Sitting of 10 July 1962

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

  Widows' Pensions
  Mr. Brockway: Mr. Speaker, I beg to present a Petition to the honourable Commons from members of the Society known as "The Merrie Widows of Eton "and from widows in the neighbourhood of Eton. Perhaps I might say for the benefit of the Committee which considers Petitions that Eton, rather characteristically, has an expansionist idea of its environment and influence, as I gather from the signatures.
  The Petition shows
  that widows are suffering hardship and injustice in relation to their pensions and they therefore pray that

  (1) The pension of the widow who receives only 10s. weekly under the National Insurance Regulations, 1948, be increased to 20s. weekly at once and subsequently in proportion to any increase in the cost of living.

  (2) The pension of the widowed mother shall not be reduced on account of earnings.

  (3) The pension of widows shall not be subject to Income Tax.

  (4) Pensioned widows shall be exempted from all charges for prescriptions within the National Health Service.

  (5) A special allowance shall be given to a widow required to pay death duties on the value of her house on the decease of her husband.

  The Petition is signed by 1,200 widows, and concludes:
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Law Reform Committee (Report)
    Mr. Willisasked the Lord Advocate whether Her Majesty's Government accepts the recommendations of the Fifth Report of the Law Reform Committee for Scotland on the enforcement of orders in Scotland for maintenance.
    The Lord Advocate (Mr. William Grant): This Report of the Law Reform Committee has been under careful consideration, but I am not yet in a position to say what action the Government propose to take upon it.
    Mr. Willis: In view of the fact that this Report was sent to the right hon. and learned Gentleman four years ago, is not the consideration rather lengthy and is it not time the Government were table to make up their mind about the matter? Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that it is about time the Government paid some attention to these Reports instead of leaving the job in abeyance until a private Member does something about it?
    The Lord Advocate: The Government have paid considerable attention to a number of the Reports of the Law Reform Committee for Scotland. I agree that a certain time has elapsed but, as the hon. Member will know, the Committee pointed out that, although there is a gap in this branch of the law, serious difficulties and problems arise in finding a solution to bridge that gap.
    Mr. Bence: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman give us an assurance that this is not a little more of Scottish legislation that is jammed in the pipeline?
    The Lord Advocate: As the hon. Member knows, the Scottish Standing Committee scrutinises Bills very thoroughly and as a result the speed is not always commensurate with the conscientious method with which hon. Members speak to these Bills.
    Mr. Hoy: In view of the time which has elapsed, may I ask whether the Lord Advocate can now tell us when he intends to introduce a Measure?
    The Lord Advocate: As I have already explained, I am not yet in a position to give any undertaking about legislation on this Report.
    Mr. Willis: Very unsatisfactory.

  MALTA

    Financial Aid and Economic Planning (Talks)
    Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he and the Prime Minister of Malta will resume their talks on constitutional developments, financial aid and economic planning for Malta; and why the Leader of the Opposiiton in Malta is not being invited to attend.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Hugh Fraser): These talks on financial and economic matters began on 27th June and will be continued as soon as my right hon. Friend returns this week. The Malta Government have not suggested that the Leader of the Opposition in Malta should attend and it would not be appropriate in such intergovernmental discussions.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the position in Malta is becoming more serious every day and that there are now over 6,000 unemployed in the island who are waiting to know exactly what economic and financial aid the island is getting from this country? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that the Leader of the Opposition on the island leads 16 Members and the Prime Minister leads 25 Members in the new Parliament? Is he aware that the Leader of the Opposition, in all probability, after the next election, will be the Prime Minister who will have to administer the regulations? Ought he not, therefore, to be present with the Prime Minister to discuss this problem with the Colonial Secretary?
    Mr. Fraser: No, Sir.

    General Election
    Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the result of the further inquiries he has made into the allegations of irregularities and intimidation during the recent general election in Malta; what steps he pro-
    1120
    poses to take to ensure free expression of opinion in future elections; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. H. Fraser: As regards the recent elections, I have nothing to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member on 13th March.
    Future election arrangements will be the responsibility of the Government of Malta.
    Mr. Awbery: Further discussions have taken place since then and irregularities have been pointed out. People from Malta have declared that irregularities have taken place in their presence. If he cannot do anything about declaring the last election invalid, will the hon. Gentleman take serious steps to prevent a repetition of this sort of thing when the next elections take place?
    Mr. Fraser: All these matters can come before courts, but no one has yet used the court procedure to say that any of the elections were in any way invalid.
    Mr. Awbery: I want the Minister to hold an inquiry.
    Mr. Healey: I know that this is a difficult matter, but I have here several affidavits from Maltese citizens who declare that they were refused absolution or were told that it would be a mortal sin to vote far the Opposition party in the elections. Does not this situation call for Government action under the provisions of the Constitution preventing spiritual intimidation?
    Mr. Fraser: I think that a great many of these points could not be pressed because they could have been taken up in a court of law under the electoral ordinance but this has not been done. There has on both sides been a good deal of talk of intimidation, and we have had to abide by what is brought before the courts. The matter will be brought to the attention of the present Malta Government.
    Sir P. Agnew: Will my hon. Friend agree that, as regards the fairness or otherwise of the Malta elections, there is no real evidence that the suggestions that they were unfair are anything but ill founded, but will he encourage the Government of Malta to modernise the franchise and the arrangements at the polling booths so that some of the scenes

    1121
    where, for instance, electors were delayed during the recent elections before they could record their votes are not repeated, and the whole procedure is brought more into line with practice in a modern State?
    Mr. Fraser: As I have explained, future election arrangements must be the responsibility of the Government of Malta, but I am sure that these points will be drawn to the Government's attention.

  HONG KONG

    Cotton Industry
    Mrs. Castleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many looms are in production in the cotton industry in Hong Kong.
    Mr. H. Fraser: On 30th June, 16,383 looms were in operation out of a total of 19,691, producing piecegoods, and 785 looms out of a total of 896, producing cotton towelling. Six mills containing more than 500 looms, normally engaged in weaving piecegoods, had suspended production entirely.
    Mrs. Castle: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this number of looms is not very much greater than the number in production in Blackburn alone and they could not possibly have produced all the cloth which is coming into this country under the voluntary agreement with Hong Kong? Is not Hong Kong acting as a gathering ground for cloth from all over the Far East, including China and Japan, this cloth then being imported into this country under the voluntary agreement? Is not this totally unfair to Lancashire, and will he raise the matter with the Governor of Hong Kong and the textile industry there?
    Mr. Fraser: Without going into technicalities with the hon. Lady—I read her article in the New Statesman and Nation and found it most interesting—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I did not say the "Staggers and Naggers"; I referred to the New Statesman and Nation.
    I shall look into the matter, but the figures given to us show that there is ample capacity in Hong Kong to produce the 185 million square yards which are at the moment being imported, and
    1122
    I think it only fair to say, considering Hong Kong's difficulties, that people there have behaved extremely well in keeping until 1965 the 1961 levels, and we owe a considerable debt to them for their forbearance.
    Mr. A. Royle: Is my hon. Friend aware that, unlike Lancashire, Hong Kong uses its looms 24 hours a day?

    Manufactured Goods (Overseas Markets)
    Mr. A. Royleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give details of the response by other Governments to the recent statement by the Hong Kong Government that offers of help with its population problem would be most effective if they took the form of increased access to overseas markets for Hong Kong manufactured goods.
    Mr. H. Fraser: There has been no response as yet; it is perhaps too early to expect one but I hope that other Governments will give the matter their sympathetic consideration.
    Mr. Royle: In view of the severe restrictions operating against the Hong Kong Government and people in North America, will my hon. Friend give more publicity to the excellent statement recently made by the Hong Kong Government?
    Mr. Fraser: Yes, Sir. I certainly will. I will place a copy in the Library, and will have it made available to our diplomatic posts.

    European Economic Community
    Mr. A. Royleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in view of the fact that Hong Kong has no domestic market for its textiles, and to enable the Hong Kong Government to continue its policy of immigrant integration into the population which it has operated without help for 12 years, if he will press the Colony's claim to special treatment in the current negotiations with European Economic Community countries.
    Mr. H. Fraser: Her Majesty's Government are doing all they can to arrive at an agreement with the E.E.C. countries which will protect the vital interests of

    1123
    all Commonwealth countries, and Territories. Hong Kong is, of course, very much in mind.
    Mr. Royle: Does my hon. Friend realise that there is great concern in Hong Kong regarding these negotiations, and will he continue to keep closely in touch with the Government of Hong Kong during the coming weeks?
    Mr. Fraser: Yes, Sir.

    Immigrants and Resettlement Blocks
    Mr. Longdenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many immigrants have entered the colony of Hong Kong during the last 12 years; how many multi-storey resettlement blocks have been built since 1955; and at what rate they are now being erected.
    Mr. H. Fraser: It is estimated that since 1950 some 800,000 immigrants have entered the Colony, legally and illegally, and that 200,000 children have been born to these people since their arrival. Two hundred domestic multi-storey resettlement blocks have been built since 1955, each capable of housing more than 2,000 people. They are now being completed at the rate of one block every nine days.
    Mr. Longden: While thanking my hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask whether he agrees that this splendid effort has been achieved without any financial assistance from Her Majesty's Government, which, therefore, makes it all the more necessary that we should ensure that the best possible terms are obtained in the Brussels negotiations to protect this Colony's exports?
    Mr. Fraser: Yes, Sir.

