist the general policy of providing reasonable and attractive facilities for holiday makers, both British and from overseas; and I think that is true. The noble Lord will no doubt have been to coastal holiday resorts where not very much goes on in the way of pleasant entertainment, and certainly on the lines of dancing, eating and drinking, after eleven o'clock in the evening. That is one of the effects of the present situation which we are setting out to remedy.
The existing specialised provisions limited to London were originally introduced in 1949, following representations from all these various associations, boards and so forth, in which the noble Lord is interested. In those days the Government felt that it was right to put forward the present existing laws. The proposal in the Bill will not lead to a proliferation of premises selling drink until 2 o'clock in the morning. There are stringent conditions which have to be satisfied. Moreover, the sale of drink can continue only so long as
496
the music and dancing continues. By no means every hotel, restaurant or registered club, even if it can satisfy the conditions specified in the Bill, will want to provide music and dancing as late as 2 o'clock in the morning. I think that that probably satisfies the case the noble Lord mentioned of his local township at Taunton. On the other hand, I suspect that at Stratford-on-Avon it might be to the great advantage of residents and visitors to be able to go and have a good meal, and to dance and be able to drink under the extended hours. In fact, I can think of no better evening to have, if such a thing were possible; and it will be possible under this Bill. That this is a fairly expensive proposition is not to be doubted, and the provisions are not likely to be used except where there is a real demand for them.
There is the further safeguard that any licensed premises with a specialised certificate will, like all other licensed premises, be open to police inspection; and whereas clubs generally are not open to police inspection, those with a specialised certificate will be. That point will particularly interest the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, in connection with a later Amendment in his name. The police will thus have full powers to see that the law is striotly observed, which is not always the case under the present law. Moreover, they are given special power to apply at any time to the magistrates' court for the revocation of the specialised certificate on the ground that this is expedient by reason of the occurrence of disorderly or indecent conduct on the premises.
I have outlined, at some length, I am afraid, the provisions in this Bill to protect the public, and those who wish to take advantage of the Bill when it becomes law, and I think in every way the protection is superior to that which exists at present. I can commend this extension of the hours under the Bill because of the convenience and the entertainment of the ordinary man and woman and visitors to this country. I ask your Lordships not to accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I must say that I am most disappointed with the reply. I am sure the noble Earl has tried to help up by answering the two Amendments that have not been moved, but he clearly

497
has not done so. We shall have to deal with them when we come to them. But I cannot see any real argument against the present Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Stonham. It is all very well to write off the value of the case which my noble friend Lord Stonham has put in the present economic circumstances. We have been discussing the Finance Rill to-day and talking about the serious economic position which is coming. Your Lordships may remember that I quoted Winston Churchill by saying that the Tories had "an open hand at the Treasury and an open door in the public house." Here is another instance of it. At the very moment When you are talking about putting other restrictions on the people with regard to the economic situation, you are corning along extending the hours of drinking and expending money upon it, at the very time when we want to get the people, you say—and one noble Lord used the word this afternoon from those Benches—"disciplined" in these difficult economic circumstances.
What has happened? What you are doing is to take hold of one concession, which has been made for police purposes mainly in the London area alone, and to extend it to the whole of the country. It must mean an increase in the liquor trade. It must mean more expenditure than would otherwise have been made. It is almost a denial of the very things which we have had pleaded to-day in the general appeal for a get-together of all sections of industry. I think this is a great misnomer, and I am very sorry. As to what we shall do about the further Amendments, I will not say at the moment, but I am bound to say that, if this is not carried to-night, then we shall have to consider its future and the rest of the Bill. We will vote on the next Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
9.27 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved to leave out subsection (6). The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment in the name of my noble Leader and my noble friend, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, I should like to tell the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, immediately that I feel there is a distinct difference between this and the previous Amendment. The point is that the subsection as it now stands will make
498
Saturday night like any other weekday night so far as permitted hours are concerned, and that Good Friday and Christmas Day equally will be ordinary weekdays. That means that on Good Friday morning, since the Thursday hours will be ordinary hours, drinking will go on up to 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock in the morning in London, and it is exactly the same on Christmas Day.
First of all, I should like to say that, from the economic point of view, this is entirely unnecessary. Most people will know that if there is one night in the year when it is inadvisable to hold a function, whether it be a theatre or cinema function or dance, or anything in that line, it is Christmas Eve. If you go to the cinemas and the theatres you will see them virtually empty, because on Christmas Eve, whether it be for secular or other reasons, people are much too busy with their preparations or their business to go to entertainment. To a lesser extent, it is the same on the Thursday before Good Friday.
My main objection to the retention of this subsection, certainly in its present form, is that I think it is completely abominable to have Good Friday and Christmas Day regarded as ordinary days so far as licensing hours are concerned. I cannot possibly imagine how your Lordships can accept such a subsection in the Bill. It is said that only one person in about ten goes to church with any kind of regularity, but we are not yet a completely secular nation and a very large number of people do go to service on Good Fridays, certainly at Easter, and a very much larger number of people go to service either on Christmas Day or Christmas Eve.
I suppose that most of us have been to midnight Mass or midnight Communion on Christmas Eve. I was at one time church warden of a church which held about 1,400 people, and that church was always full at midnight Communion on Christmas Eve and it was a very distressing thing to find that some people, mostly young people, who had never been to church before, or at least not for a very long time, would come into church the worse for drink. It would be the last thing that a church warden would want to do to deny anyone the right to take Communion, but one would expect people to go to Communion in a fitting manner. That was