    Defence Expenditure
    Mr. Longdenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what financial contributions the Colony of Hong Kong makes to imperial defence expenditure by the United Kingdom Government.
    Mr. H. Fraser: The annual contribution is £½million.
    Mr. Longden: Does any other Dependency make a contribution on this scale? In view of this great contribu-
    1124
    tion, will my hon. Friend ensure that Her Majesty's Government keep United Kingdom forces in the Colony for as long as possible?
    Mr. Fraser: As no other Colony makes such a contribution, no other Colony has the same size of garrison as Hong Kong. Certainly, it is open to the Government of Hong Kong to raise with us, as they do annually, the question of what payments should be made. So far, however, this question has not been raised specifically by the Hong Kong Government and I think that both we and they are happy with the present arrangement.

  THE GAMBIA

    Adult Education
    Mr. Boydenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what improvements are proposed in the provision of adult education in the Gambia during the next two years.
    Mr. H. Fraser: The newly elected Government will, no doubt, be considering the subject, but clearly the main objective of educational policy will remain in the primary and secondary fields.
    Mr. Boyden: Judging by the Answer which the hon. Gentleman gave me recently, the closing of the office of the British Council in the Gambia means that no adult education in the sense that we understand it in England is going on at all. Will he please look into the matter?
    Mr. Fraser: As regards adult education, I am happy to say that we hope that two Voluntary Service Overseas students will be arriving to utilise the library and equipment of the British Council in Bathurst. As regards general education, I think that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to see that in the revised development plan, instead of 8·5 per cent. of expenditure on new schemes going to education, the percentage will be 40 per cent. I think that this is a step forward.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: Will the hon. Gentleman consider again the closing of the British Council office? Is it not quite shocking that this office should be

    1125
    closed and that what facilities there are should now be staffed by two sixth formers at a time when we ought to be doing a great deal more to encourage the adult education to which my hon. Friend referred?
    Mr. Fraser: I cannot look at it again. The office has been closed, and we have got to make the best use we can of our present available resources.

  KENYA

    Regional Boundaries (Demarcation)
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the independent Commission for the demarcation of regional boundaries in Kenya will start its work.
    Mr. H. Fraser: The Commission to delimit the boundaries of the regions and the Nairobi area is expected to begin work in Kenya early in August.
    Mr. Wall: What about the other six regions? Will my hon. Friend agree that the nub of the political dispute in Kenya is between those who want a unitary State and those who want a semi-federal State? Therefore, is it not extremely important to have the six regions referred to in the White Paper demarcated at the first possible opportunity?
    Mr. Fraser: This is precisely what the Commission will do, setting the boundaries of the regions and of the Nairobi area. There are the six regions and the Nairobi area.
    Mr. F. M. Bennett: Will my hon. Friend say—I apologise in advance if the information is already available—when the names of the members of the Commission will be published?
    Mr. Fraser: Sir Stafford Foster-Sutton has accepted the chairmanship, and we hope that the names of the other members of these two Commissions will be announced shortly.

    Northern Frontier District
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what terms of reference have been given to the independent commission set up to study the Northern Frontier District of Kenya; and when he expects to receive its report.
    Mr. H. Fraser: It has not been appointed yet, but its composition and terms of reference will be announced as soon as possible.
    Mr. Wall: Is my hon. Friend aware that the appointment of a special commission for this area is causing a spate of rumours among the Somalis that there will be a change there? Will he, therefore, see that the Commission is appointed as soon as possible with the clearest possible terms of reference?
    Mr. Fraser: Yes, Sir; I will.
    Mr. F. M. Bennett: In adopting the expression "as soon as possible", is the Minister hoping that this business will be accomplished before the rising of the House for the long Recess?
    Mr. Fraser: No, Sir, I do not think so, necessarily. We have to appoint someone of great eminence to undertake the task, and our object is that the report should be available by the late autumn. There is not such immense urgency about it owing to the various constitutional timetables laid out in Cmnd. 1700.

  ADEN

    Federation of South Arabia (Agreement)
    Mr. R. Edwardsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement regarding the agreement between the Federation of South Arabia and the Colony of Aden signed on 17th May, 1962.
    Mr. H. Fraser: I refer the hon. Member to the Answer which my right hon. Friend gave the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) on 3rd July, to which I have nothing to add at present.
    Mr. Edwards: I read that reply with close attention. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Education, Mr. Abdullah Sa'idi, was forced to resign by the Governor because he declined to sign this agreement? Will he realise that, unless this calculated secrecy is broken, there will be grave disturbances in Aden because of this agreement which everyone seems to be treating as secret? Further, is he aware that the agreement has not even been discussed by the Legislative Council?
    Mr. Fraser: As has been explained to the House before, once these provisional talks have taken place between my right hon. Friend and the representative of the Aden Government and the Government of the Federation, there will, after publication, be full discussions in the Aden Legislature and with interested parties in Aden and, at the appropriate time, in this House. I refer the hon. Gentleman to Question No. 13 which deals with the Minister of Education.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: I welcome the fact that these informal talks later this month are of a provisional nature, but can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that no new constitutional arrangements will be made linking Aden Colony with the Federation of South Arabia without full opportunity for this House to discuss the matter or without full opportunity for the people of Aden to express their views on the issue?
    Mr. Fraser: As I have said, there will be debates in Aden. There will be debates in the Federal Council and, of course, the House also will have the opportunity to discuss these matters.

    Constitution
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what conclusions he has reached in respect of a proposed new constitution for Aden; what was the reason for the resignation of Mr. A. I. Sa'idi as Minister of Education and Immigration; and what submissions he has received concerning the fear that the prospective constitution may subjugate the present constitution of Aden Colony to the numerically larger protectorate.
    Mr. H. Fraser: The time for forming conclusions has not yet come; it will do so after my right hon. Friend has had conversations with Ministers of Aden Colony and the Federation in London. Mr. Sa'idi, while agreeing in principle with constitutional advance in Aden and closer association with the Federation, found himself unable to endorse unconditionally the proposals to which all other Ministers of the Colony and Federation subscribed on 17th May. The answer to the third part of the Question is "None".
    Mr. Sorensen: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a genuine
    1128
    fear that this relatively democratic Colony may be subordinated to the quite undemocratic Protectorates? In these circumstances, will he see that this matter is fully borne in mind?
    Mr. Fraser: I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Member has said.
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many working parties were appointed consequent upon the constitutional talks between Aden Colony and Protectorates: what were the detailed questions considered by each working party; what decisions were reached on the question of closer association between the territories; what other decisions were reached resulting from the talks; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. H. Fraser: Seven working parties were set up to consider questions relating to aviation, finance, education, health services, communications, public relations and public works. Their recommendations have been incorporated in the joint proposals put forward by the Federal and Colony Ministers which, as already announced, I and my right hon. Friend are shortly to discuss with those Ministers. My right hon. Friend hopes to make a statement after the talks.
    Mr. Sorensen: Does not the Minister consider it highly desirable that one or more of these working parties should apply their minds to the necessity of inducing the Protectorate rulers to introduce progressive measures of democratisation in view of the gross disparity in the internal structure of the Protectorate, on the one hand, and the Colony, on the other hand?
    Mr. Fraser: I think that a working party would be an inappropriate method.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: In reporting on these discussions, will the Minister consider publishing the reports of the working parties as a White Paper?
    Mr. Fraser: That is precisely one of the matters we will discuss when we meet the Ministers next week.

    Prison
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state, in respect of the prison at

    1129
    Aden, how many male prisoners, female prisoners, and lunatics it at present contains; and what are the plans for building new and separate institutional accommodation for these groups.
    Mr. H. Fraser: 305 males, 5 females and 72 lunatics. It is hoped that work on a new prison for male and female prisoners and a mental hospital will begin towards the end of the year.

  BASUTOLAND

    Unemployment
    Mr. Healeyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he is taking to alleviate unemployment in Basutoland.
    Mr. H. Fraser: There is no firm evidence of an increase in unemployment in Basutoland that would justify special steps being taken by Government; but the situation is being carefully watched, and I am in touch with the High Commissioner.
    Mr. Healey: While welcoming that statement, may I ask the Under-Secretary whether, in view of the fact that two years have now passed since the Morse Commission made its Report, the Government will consider fully implementing all the provisions of that Report, in view of the tremendous importance of these territories and their special difficulties?
    Mr. Fraser: If the hon. Member will put down a Question, I will give him a more detailed answer. Various projects are afoot. There is already provision of £180,000 currently for agriculture, approximately £9,000 for the Basuto factory estate extension, and there is a current application to the I.D.A. for a development loan for roads.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Can the Under-Secretary say what is the proportion of unemployed in the Protectorate?
    Mr. Fraser: It is very difficult, as the hon. Member knows, to judge in a country with a very large seasonal agricultural employment, but, at the moment. I do not think there are any major signs of unemployment, except the seasonal unemployment which always exists in this part of Africa when agricultural contracts are terminating.

  COLONIAL TERRITORIES

    Prisoners (Ankle Chains)
    Mr. Manuelasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in which Colonies and Protectorates it is still the practice to attach ankle chains to prisoners; and to what categories of prisoners this treatment is applied.
    Mr. H. Fraser: I am asking colonial Governments for a full and up-to-date report and I will write to the hon. Member when it is received.
    Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that several years ago I put down a similar Question and received quite a lengthy list of Territories in which these restraints were still being practised. Will the hon. Gentleman indicate to the House that the Government of this country arc totally against the use of ankle fetters and leg irons, and will he pledge his right hon. Friend to take all the steps he can to have these mechanical restraints completely discontinued in these areas?
    Mr. Fraser: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Report on mechanical restraints in prisons in Colonial Territories which was placed in the Library in 1957. In regard to a pledge, there are special conditions whereby I cannot give such a pledge. I can, however, give a pledge that these fetters and so forth are never used as punishment, but they have to be used in certain areas in order to prevent escape during block transfers, to prevent prisoners injuring themselves and for other types of purely preventive uses. [HON. MEMBERS: Shocking."] I regret to say that this is the fact, but I will certainly look into the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman when I have a precise statement from each of the colonial Governments concerned.
    Mr. Healey: Would not the Under-Secretary agree in principle that it is most undesirable that these mediaeval methods of restraint should be used in a British Colony, and will not he seriously consider issuing instructions to the colonial Governments to adopt a quite different and more humane method of restraint?
    Mr. Fraser: I do not want to delude the House, but, quite often, in these

    1131
    Territories, where there are enormous areas to be covered and where there are not large gaols where prisoners have to be kept, it follows that there has, at least, to be some use of handcuffs or shackles of various sorts. This is the basis of the mechanical restraints. I will certainly look into it, and in the process of finding the information which the hon. Member wants I shall be prepared to come back to the House and make appropriate comment.

  GIBRALTAR

    Employment
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give an estimate of the extent to which civilian employment in Gibraltar is likely to be reduced due to changes in defence arrangements; and what steps he is taking to provide alternative employment.
    Mr. H. Fraser: The altered defence arrangements proposed for Gibraltar will, I am afraid, entail some reduction and switching of the civilian employment offered by the Services there. The precise degree of this, the timing of it, and the provision of alternative employment are the subject of current study and discussion.
    Mr. Thomson: Is the Minister aware that figures have been produced from Gibraltar showing that the redundancy may be as much as 17 per cent.? Is he aware that Gibraltar is a Colony which has shown particular loyalty to this country, and will the Colonial Office show a good deal more urgency than it has so far, and give priority to the rights of Gibraltar citizens and not attempt to appease General Franco and the Spaniards too much over this problem?
    Mr. Fraser: This matter certainly has my most earnest attention at the moment, I can assure the hon. Member. As regards priorities, we will give preference over aliens to Gibraltarians, provided that they have the skills and are of the right age group. Clearly, one of the ways of dealing with the redundancy problem would be to retire persons over a certain age.

  JAMAICA

    Delegation (Discussions)
    Mr. Healeyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on his recent discussions with Sir Alexander Bustamante, the Prime Minister of Jamaica.
    Mr. H. Fraser: Discussions with the Jamaican delegation led by Sir Alexander Bustamante on financial, economic and defence matters ended last Friday. In the course of the talks I told the Jamaican delegation that we could make assistance available totaling £4¾ million. This sum includes the gift of War Office lands and buildings in Jamaica which we value at £2½ million an Exchequer loan of £1¼ million towards their current year's capital budget and various unexpended portions of Colonial Development and Welfare allocations amounting to about £1 million.
    Mr. Healey: While welcoming the Government's decision to give assistance on this scale to the independent State of Jamaica, may I ask whether the Under-Secretary can tell us anything about the discussions concerning outlets for Jamaican produce if Britain joins the Common Market? In particular, can he say whether any progress has yet been made on what is to happen about the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement? Can he, at least, assure the House that if the Agreement is to end, the Government will insist absolutely on comparable outlets for Jamaican sugar in the enlarged Common Market?
    Mr. Fraser: Sir Alexander, while he was here, had discussions with my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal. So far as the other and much more general question relating to sugar is concerned, I can assure him that we are doing all we can to make certain that these outlets for Jamaican sugar are safeguarded.
    Mr. Driberg: Was there any discussion with Sir Alexander about the position of the Maroons of Accompong?
    Mr. Fraser
    Mr. Driberg
    Mr. Fraser
    Mr. Driberg: But is not the hon. Gentleman aware that I wrote to the Secretary of State a week ago asking that it should be raised with Sir Alexander?

  MINISTRY OF WORKS

    Palace of Westminster (Accommodation)
    Sir J. Duncanasked the Minister of Works when work on the project to provide accommodation for hon. Members of Parliament in the roof space above the Committee Rooms, which was deferred in July, 1961, will now commence.
    The Minister of Works (Lord John Hope): I propose to seek provision in the 1963–64 Estimates so that a start can be made as soon as the House rises for the Summer Recess of 1963.
    Mrs. Castle: Is the Minister aware that Members of this House have already had to suffer from the two-year delay in proceeding with work which, we were assured, would go forward in July, 1961? Can we, therefore, now have a categorical assurance from the Government that we will not once again be disappointed by having this protracted date altered at the last minute?
    Lord John Hope: I am sure that I never told the hon. Lady that we would start in 1961. I do not know where she got that information. The Answer which I have just given is the right one.
    Mr. C. Pannell: Is the Minister aware that both my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and myself were Members of the Committee which proceeded on the firm assumption that the date would be the one which my hon. Friend has just given and that it seems rather odd that when a representative of the Minister's Department had been present at all the meetings, the Minister himself should not know what was in the minds of the Committee? Will the Minister, however, bear in mind that if he decides again to defer the date, it would be more courteous to a Committee of this House if he were to inform its members officially rather than
    1134
    by the stratagem of an inspired Question by the Chairman?
    Lord John Hope: That is all rather unnecessarily cross. The perfectly understandable hopes of the Commitee are one thing. What I have tried to tell the House from time to time as the Minister responsible is perfectly consistent and I have never said anything about 1961.

    Early Industrial Monuments (Pilot Survey)
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Works when he expects to receive the report of the Council of British Archàology on its pilot survey of early industrial monuments.
    Lord John Hope: The Council for British Archàology is not yet able to forecast the date when the pilot survey will be complete.
    Mr. Boyden: Is it not the fact that this voluntary society has inadequate funds and resources to carry out this work? Should not the Minister provide more facilities and resources to enable the Council to proceed? This matter has been going on far too long.
    Lord John Hope: I am not sure that it is a question of lack of funds, but I have asked the Council to have a talk with me to see whether we can get a move on.
    Sir G. Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is a great need to preserve early machinery and that there is a large number of very early steam engines and similar machines of great interest and character historically which should come within the survey?
    Lord John Hope: Machinery is a rather different matter. As to early industrial monuments, I have powers under existing legislation to save anything that urgently needs saving without awaiting the report of the Council.
    Mr. More: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the question of the saving of industrial monuments is not being held up while the report is being prepared and pending also the outcome of a further investigation which is now being carried out in Staffordshire?
    Lord John Hope: I certainly give that assurance. Whenever anything arises as an emergency, if it has to be saved, it can be, and will be, saved.

  WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

    Cigarette Advertising
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Postmaster-General if he intends to publish the terms of the recent agreement reached between the Independent Television Authority and the tobacco industry on cigarette advertising on television; and when the new code will come into operation.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Miss Mervyn Pike): My right hon. Friend is publishing a note on the agreement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The new rules are already in operation, and all of the advertising will be in line with the new rules by about the middle of next month.
    Mr. Robinson: Is the Minister aware that this modest advance is welcome so far as it goes? Is she further aware that there is not yet much evidence on the screens that the code is in operation? Is the hon. Lady satisfied that the Independent Television Authority will rigorously apply the code?
    Miss Pike: I am satisfied that the Authority will rigorously apply it. The hon. Member must watch and see.
    Mr. Mayhew: Will tobacco advertising feature in the discussions between the Postmaster-General and the Authority, which were promised in the White Paper, on the content of advertising? When will these discussions begin?
    Miss Pike: The hon. Member can be assured that the discussions between my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General and the Independent Television Authority will be very wide-ranging. I cannot state the actual contents of the discussions, but they will take place as soon as possible.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the hon. Lady aware that this agreement is just another smokescreen put up by the tobacco manufacturers and advertisers between them and that all these proposed modifications are really not worth a light?
    1136
    Following is the note:
    The Authority has concluded its review of cigarette advertising in the light of the Report of the Royal College of Physicians: and, with the support of its Advertising Advisory Committee, has asked the programme companies to secure modifications that will include the avoidance of those aspects of the advertising which could reasonably be taken to make a special appeal to young people. Neither the Authority nor its Advisory Committee think it reasonable to be so discriminating as to use their powers to exclude all cigarette advertising from Independent Television alone. Action has already been taken by the tobacco industry voluntarily to withdraw all cigarette advertising until about 9 p.m.
    The Authority is now securing modifications of the advertising so that in the future there will be no advertisements that can be seen clearly to come within the following broad classes:—

    (1) Advertisements that greatly over-emphasise the pleasure to be obtained from cigarettes.