499
my difficult task sometimes, and I suppose it is for every church warden at Christmas, but I wish it were not so. That, presumably, is when people can get drink in public houses only up to say 11 o'clock at night. It is now proposed that Christmas Day should be an ordinary day and that they should get drink up to 2 o'clock in the morning. Good Friday is supposed to be exactly the same.
On Wednesday evening last week I had a rather extraordinary experience. I am president of a society which is raising, or trying to raise, a lot of money to plant trees in Israel—I am the only non-Jew—and I took the chair at the meeting last Wednesday evening quite late. We were discussing functions to raise money. It was suggested that a function should be held on a Thursday evening, to which there was strong objection from the ladies present, and when I asked why they said it would not give sufficient time to prepare for the Sabbath, which they call the Shabbath, which is a Saturday and is prepared for on Friday evening. They would not go to a cinema or theatre on a Thursday evening because they would not have time to prepare for the Sabbath 24 hours later. It seems an extraordinary thing that here we are proposing that Christmas Day and Good Friday should be regarded as ordinary weekdays. I just cannot believe that there has been any demand for that and I cannot understand why those two days out of 365, as it were, have been gratuitously included in this clause. I do not believe that the licensed trade has asked for this. I cannot think that the club proprietors or licensed restaurants want it.
I ask your Lordships to support us in this Amendment if the Government are not prepared to accept it, as I hope they will be. In any case, if this Amendment is not accepted we will certainly at a later stage introduce another Amendment to remove the words "Christmas Day" and "Good Friday" from this subsection. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 39, leave out subsection (6).—(Lord Stonham.)
EARL BATHURST: I know what feelings the noble Lord, Lord Stonham,
500
has with regard to Sunday, Good Friday and Christmas Day, and I appreciate his feelings, and those of probably many other Members of your Lordships' House, as well as of others in the country who feel the same. This clause of the Bill will not compel people to go to an establishment of entertainment: it is only permissive. I do not say that two wrongs make a right. Nevertheless, Her Majesty's Government believe and are told that there is a demand for entertainment on these nights. I personally can see no great reason why people who wish to avail themselves of the relaxation of the law that the Bill will give should not take advantage of it.
With regard to Good Friday and Christmas Day, we are not by the Bill extending the law. The words used in the 1953 consolidation Act cast doubt on what was allowed and what was not. The clause therefore clarifies the position as it was in 1945. There is, however, an extension on Sunday morning. That was why I hoped that it would be to the convenience of your Lordships to cover the three Amendments. In my earlier long speech, I made the case for this relaxation in the licensing hours and the extensions which the Bill will give. Sunday morning is one of them. It is a modest extension. It will not do great damage to the ordinary man and woman, and it is, without doubt, an extension that is wanted by ordinary people when one considers that Saturday night is the night that people like to go out and to enjoy themselves.
LORD STONHAM: Not Sunday morning.
EARL BATHURST: The noble Lord says, "Not Sunday morning"; but a Saturday night stops at twelve o'clock. Night life in the West End is dead and nothing happens after twelve o'clock in a reputable and a well-run establishment. In fact, when such establishments should be giving a night out, with entertainment, to decent, ordinary men and women—and it is to them that I am referring throughout—they are not able to do so. There is no doubt, I am certain, that there will be a demand for this extension. In view of what I have said to the noble Lord's first Amendment, I ask your Lordships also to reject this Amendment that the noble Lord has moved with regard to Sunday mornings.
9.39 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LIVERPOOL: My Lords, I had no intention of speaking on this clause, but I feel impelled to do so and to say that I shall support the Amendment. Some of us feel concerned, and much more particularly for the young people. In the past, there has been a movement away from the observance of Sunday, Good Friday and Christmas, but I believe that there are signs, especially among the young people, of a desire to return to observance of those great days of our religion and of an acknowledgment that a great deal of trouble in this country is due to the ignoring of our faith and the observance of those holy days of our faith.
Our young people, particularly, are finding it difficult now to get to church on Sunday morning for their Holy Communion because the tendency has been to stay out late on Saturday night. That is when it is only twelve o'clock. If by law we are going to make it possible, and give them the temptation, to stay up until later hours, we shall be doing a great disservice to religion in this country, and to the observance of the days which we long to see observed much more fully than they have been in the past.
I do not know what are the conditions in London—I have not lived in London for many years—but I know that in Merseyside there would be no real demand for an extension of these hours to the times that have been mentioned of two or three in the morning. Nor do I think there is any desire for them by those in authority. The Chief Constable, I believe, would bear me out when I say that I do not think we want this sort of thing. Our greatest trouble to-day is of young people taking too much alcoholic liquor. That is one of our biggest problems, and anything we can do to help them at this time will be a service not only to them but to our country. I shall support the Amendment.
LORD OGMORE: I, too, should like to support the Amendment, because I feel that it is quite wrong to do what the Government proposes in this respect, and the right reverend Prelate has added the weight of his testimony to this point of view. It seems to me that either
502
we are a Christian country or we are not. The Dean of Westminster the other night called this the "post-Christian era," and certainly if this clause goes through he will have every justification for calling it that.
To my mind, one of the greatest drawbacks to our influence throughout the world, particularly in the Far East and in Africa, has been the fact that we Christians do not stand up for our religion and are not prepared to make sacrifices for it. Here in London, in the heart of a so-called Christian country, it proposed to apply this rule that on a Sunday morning this licence shall be obtainable, and dancing and music will go on until the small hours of Sunday. And I am horrified to find that the same sort of provisions are to be applied to Christmas Day and to Good Friday, the two most serious days, the most religious days, shall we say, in the Christian Calendar. You cannot go to a Mohammedan country and do any of these things on a Mohammedan Friday, and one of the many things that I admire about the Jews is that an Orthodox Jew complies strictly with the rules of his religion on his Sabbath.
The noble Earl talked about the ordinary man and the ordinary woman, and what they want in the modern Babylon of London. If what we see in the West End is what the ordinary man and woman want, then I am very sorry for the ordinary man and the ordinary woman. But I do not regard this laxity in this country, particularly on a Sunday, and on Christmas Day and Good Friday, as being other than a deplorable thing. I have no doubt that the noble Lord will describe us Free Churchmen, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough and myself, as Puritans, kill-joys and all the rest of it, as your ancestors have described our ancestors for the last three hundred years; but it is only comparatively recently that there has been this laxity. There was no laxity on the Continent until the French Revolution. They would not do these things on a Sunday until the French Revolution came along. So that, in fact, if you go back through traditions and through history you will find all the way through, as far back as we have been Christians, that Christians have observed Sundays; that they have