    (2) Advertisements featuring the conventional heroes of the young.

    (3) Advertisements appealing to pride or general manliness.

    (4) Advertisements using a fashionable social setting to support the impression that cigarette smoking is a "go-ahead" habit or an essential part of the pleasure and excitement of modern living.

    (5) Advertisements that strikingly present romantic situations and young people in love, in such a way as to seem to link the pleasures of such situations with the pleasures of smoking.

    Television Reception, Bideford District
    Mr. P. Browneasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the British Broadcasting Corporation's television reception in the Bideford district is unsatisfactory; and if he will ensure that urgent steps are taken to introduce the Stage III programme for this area.
    Miss Pike: The B.B.C. is aware of the need for improvement in television reception in the Barnstaple-Bideford district. It is pressing on as fast as it can with the planning of its Stage III satellite stations, including the station to be built in the Barnstaple area which will serve Bideford as well. It hopes to complete all the Stage III stations before the end of 1964.
    Mr. Browne: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Corporation has been pressing on with this for three years and that nothing has happened? Is she aware that reception in our area is at

    1137
    times non-existent but that we still pay £4 for a licence, which is ridiculous? Will my hon. Friend ensure that the pressing on is really pressing on and that it is done before the new B.B.C. channel is started?
    Miss Pike: I recognise that my hon. Friend has had to be very patient in this matter. The B.B.C. has a very big programme, but I assure my hon. Friend that the Corporation is getting on with it as quickly as it can.

    Coverage
    Sir J. Maitlandasked the Postmaster-General if he will ensure that full coverage, to enable all existing broadcasting and television programmes to be heard and seen efficiently at all times in all parts of England, and in particular Lincolnshire, is provided before he takes any action to extend the scope of broadcasting or to increase the cost of licences with the object of creating new broadcasting services.
    Miss Pike: Both the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. have plans for improving and extending the coverages of their services in England, and these will go ahead.
    As far as Lincolnshire is concerned, my right hon. Friend had already approved B.B.C. proposals for television satellite stations at Skegness and Grimsby, and for a V.H.F. sound station for east Lincolnshire. These should all be in operation by 1964. The possibility of using band III frequencies for improving the coverage of B.B.C. and I.T.A. television in east Lincolnshire will be given early consideration.
    Sir J. Maitland: Does the Minister consider that there is any chance of the cost of the licence being increased before these things come into operation? Does not it seem very hard that some people who have television sets which receive only half of the programmes, or who can hear only a certain number of programmes on the other system, should have to pay a higher charge to enable other people to have expensive and new services?
    Miss Pike: The question of the licence is another matter. Regarding the poor quality of reception, I can assure my hon. Friend that by 1964 there will be a marked improvement.
    Sir C. Osborne: Will my hon. Friend look at the correspondence which I sent to her right hon. Friend about the Grimsby area where it seems that the reception of B.B.C. programmes is a great deal worse than that of I.T.V. programmes? Cannot something be done for these people before 1964? Why should they have to wait until that time?
    Miss Pike: The difference in reception in these fringe areas is due to certain atmospheric conditions and very often the I.T.V. broadcasts which are on a higher frequency can give a better service. The answer is a satellite station, which is being built as quickly as possible.
    Mr. W. R. Williams: Is the hon. Lady aware that the views expressed by the hon. Member for Horncastle (Sir J. Maitland) and by the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) are shared by hon. Members on this side of the House as well as by viewers? Is she aware that there is a feeling that this development has not had the degree of priority which it should have had? May I ask her, therefore, to convey to her right hon. Friend the sense of urgency felt by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the need for a high priority for this service?
    Miss Pike
    Sir C. Osborne: Why should north Lincolnshire be regarded as a "fringe area"?
    Hon. Members

  TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION

    United Nations Technical Assistance Programme and Special Fund
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation if Her Majesty's Government will consider raising the sums pledged to the United Nations Expanded Technical Assistance Programme and to the Special Fund for 1962 in view of the vote recorded by this country in support of the United Nations Development Decade.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): I have been asked to reply.

    1139
    I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Technical Co-operation gave on 29th May to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson). The amount of our contributions to these programmes for 1963 will be reviewed in the autumn.
    Mr. Prentice: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that after the General Assembly passed a resolution to create the Development Decade in the 1960s with the objective of doubling the rate of growth of the under-developed countries by 1970, the first step was to set up a new target for the Special Fund for 1962 of 150 million dollars? Would not it be a good test of our sincerity and that of others to raise our target for this year so that we pay a proportionate share of the new target and not of the old one?
    Mr. Macleod: I do not think that the resolution to which the hon. Gentleman referred, No. 1715, called on the member States to review the appointed objective. We are reviewing our programme for 1963, as I have already indicated, in the autumn. As the hon. Member knows, we give very great help and we are the largest contributor to voluntary programmes after the United States of America.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that in considering how much aid could or should be provided, it is very desirable to take into account the prices of raw materials and foodstuffs and the way in which the fall in these prices has affected the economies of the countries we wish to help while, on the other hand, helping us because of the fall in the price of our imports?
    Mr. Macleod: I would agree with that. The main object of the Development Decade is a sound economic growth of the less well-developed countries and we are wholeheartedly behind this object.

  HOUSING

    Leasehold System, Wales
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what
    1140
    decision he has now reached as a result of his consideration of the four reports on the working of the leasehold system in Wales; and whether he will make a statement.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Dr. Charles Hill): As I informed the hon. Member on 5th June, I am examining the problems relating to the renewal of ground leases of residential property, on the basis of market value. I do not expect to complete this complex task before the Summer Recess.
    Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that this news will be received with great disappointment throughout the Principality? Is he aware that he had led us to believe that a statement could be expected? His last Answer given in this House indicated that he was considering this question? In view of the fact that people are holding up their decisions on leasehold while the Government make up their mind, can the Minister tell owner-occupiers when they can expect an announcement of Government policy on this important issue?
    Dr. Hill: I did not say in the statement I made in the House five weeks ago that the study would be completed by the Summer Recess. This is a complex problem as a study of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1964, will exhibit. I am pressing on with all seriousness and vigour, but it will not be completed by the Summer Recess.
    Mr. Thomas: May I press the Minister, because this is a vital matter to our people? Will he indicate to leaseholders when they can expect an announcement of Government policy, because they are faced with the question now of the cost of the renewal of leases or obtaining the freehold if they can? Is he aware that they ought to know the mind of the Government on the matter?
    Dr. Hill: The latter part of the statement which I made to the House related to the few people now confronted by the problem as an immediate one. As soon as the study is complete——
    Mr. Thomas
    Dr. Hill: —I will indicate the view of the Government. I cannot forecast with

    1141
    exactness when the study will be complete but it is being pressed on with all vigour.
    Mr. Thomas: Deplorable.
    Mr. Box: In his further consideration of this matter will my right hon. Friend use his good offices and influences with his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to have amended the Settled Lands Act which restricts trustees from increasing leases for over 50 years? Is he aware that an amendment is necessary especially in view of the wider terms of the Measure introduced last year relating to trustees?
    Dr. Hill: I will convey the point made by my hon. Friend to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.
    Mr. M. Stewart: If the Minister really cannot make a statement about this matter before the Summer Recess, will he bear in mind that we might find ourselves back in this Chamber in September for other reasons and that he might consider that time appropriate to make a statement.
    Dr. Hill: I will make a statement as soon as the study is complete and the view of the Government has been formed.
    Mr. Thomas: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter at the first possible moment.

    Leaseholders (Redevelopment Schemes)
    Mrs. Butlerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will introduce legislation to alleviate the hardships of leaseholders facing eviction due to redevelopment.
    Dr. Hill: I presume that the hon. Lady is referring to occupiers whose leases are about to expire. I do not think that any protection of the kind envisaged would be practicable without seriously impeding redevelopment, and in general that would be against the public interest.
    Mrs. Butler: Since the number of people in this plight—many of them elderly—is increasing with every fresh scheme of urban renewal that is under-
    1142
    taken will the right hon. Gentleman include a study of this aspect of the problem in the general study he is making to see if he can find a way of helping these people without hamstringing the redevelopment schemes?
    Dr. Hill: I agree with the hon. Lady that there is a problem of rehousing involved, but what I am resisting is the suggestion that redevelopment should not be a ground for possession at the end of a lease. That is a proposition I cannot accept, but in general the problem of rehousing prior to redevelopment, particularly in twilight areas, is an important one to which I am giving attention.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are pockets of the population who are suffering grave injustice and hardship under the Leasehold Act? Will he take steps to bring this matter urgently before Parliament so that this injustice can be removed?
    Dr. Hill: The leasehold issue in terms of renewal of leases is being studied, but, as the hon. Member will appreciate, the redevelopment aspect is excluded from that study as it is from the Landlord and Tenant Act.

  UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT DECADE
  Mr. Prenticeasked the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to coordinate the activities of the various Government Departments concerned with economic aid and technical assistance to developing countries, so as to give practical effect to Her Majesty's Government's decision to support the United Nations Development Decade.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
  Arrangements have been made to secure proper co-ordination, both between our own Government Departments, and with other countries. These enable us to participate fully in the development activities of the United Nations and other international bodies.
  Mr. Prentice: Will the right hon. Gentleman state clearly that the Government recognise the resolution about the

  1143
  Development Decade as marking a new stage in all this and that they are going to play their part in trying to double the rate of growth in the under-developed countries by 1970? If that is so, is it not one of the first tests of our sincerity that we should accept the new target of 1962 for the Technical Assistance Programme and the Special Fund?
  Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman was answered by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House——
  Mr. Prentice
  Mr. Butler: —about reviewing the grants in the autumn and I cannot go further than that. The Question which the right hon. Gentleman has on the Order Paper, addressed to the Prime Minister, deals with co-ordination and I will say, in answer to the first part of it, that we entirely support the statement about the Decade.
  Mr. Gaitskell: May we expect, at least in the autumn, and if possible before, a clear statement from the Government indicating what they are going to do in support of the Decade of Development, and bearing in mind the point to which the Leader of the House gave a friendly reply just now, that is to say, the fall in the price of the products of these countries which has benefited us and done considerable harm to them?
  Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. When a review has been made and at the appropriate moment, we shall make a statement.

  RETIREMENT PENSION
  Mr. J. Hyndasked the Prime Minister what proposals he has received from the Attercliffe Divisional Labour Party and from the Sheffield City Council concerning an immediate increase in the basic retirement pension; and what reply he has sent.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
  My right hon. Friend has received no communication on this subject from the Sheffield City Council. A resolution sent to him by the Management Committee of the Attercliffe Division Labour Party was acknowledged on his behalf and the Committee was informed that
  1144
  the terms of its resolution had been noted.
  Mr. Hynd: Are not the Government aware of the fact that this has now become an urgent question? Are they aware that a stun of £2 17s. 6d. a week, which has now been the basic pension since April, 1961, has no relationship to present-day needs? Do they believe that any old person can live on such a sum with the additional amount needed for rent when we are told that the average wage in the country is £14 or £15 a week? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that urgent action is necessary in regard to the basic pension and that revision of National Assistance rates is a token of the fact that an adjustment is needed? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the old people that something will be done about this?
  Mr. Butler: Since the Government took office in 1951 there have been four increases. The present pension rates have a higher value in real terms than any previous rate notwithstanding the increases in retail prices since April last year, when the current addition to the rates came into force. The terms asked for by the Attercliffe Labour Party would add an extra £950 million to the bill if applied to other insurance benefits as well as to the basic pension.
  Mr. Ross: Is the Home Secretary aware that, as a result of a fall in the value of money since the last announcement relating to National Insurance payments was made, those receiving the pensions have been robbed of £1 million a week? Is it not time that the Government thought of making that up to these people?
  Mr. Butler: A statement about the Assistance rates has already been made by the Minister concerned. The whole question of retirement pensions is constantly under review.
  Mr. Nabarro: In his reply to the Attercliffe Labour Party, will my right hon. Friend put the £950 million per annum representing the additional cost for what it demands for increased old-age pensions into more homely and understandable terms by saying that it would involve nearly doubling the whole

  1145
  of Purchase Tax, or raising the standard rate of Income Tax by the equivalent of 4s. in the £?
  Mr. Butler: I think the most effective way would be to put my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) into correspondence with the Attercliffe Labour Party.
  Mrs. Slater: Does not the Home Secretary know that every local authority is much concerned with this problem? Every local authority is having to step up its funds for welfare work because, in spite of what the Government say, the basic pension is not sufficient adequately to meet the needs of old people. Will the Government look at the matter from that angle as well as the angle of justice for old people?
  Mr. Butler: We are all very anxious about this position. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for bringing the matter to our attention. This matter is constantly under review.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the cost of living has risen by 6 per cent. since the last increase in pensions took place and to make up for this an increase of at least 6s. a week is necessary for a married couple? Why should the pay pause be applied now only to the poorest people in the country?
  Mr. Butler: There is no question of applying the pay pause to the poorest people in the country. There has already been an announcement about an increase in National Assistance rates. I repeat what I said. Present pension rates have a higher value in real terms than in any previous year notwithstanding the increase of 6 per cent. in retail prices since April last year when the current rates came into operation.

  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY (HOME SECRETARY'S SPEECH)
  Mr. Zilliacusasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Secretary of State for the Home Department at Blenheim Palace, Woodstock, on 30th June, about the Common Market, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
  Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Zilliacus: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Home Secretary on that occasion, speaking of the Labour Party's attitude to the Common Market, said:
  "Some of them oppose the whole thing root and branch because they fear it would rule out their own perverted form of planning, because they fear it would hobble their hobbyhorse of nationalisation."
  Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that this casts as much doubt on the Government's determination to ensure that the Labour Government would be free to use public economic ownership and planning in the interests of social progress in the Common Market as the remark of the Minister of Labour cast doubt on the Government's determination to stick by guarantees to the Commonwealth? In the circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman represent to his alter ego, the Home Secretary, the desirability of making a personal statement on the same lines as that made by the Minister of Labour?
  Mr. Butler: I see no reason to go back on the very intelligent observations I made at Blenheim. I remind the hon. Member that, writing in Tribune on 25th May this year, he said:
  "If we went in we should be powerless to carry out real Socialist planning. What is prohibited is what the annual conference of the Parliamentary Party has laid down…"
  In order to reassure him and his hon. Friends, I would rehearse what the Lord Privy Seal said in his broadcast—and this is true:
  "The opportunities for continuing nationalisation and Socialist planning will remain."
  Mr. Gaitskell: In view of the reflections indirectly cast by the Home Secretary upon the rest of his speech by the answer he has just given, can he say whether or not it is true that the chief criticism of the Labour Party in this matter was that it had shown what he described as a complete and utter lack of enthusiasm for this business? Can he assure us that all the members of the Government are showing the standard of enthusiasm which is necessary? Can be

  1147
  assure us that he himself is so enthusiastic? If he is, is it not a little silly to show so much enthusiasm and thereby weaken our bargaining position at Brussels?
  Mr. Butler: If the House and the right hon. Gentleman wished to hear the moving paragraphs which preceded these observations about the Labour Party he would be assured of the importance I attach to entering into negotiations and bringing the negotiations to a successful conclusion.
  Sir G. Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Home Secretary to explain how exactly one can hobble a hobby-horse?

  PRIME MINISTER (SCOTTISH DEPUTATIONS)
  Sir D. Robertsonasked the Prime Minister what arrangements he has made to meet the deputations from the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, the Scottish Board for Industry and the Scottish Trades Union Congress; and which Ministers will be present.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
  The Scottish Council (Development and Industry), of which the Scottish Trades Union Congress is a constituent member and on which the Scottish Board for Industry is represented, asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to receive a deputation. My right hon. Friend naturally agreed to this request and a meeting has been arranged for the 12th of July. My hon. Friends the Parliamentary Secretary, Board of Trade, who has already had a meeting with the Scottish Board for Industry on the 22nd of June, and the Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Labour, will also be present.
  Mr. Hoy: In view of the arrangements for this meeting, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us if the Government will have any new proposals for dealing with this problem?
  Mr. Butler: That goes further than the Question on the Order Paper. I think the meeting had better take place first.

TRADE AND COMMERCE

  Resale Price Maintenance
  Mr. Nabarroasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his study of the report of his departmental inquiry concerning resale price maintenance is now fully completed; when he intends to publish his findings; in what form they will be published; and if he will make a statement on proposed legislative changes or otherwise.
  The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Sir Keith Joseph): I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary gave on 26th June to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling).
  Mr. Nabarro: In view of the extremely controversial character of any decision to change the law in regard to resale price maintenance covering a range of goods extending from motor cars to pharmaceuticals and thousands of others, would my hon. Friend consider making a statement on the findings of the President of the Board of Trade in this matter before we rise for the Summer Recess? If not, will he give an undertaking that no decision will be reached during the Recess and until this House has had ample opportunity of fully debating this controversial and very important matter?
  Sir K. Joseph: I am glad that my hon. Friend recognises the need to study the subject most carefully. I know that my right hon. Friend is anxious to complete his study as soon as possible, but I cannot commit him to making any statement before the House rises. I will draw my hon. Friend's comments to his attention.
  Sir C. Osborne: Is there a division of opinion among the experts who studied this problem and who have made a report to the President of the Board of Trade, and is that why the will not publish it? Or are there other things which he does not want us to see in the report and which make him unwilling to let the House see it?
  Sir K. Joseph: No. It is a long-established practice of the House that official reports are not published.
  Sir P. Agnew: Could my hon. Friend be a Bale clearer and give a little more information in answer to the original supplementary question of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro)? Could he give the House an assurance that in the event of 'his right hon. Friend not being able to make a statement before Parliament rises for the Summer Recess, any statement implying any decision or change of policy will be deferred until the House returns in the normal course of events in the autumn?
  Sir K. Joseph: I have undertaken to pass that on to my right hon. Friend, but I do not think that I can commit him to that undertaking. In my previous answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) I said "official reports" when I meant "reports by officials".

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

  SUPPLY
  [23RD ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTIIER-GRAY in the Chair]

  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1962–63
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a further sum, not exceeding £65, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, for the following services connected with Education in Scotland, namely:—

  Civil. ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1962–63

  £

  Class III, Vote 2B, Scottish Home and Health Department Revised Estimate)

  Class III, Vote 10, Child Care, Scotland

  10

  Class VI, Vote 5, General Grants to Local Revenues, Scotland

  10

  Class VI, Vote 9, Scottish Education Department

  10

  Class VI. Vote 9, Scottish Education Department (Supplementary Estimate)

  5

  Class VI, Vote 11. Scottish Education Department (Teachers' Superannuation)

  10

  Class VIII, Vote 12, Royal Scottish Museum

  10

  Total

  £65

  EDUCATION, SCOTLAND
  3.33 p.m.
  Miss Margaret Herbison: In this debate, the Opposition wish to examine education as it is in Scotland. We wish to discuss its most serious defects, and I hope that we shall be able to offer constructive suggestions.
  Today, the most serious problem in Scottish education is the shortage of teachers. We find from the Report on Education in Scotland, 1961, that the shortage in 1960 was 3,673. By 1966, instead of that shortage having been reduced, it will have mounted to 5,000. In 1975, which is a long time away, the shortage, according to the Report, will be between 6,000 and 7,000 teachers.
  These figures show the extent of the shortage if no further changes are made in education, but if further changes are

  1151
  made the shortage will be even more serious. For instance, if we were to raise the school-leaving age to 16—and the Government have said that that is their priority—we should need, apart from those I have already mentioned, an extra 4,500 to 5,000 teachers, if we were to leave that aside, but to bring in compulsory part-time education—and I think that we are all most anxious that that should be done—we should need an extra 1,500 teachers. If we were to reduce classes to the size of 30 pupils, we might need another 10,000 teachers.
  These are staggering figures, but when we turn to the shortage among specialist teachers we find a particularly gave position. The shortage is most acute in teachers of mathematics—at present 18·4 per cent. In technical subjects, which are of the greatest importance to the well-being of our nation, apart from the educational aspects, there is a shortage of 16·3 per cent., and in commerce there is a shortage of 24·7 per cent. We are told, on page 72 of the Report:
  "Within the general shortages, the worsening supply of Chapter V teachers of mathematics and the quite inadequate number of Chapter VI teachers of commerce, homecraft and music give particular cause for anxiety."
  It seems, therefore, that the Government feel that there is some cause for anxiety in this great shortage.
  If we turn to the question of oversize classes, we find that in the primary schools in Scotland there are 662 classes with between 46 and 50 pupils; there are 53 classes with between 51 and 55 pupils; there are four classes with between 56 and 60 pupils; and there are 10 classes in which over 60 children are sitting—and I use the word "sitting" advisedly. I know from my own experience as a teacher that it is impossible, in classes with such numbers, to give each child the individual attention which it should have. In the secondary schools there are 570 oversized classes.
  I also find in the Report that there has been an increase in the number of graduates we are attracting to teaching. The total recruitment of graduates last year to our Scottish schools was 891, which was 33 per cent. higher than 5 years ago. We welcome that increase. It is good to find that as there is an increase in the output of graduates from our universities, teaching seems to attract
  1152
  the same proportion each year, which means that in numbers we are getting an increase.
  I think that there is a lesson to be learned from this by the Government, but I am afraid that up to now they have shown no sign of learning it. In the debate last year other hon. Members and myself urged the Government to follow the advice of their own expert committees. The Government have had many reports during the last few years from expert committees set up by them. I have no intention today of going into the details of that advice; those who wish to find it will do so if they look at the OFFICIAL REPORT of our debate of last year. Recommendations were made in the interim Report of the Knox Committee in 1957, and I am certain that if the Government had followed them there would have been an increase in the number of graduates coming from our universities, and that that would have increased the number of graduates entering the teaching profession.
  The first recommendation was that there should be more generous school bursaries. The second recommendation concerned pensions for the wives and dependants of teachers. The third recommendation was that graduates who wished to become teachers should be given financial assistance at the same rate as the Department of Scientific Research gives to its people.
  These were three specific recommendations. The Government continue to ignore them. Yet their own committee felt that if the Government followed these recommendations there was every possibility of the pool of graduates being increased.
  I want to say something about financial aid to those attending school after normal school-leaving age. Last year, over 25,000 left such courses. I was astounded to find that 3,500 pupils attending the fourth and fifth year courses, not the junior secondaries, completed their second year but not their third year about 7,500 completed their third year but not their fourth year; 3,500 completed their fourth year, but not their fifth year. Taking these three together, 14,500 of our young people, the majority of whom at the age of 12 had been considered fit to take a higher leaving certificate to fit them to enter

  1153
  universities, left school before completing the course.
  Are the Government concerned to discover how many potential graduates were among this 14,500? I know only too well that grants are not the only answer. I am never tired of stressing the importance of home influence, the influence of parents, in keeping children at school. The Special Committee of the Secretary of State made the firm recommendation that better high school bursaries would encourage at least a proportion of these school leavers to remain at school to take their higher leaving certificate. Is the Secretary of State going to tell us today that at last he has realised the importance of a very special increase in school bursaries? If not, he is not taking the shortage of teachers and the lack of a proper pool of educated manpower as seriously as he should be.
  Mr. John Brewis: Does the hon. Lady agree that we send about 35 per cent. of our children to senior secondary schools, which is a much higher percentage than nearly every other country in the world? There are certain to be quite a few of them who fall by the wayside because they should strictly be on a different, non-certificated course.
  Miss Herbison: What the hon. Member says backs up something which I shall deal with later.
  These children underwent an examination and it was decided that they were fit for a four or a five year course. Some of them fall by the wayside educationally. As a teacher, I know that only too well. Some of them fall by the wayside because there is not the good parental influence which I should like to see in every home. However, I am convinced, and the Special Committee was convinced, that quite a number of them leave school because of the financial position at home. That is the only point with which I am dealing at present. I hope that the Secretary of State is fully seized of it.
  We find from the Report that the Government have set up a working party to examine the whole question of pensions for wives and dependants. I urge the Government not to pigeon-hole whatever report comes from the working party, because one of the outstand-
  1154
  ing grievances of teachers in Scotland is the fact that no provision is made for their wives and dependent children.
  Because of the emergency, the time spent by honours graduates at training colleges was cut from three terms to two terms. I have not found that those who had only two terms' training are any worse teachers than those who had three terms. Yet the Government—I know they did this because of a promise they made—have returned to three term training for honours graduates. The result is that there has been a fall in the number of honours graduates entering training colleges.
  The Government ought to have been sufficiently strong to say to the Educational Institute of Scotland and to the colleges of education, "This crisis is still very much with us. If, by keeping two terms instead of three, we can attract even a few more graduates, we ask you to bear with us for some years so that we can have these extra graduates each year". I ask the Secretary of State to make a statement today on this matter. Will he now have the courage to go to these bodies and say, "It is of the greatest importance that we do everything possible to attract honours graduates into the teaching profession"?
  Even if the Government were willing to adopt forthwith the measures which I have just touched on, the real stumbling block then would be the lack of university places, because quite a number of those going through our schools find that there is no place for them in a university. I am dealing with the question of university places only as it affects the supply of teachers. The Secretary of State is responsible for ensuring that in Scotland there is an adequate supply of teachers.
  I want to quote from some statements which have been made on the inadequacy of places in Scottish universities. Mr. Reece, of Aberdeen University, who is at present the President of the Association of University Teachers, made a speech to the Association's summer school in which he called for an investigation into the possiblity of devising some means of financing universities which would not place them—here I quote his own words—
  "completely at the mercy of the unimaginative and parsimonious spirit that periodically pervades the Treasury."