503
observed Christmas Day, and that they have observed Good Friday.
Why Should we, in a Christian country, make special provisions against our religion for atheists?—because that is what we are asked to do. The noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, seems to assume that the ordinary man and the ordinary woman, is an atheist or, at any rate, an agnostic. Why should we be asked to do that? This is a Christian country, and one of the precepts of the Christian religion, surely, is the observance of Sunday, the seventh day of the week, the day for recreation which means spiritual recreation.
When I was a boy my father and grandfather would never in their lives, in the pre-motor car days, have taken a horse out on a Sunday, except in the direst necessity of illness or something of that kind; and the same thing applied after the motor cars came. In fact, I, today, do not like to take a motor car out on a Sunday unless I am bound to do so. I think if there were more of that spirit of observance of Sunday, Christmas Day and Good Friday it would be better for the country, because it is not the people who observe the laws who are the peril in this country to-day; it is those who are undisciplined, as Mr. Selwyn Lloyd has pointed out. His appeal at Harwarden was not to have more clubs open, to spend more; it was a call for discipline, and I am glad to see Mr. Selwyn Lloyd has gone back to the Liberal views he held when he was a Liberal candidate, and is tending to bring in a Liberal point of view. I am sure the country will be all the better. I hope your Lordships will in fact sup, port this Amendment and I, for one, will be very glad to go into the Lobby with my noble friend.
LORD GRENFELL: I must say I do feel a little disturbed about this question of Christmas Day and Good Friday. I fully understand that people who are working all through the week may wish on a normal Saturday throughout the year to have an extension. I would accept that fully. But with regard to Christmas Day and Good Friday I cannot help feeling that those are two very special days. We think of them as such special days that we wish to differentiate them from the remainder of the days in
504
the year. I would ask my noble friend Lord Bathurst if Her Majesty's Government could look at this again and take out Christmas Day and Good Friday. Otherwise I feel that my conscience must tell me that I must go into the Lobby for this Amendment.
LORD AUCKLAND: Had the previous Amendment been put to a Division I would have had no hesitation in recording my vote with the Government, but if this Amendment is pressed I shall support it. Christmas is a holy day, and there are, as the right reverend Prelate has said, all too few people in church on Good Friday and Christmas Day. I am glad to say that my local church is rather an exception here, for the Midnight Communion it is always packed to capacity. Many of the congregation are young people, chiefly because there is a very thriving group"17 plus" it is called—of young church workers.
I 'believe that normally youngsters outside London should be allowed to go to restaurants and hotels where there is dancing, provided it is under proper control, until late hours. After all, young people (and not all of them live in London) may wish to celebrate their engagement or some special occasion, and there is no reason why they should not do so in a properly supervised place. But I feel that Good Friday and Christmas Day should be exceptions. The place to be on Christmas Eve is in the home, helping with Christmas preparations, and there are those who go to church on Christmas morning, and the same on Good Friday. I join with my noble friend Lord Grenfell in imploring Her Majesty's Government to reconsider this proposal.
9.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF NORTHESK: May I take an intermediate view between my noble friends Lord Grenfell and Lord Auckland? I agree that Good Friday is a day of great religious significance, but I would suggest to the right reverend Prelate, who has spoken so well, that Christmas Day is a day of rejoicing to us all. It is the Birth of Our Lord. Ought we not to be able to celebrate that in whatever way we wish? I am not suggesting alcoholically, but that is rather the temper of this Bill. I suggest that Christmas Day is a day of rejoicing, as also is Easter—the Resurrection. But I