  1155
  No one on this side of the Committee could use stronger language than this.
  Mr. Reece spoke about the slowing up of capital grants, the cutting of recurrent grants which are recommended by the University Grants Committee, and the new salary scale for university teachers. He finished by saying this:
  "By 1967 the proportion of sixth formers going to university would be even lower than today."
  Does the Secretary of State, who is responsible for the supply of teachers in Scotland, accept any responsibility for the smaller proportion of sixth formers going to universities in 1967?
  Sir Malcolm Knox, Principal of St. Andrew's University, talking about the cuts in recurrent expenditure, and the slowing down of capital investment in universities, said:
  "It is now clear that many of the applicants are going to be disappointed because the building programme for 1962–65 is being slowed down. We are concerned to make it plain that any blame for this disappointment rests on the Government."
  In other words, the people who are concerned with Scottish university education are trying, by word and action, to tell the Scottish people that in this instance the universities are not to blame, but that the cause is the Government's parsimonious attitude.
  It has been roughly estimated that to provide these extra places would need a mere £10 million a year—even less than the Supplementary Vote for farm subsidies this year. The Secretary of State, and the Minister of Education—because the same criticism can be applied to England—should tell the Cabinet, "This sum of £10 million each year is absolutely necessary for our universities." If the two right hon. Gentlemen were really seized of the importance of providing those university places, but found that the Cabinet was not willing to agree, they would be in honour bound to resign their positions. Only shock tactics like that will bring home to the Government the very great need there is to provide those places.
  There are other ways in which we could help the teacher shortage. Where praise can be given, I give it, and it is true that the Government have done a great deal to try to attract married
  1156
  women back to teaching. One of the obstacles in that path—apart from the tax position, with which I shall not deal —is that quite a number of married women find it difficult to give five full days of teaching each week. When there is such a grave shortage—and the gravest shortage is, in the main, in our big industrial areas—the Secretary of State and his Department should be using all their influence to get each education authority to work towards giving those married women who are willing to come back and work a week of five half days, or two and a half days out of the week, the chance of rendering their valuable services to our children.
  I know, as a teacher, that that is not easy. There are very great difficulties in planning timetables and curricula to fit in with it, but those difficulties are as nothing compared with the educational problems now facing us. I hope that, apart from the very fine publicity they have been using during the past year, the Secretary of State and his Department will exert all their influence on education authorities to make such special arrangements for married women.
  I praise the Educational Institute of Scotland for asking our four Scottish universities to give extra-mural degrees to Scottish students. The Scottish universities turned down that suggestion, and I agree with their reason for doing so. Those who wish to take that type of degree—almost a degree by correspondencie—have a long-standing example in London, but many students need much more help in achieving graduate status than they can possibly get by studying on their own for a London degree.
  The Educational Institute of Scotland, again trying to help, suggested that the universities might provide evening classes so that people—not just uncertificated teachers, but those in industry who wish to take a degree—could do so in their leisure time. The universities have said that they are willing to consider that suggestion if there is proof that there are numbers of people who wish to take advantage of it. How in the name of goodness can one get that proof except by instituting the courses?
  The position is parlous. We need a crash programme, and the universities

  1157
  can play an important part in it. I know that we would be putting a heavy burden on university lecturers and professors, but I think that they are seized of our parlous position, and should be ready for some years to carry their part of the burden in ensuring that we get the improvements in education we so sincerely wish to have.
  It may mean that the Treasury will have to give more money for extra time and for extra lecturers, but the Secretary of State and his Department should help the Educational Institute a Scotland here by ensuring that serious discussions take place which may lead to the chance of quit a number of people who wish still to continue with their work being able to take degrees. I know that we have a special recruitment scheme for teachers, but many of these people would prefer to continue at their own work until they had achieved graduate status.
  School building presents a very great problem. Ever since 1951, the Government have adopted a stop-and-go policy. At one moment, the red light against building is put up to every education authority in Scotland. A year or so later, those authorities get the green light. They just cannot plan a building programme with a Government whose policy at one time is retraction and, at another time, expansion.
  We can find in the Government's own Report the importance they attach to good buildings in helping better education. In page 18 we read:
  "Where new schools have been opened or extensions added the position has been greatly eased, but even at some of these schools additional temporary accommodation has been necessary."
  Even the new schools have needed additional temporary accommodation. The Report goes on:
  "While progress in the building of a further number of new schools holds out the prospect of an end to such overcrowded conditions, there are other schools, some very seriously substandard, where no start has yet been made either on a new building or on the extension and improvement of existing accommodation."
  Seriously substandard buildings—that is a bold statement.
  If we turn to page 36, we find:
  "Nothing is more striking than the remarkable improvement effected in a school by its
  1158
  transfer from inadequate, uncomfortable and unattractive premises to one of the pleasant, well-designed, airy buildings which are now being provided. The change in the pupils' attitude towards school, in their daily conduct and bearing, and indeed in their whole outlook has been commented on most favourably by teachers, parents, and inspectors."
  There are two sides to it, and the only way in which we shall get for all our children the improvements that are stated in that paragraph is by the Government's being ready to spend much more on the building of new schools. No doubt, the Secretary of State will tell us how much money has been spent and how much money the Government intend to spend.
  Again, I look at the Report and I find that the projects started in the primary, and secondary schools of all kinds in 1959 were worth almost £15 million. In 1960, the figure had dropped to under £13 million, and in 1961 it had dropped about another £500,000. These are the schools that people are waiting for. If we look at the projects completed, in 1959 we find that the expenditure was about £11¼ million, in 1960 it was about £13½ million, but in 1961 the projects completed on primary and secondary schools had dropped to £10¼ million.
  These figures do not give us any heartening, and it will be no use the Secretary of State telling us how much the Government are spending when we look at those three years and we find what is now happening with regard to the provision of schools in Scotland.
  As to the general grant, quite a number of local authorities say that this is hopelessly inadequate in its provision for school building. I quote from the rector of a senior secondary school in Lanarkshire. He said this only last week, at a prize-giving:
  "Our present building was not built to cater for the needs of senior-secondary pupils and the consequence is that we have to make-do on a scale that is prejudicial to efficient teaching. We have no library; we have no assembly hall our rooms for practical subjects are largely classrooms converted to their present use. Science rooms, for example, are scattered throughout the building and much time is inevitably lost in movement of pupils around the school. We have no common room for senior pupils. Lavatory provision is
  primitive, staff rooms are inadequate. Both pupils and staff work under great difficulty and it is due to the untiring zeal of staff and pupils that we have achieved the excellent results that we have achieved in former years."

  1159
  What a picture that is! This is a school where the children of constituents of mine and of the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) attend. It is a shocking picture and it shows how very great is the need for a new school in the area. I give just another instance.
  "The change of venue for the prize- giving "—
  said the chairman—
  "was necessitated by the totally inadequate accommodation of the school. The need for a new school had been talked about since shortly after the last war but due to the curtailment of educational expenditure by the Government, the new school seemed to be as far away as ever."
  These are shocking conditions both for our teachers and for our children.
  When we turn to the position in Lanarkshire and Fifeshire in the new towns we find, in answer to Questions that we have raised, a disproportionate amount of the money that these authorities are spending on school building had to go to the new towns. The Under- Secretary of State told my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was having consultations about this. I should like to know whether those consultations are completed and whether any special measures are to be taken to ease the burden on education authorities which have new towns in their areas.
  I now turn to the promotion of our children at 12 years of age. In December, 1961, a Report was made on the transfer from primary to secondary schools. That was an important Report. I hope that it is one that the Secretary of State and every education authority in Scotland will examine carefully and try to follow its recommendations. It states, on page 29:
  "A previous Advisory Council in 1947 recommended the adoption of the comprehensive school for the first four years of secondary education and pointed out that 'the omnibus secondary school best embodies the ideals of the new age; and, except where impracticable, we prefer it to any other type of organisation'. This type of organisation certainly eliminates some of the ill-effects of transfer schemes.…"
  That is the feeling of the Committee that reported in December, 1961. In other words, the Advisory Council of
  1160
  1947 and a Committee of the Advisory Council of 1961 are really making a recommendation for comprehensive education in Scotland. The Secretary of State must be aware that parents and pupils are becoming increasingly concerned about this segregation between junior secondary and senior secondary at 12 years of age. In 1961, we are told that there were 131 appeals and the Secretary of State confirmed the promotion board's decisions in 100 cases. That means that at least 100 children of parents were extremely dissatisfied. I have no doubt that there were many more who did not appeal to the Secretary of State. I would say that there is no equality of opportunity for children as between one education authority and another in the provision of senior secondary education.
  When we examine the proportion of pupils that are allocated to senior secondary schools, we find that there is a wide disparity between one education authority and another in Scotland. In Caithness,
  49 per cent. of all secondary pupils in the first year were in senior secondary schools. In Clackmannan, in the same year, the figure was 18 per cent. In Fife, it was 24 per cent., and in Lanarkshire, 32 per cent.
  Sir Myer Galpern: Is the situation in any way related to the fact that certain local authorities refuse to build adequate senior secondary accommodation, so limiting the relevant percentage?
  Miss Herbison: There are a number of factors to be considered, and I hope to refer to the one that my hon. Friend has mentioned.
  The percentages vary from 18 per cent. to 49 per cent. As for the cities, Aberdeen has 24 per cent.; Dundee, 26 per cent.; Edinburgh, 30 per cent., and Glasgow—best of all—46 per cent. I have no doubt that some of these very high figures are accounted for by the fact that in areas like Glasgow many secondary pupils are educated in comprehensive schools. Therefore, the first count on which I condemn segregation at 12 years of age is that the opportunity of promotion to senior secondary or comprehensive schools depends on the part of Scotland in which a child lives. That situation ought not to exist.