505
agree with my two noble friends that Good Friday might be excluded from the Bill, whereas Easter and Christmas might be included in it. I feel that would meet the feelings, certainly of myself and of the majority of the people of this country.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Just a couple of sentences. I do not know whether the noble Earl will accept the Amendment. If he is agreeable, I need say nothing. He does not look like accepting the Amendment at the moment. I would say, first of all, that the later the hour of closing the greater the danger to life and limb and morals.
THE EARL OF NORTHESK: I made no reference to any later hours of closing.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I was not referring to the noble Earl. I will repeat what I have just said, because it needs to be repeated—the later the hour of closing the greater the danger to life and limb and morals. That is one reason why I am for this Amendment.
The other reason is the one emphasised by a number of noble Lords. In some parts of the world, especially in the Far East, we are looked upon as a Christian country. I cannot think of anything that would impress them more than the Government's acceptance of this Amendment. I am most anxious that the noble Earl should not reject it out of hand to-night. I should like him to think about it. I realise that neither he nor the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, can perhaps go so far as to accept it, but I should like them to promise the Committee that they will be prepared to reconsider it between now and Report. It is, in my opinion, a vital Amendment.
LORD STONHAM: I do not know whether the noble Earl is going to reply to the invitation. I should be very glad if he would. But I think I should make it quite clear that just an undertaking to look at this again, or to refer it to
his right honourable friend, would not be quite good enough in this instance. We should require at least an assurance that he is prepared to move an Amendment on Report stage which would exclude from this clause Good Friday and Christmas Day. I thought I would make that clear so as to avoid any misunderstanding; otherwise, we shall have to divide on this Amendment.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: May I say that since nobody appears to support the Government, I support them wholeheartedly in this case. I hope that they will not give way. As probably many noble Lords know, we in Scotland do not celebrate Christmas Day. I do not think we are any the worse for it. With the possible exception of Good Friday, I think this Amendment is completely without support in any part of the country. I hope that the Government will stick to their guns.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I should have thought that, in general, we are already sufficiently handicapped in this country from having longer hours of opening, all the week pretty well, and certainly very much less favourable Sunday opening regulations than apply in Scotland. There is not such wide publicity in Scotland for the sale of drink as there is in this country—not by any means. I should have thought that the noble Duke would have been much more inclined to support the Christian faith of his own family, and to see that these days are properly observed in this country even if not in Scotland. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to tell us that he is going to accept this Amendment. If not, the only thing to do is to go to a Division. Then he can think about it again, and we will put it down again on Report.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 15; Not-Contents, 26.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Colwyn, L.

Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L.

Auckland, L.

Fortescue, E.

Merthyr, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Grenfell, L.

Ogmore, L.

Boston, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Stonham, L. [Teller.]

Burden. L. [Teller.]

Liverpool, L. Bp,

Strang, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Davidson, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Atholl, D.

Denham, L.

Newall, L.

Barnby, L.

Digby, L.

Newton, L. [Teller.]

Bathurst, E.

Dundee, E.

Northesk, E.

Brecon, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

St. Oswald, L. [Teller.]

Bridgeman, V.

Goschen, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Chesham, L.

Hastings, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Lansdowne, M.

Waleran, L.

Craigton, L.

Merrivale, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

10.3 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH had given Notice of his intention to move to leave out subsection (7). The noble Viscount said: Amendment No. 18 is, of course, of less importance than No. 17, but it deals with a principle on which the Temperance Council of the Christian Churches are very much concerned. We are leaving it to a very late hour in London. I do not propose to move the Amendment now, but I am going to ask the noble Earl if he will tell me whether this might be considered. The Government have their main clause for 2 a.m. in the Provinces. I can see no case for including this subsection, but if we cannot get agreement on it we will leave it to Report.
EARL BATHURST EARL BATHURST moved in subsection (8) after "any" to insert "licensed". The noble Earl said: This Amendment is a technical Amendment. The effect of subsection (8) of Clause 8 is to free premises where a special hours certificate is in force from the application of the Sunday Observance Act, 1780, as regards the hours on a Sunday morning during which the certificate operates. This is necessary because the Act forbids on a Sunday any public entertainment for which a charge is made for admission. If subsection (8) of Clause 8 had not been inserted into the Bill, then no public music or dancing could take place after 12 o'clock on a Saturday night, and a special hours certificate of extension of the permitted hours would therefore be useless on a Saturday night. The 1780 Act forbids only public entertainment, and since it does not prohibit private entertainment, or entertainment provided for members in a club in a private sense, it is unnecessary for subsection (8) of Clause 8 to apply to anything other than licensed premises. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 12, at end insert "licensed".—(Earl Bathurst.)
EARL BATHURST: This Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 13, after ("of") insert ("licensed").—(Earl Bathurst.)
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I should like to know at this hour what the intention of the Government is with regard to Business. I think it is about time we moved to adjourn.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I have just been informed through the usual channels that it has been agreed to go as far as Amendment No. 24.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I have never agreed to that.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Then I am afraid that I have been misinformed, Would the noble Viscount like to take Number 22? The pubs do not shut until 10.30.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I do not know how far this clause is going to commit me, because I have not had all the advice I want on it. I will not go to Clause 15. I have been in this House since half past two, except for 40 minutes, and I am not going on much longer. We are not paid for it.
LORD OGMORE: I should like to support what the noble Viscount has said. We were told that we would stop at 10 o'clock and, frankly, I think that is quite late enough. We have our livings to earn. It is somebody's fault,

509
although I do not know whose, but the fact is that this Bill comes on only at late stages in our Business and I do not think is fair to ask us to sit after this hour. We have a lot of Bills to deal with to-morrow and I think that we ought to adjourn.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: In the circumstances. I would not dream of asking your Lordships to sit any later. It appears that I have been misinformed. I was told that it was agreed that we should go to Amendment No. 24. But
510
since the noble Viscount does not want to move Amendment No. 22—there is still twenty minutes before closing time—I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to and House resumed accordingly.
House adjourned at eight minutes past ten o'clock.