  1161
  On page 37, the Report states that
  "It is by no means yet generally appreciated that junior secondary education is a distinctive and integral part of the secondary system, and too many people still appear to think of it rather as some kind of inferior appendage."
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. R. Brooman-White)The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. R. Brooman-White) indicated assent.
  Miss Herbison: The Under-Secretary of State nods. He seems to think that people should not take that view.
  If we turn back we find, in the same Report, a valid reason why it is considered to be an inferior appendage. Under the heading "Staffing", on page 36, the Report says:
  "The most serious difficulty which the schools "—
  that is, the junior secondary schools—
  "have had to face is the shortage of teachers. In October, 1961, the number of certificated teachers required to reduce over-sized classes, to replace uncertificated teachers and to fill other vacancies in secondary schools was estimated to be 3,810, and non-certificate courses as a rile have had to bear more than a proportionate share of the burden. Authorities generally feel obliged to give priority to the needs of the pupils following certificate courses, since it is from them that all the professions, including the teaching profession, depend for their recruits. Moreover, very many secondary schools teachers prefer senior secondary work."
  There is one very valid reason why many consider a junior secondary school to be an inferior appendage. Parity of staffing as between senior secondary schools and junior secondary schools just does not exist.
  There are many other reasons. For example, there are 2,107 uncertificated teachers in Scotland. In Renfrewshire, there are 148, of whom 68 are considered to be below standard. Six uncertificated teachers are in senior secondary schools and 69 are in junior secondary schools. Lanarkshire has 317 uncertificated teachers, 153 of whom are seriously below standard—even the standard of uncertificated teachers. There are 42 uncertificated teachers in senior secondary schools and 209 in junior secondary schools. Fifeshire has 242 uncertificated teachers, 94 of whom are below standard. There are only 11 in the senior secondary schools, whereas there are no fewer than 131 in the junior secondary schools. Furthermore, only two who are below standard are in the
  1162
  senior secondary schools, whereas there are 59 in the junior secondary schools.
  I have given the figures for only three educational authorities, but I think that I have made it clear why, on the second count, I condemn segregation. It is because the standard of staffing of our junior secondary schools is infinitely poorer than it is in the senior secondary schools.
  The effect of this segregation in primary schools is that teachers, naturally, wish pupils to do well in the promotion examination. They want to get as many as possible into the senior secondary schools and the result is often the distortion of the curriculum by over-concentration on those subjects in which the children will be examined. But there is an even worse side to the question. It often means concentration upon those pupils who are most likely to make the senior secondary grade. In effect, segregation sometimes appears in the primary schools a year or eighteen months before the promotion test. Under the present system of segregation we cannot blame the teachers for the detrimental results which flow from it. The third count on which I condemn segregation, therefore, is that it often leads to most serious ill-effects in primary education.
  What does the Secretary of State hope to achieve by the introduction of the O-level examination? I hope that one of his aims is to encourage more children to remain at school. If it is, I can tell him that he will be hindered in his aim by continuing segregation. In that part of the Report dealing with junior secondary schools, we find, in the last paragraph, that
  "These advances are greatly to be welcomed; yet a feeling of disappointment must remain that after five years, progress is still so slow and so uneven."
  Many children enter these schools already with a sense of failure. The Report shows that although there are a few bright
  spots the horizon is still a very dull one. This is not the atmosphere in which to encourage our young people to remain at school. Only education in some form of comprehensive school—and I am not dogmatic as to the form it should take—will ensure that an increased number of our young people remain at school.

  1163
  Glasgow is the one local authority that has gone ahead with the provision of comprehensive schools. It asked for a report on the question, and although the report is now about two years out of date I still regard it as important that the Secretary of State should know what it has to say about children remaining at school. It says:
  "There appears to be a small but growing desire on the part of pupils following the three-year course "—
  that is, those who are in comprehensive schools—
  "to ask to return for a fourth year. Shortage of staff prevents any encouragement of this trend."
  Is it not that an education authority that really is providing the kind of education that makes children want to stay at school is forced to say that shortage of staff prevents it from encouraging children to do so? Surely that is shocking. Some head teachers are most concerned that they cannot make provision for this emerging need. So there, in Glasgow, we find that some of the children who are in comprehensive schools and who would normally have gone to junior secondary schools are asking for a fourth year, and it is from those pupils we would hope greatly to increase the number taking the O-level examinations. Therefore, the fourth count on which I condemn segregation is that it will militate against many more pupils remaining at school to take the O-level.
  The Secretary of State—at least, the Government—had a Report in 1947 advising comprehensive education; he has had another Report fourteen years later. How much longer are we to wait to have this type of education in Scotland? It seems to me that the Secretary of State and his Department can use their influence with the education authorities to ensure that we do have it.
  I have taken too long, but I just want to say a few words about technical education. Again, many of us feel that if we are to encourage our children in junior secondary schools and senior secondary schools or comprehensive schools to take a real interest in technical education we have got to have greater co-ordination between the work which they do in their final years at
  1164
  school and what they will do in any form of further vocational education which is offered to them. We have not enough of that today. I find that the Secretary of State has set up another committee to examine this and to report. The Department's Report is full of mention of committees. Well, I hope that that report comes very quickly indeed, and that the Secretary of State will use his influence on this question of the curricula in the schools, because it is only if we catch the imagination and interest of our young people that we shall have them continue to seek further vocational education when they leave school.
  I see that the day-release figures are slightly improved, and we all welcome that, but they are still very poor indeed. Another committee of the Secretary of State has now advised compulsory registration of certain categories of young workers for whom technical education is necessary and for whom courses are ready. Is the Secretary of State going to act on that immediately? It is important that he should act, and on this I shall make the last quotation that I shall make today.
  This is from the Rector of Wishaw High School, one of our senior secondary school teachers. This is what he has to say:
  "Without undue optimism we can predict that there will be a vast increase in the number of certificate holders, but the chances of suitable employment for them are bleak. We, who have encouraged these pupils to stay on at school and make the most of their capacity, have surely some obligation in the matter: otherwise we lay ourselves open to something very near deception."
  That was on the question of their getting jobs. He went on:
  "A possible solution would be the provision of plenty of full-time places in further education technical colleges, but the new one for this area has still to be built."
  What an indictment. Here is a headmaster taking his responsibilities seriously, praising his staff and his pupils for their excellent results, and realising that there will not be jobs for these young people nor will there be the important alternative of further education —because the college is not built.
  We intend to vote this evening, because although the right hon. Gentleman may trot out many figures to show the good

  1165
  side, the bad side of education in Scotland is so very bad that the Government can he indicted in many matters. It is because we feel so strongly about this that we intend to vote against the Government.
  4.25 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): Until very nearly the concluding remarks of the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) I felt that I should be able to say that with a very large part of her speech I was in substantial agreement, but she will not expect me for one moment to agree with her final strictures on the Government. I can only feel that somebody's Division lists must he short and that hon. Members opposite are feeling that they ought to vote about something.
  Of course, I recognise that there are grave difficulties and problems in Scottish education at the moment. I think that the hon. Lady herself, in approaching some of the problems with which we are faced, did recognise the type of difficulty which we are up against. They are, in fact, difficulties common to every civilised country.
  I quite agree that it is the hon. Lady's right and her duty to criticise constructively what the Government of the day are trying to do to overcome the difficulties, and I propose in my speech to indicate briefly what we are doing. I listened with intense interest to what the hon. Lady had to say about the teacher shortage and the problems related to it, and I shall study it again afterwards, because she touched on matters we are giving a great deal of attention to, and which I shall examine again, being as constructive as possible, as, I believe, the hon. Lady was trying to be, in a very difficult situation. The problems of Scottish education are serious enough and sufficiently apparent. As I have said, they are just those problems which beset a service grappling with tasks greater in scale and complexity than ever before have been experienced, and in this, I repeat, Scottish education is in identically the same position as that in almost every other advanced country in the world today.
  Our continuing task has obviously got to be to give our young peple the best possible preparation for life in the
  1166
  rapidly changing and highly complex world in which they are to live. I shall devote most of what I say this afternoon to an examination of how we are tackling this and I shall be touching on a great many of the points which the hon. Lady mentioned in her very interesting speech.
  I will start with the questions of teachers and buildings. Of these two I propose to deal, first, with the one which is the less difficult, which is building, although it presents its own problems. The hon. Lady said that I would trot out figures to show what has happened. I propose to do so, because it is necessary to realise just what is happening.
  The total value of work done in 1961—this is not the figure which the hon. Lady used, but it is one we normally use for testing achievement in any given year—was £13¾ million, which represents the greatest amount of educational building work so far achieved in any year. Within this total, work on technical and commercial colleges accounted for £1½ million, which was double the corresponding amount for the previous year.
  Twenty-six new primary schools and 10 new secondary schools were completed, and alterations and extensions were carried out at a further 81 primary and 91 secondary schools. All this work has provided 39,000 new pupil places, bringing the total amount of new accommodation provided since the end of the war to 480,000 places, sufficient for more than half the number of pupils now in our schools.
  I know very well indeed that some schools are still far below what we should like, but the figures I have quoted do show real progress, and it is progress we intend to keep up. The hon. Lady referred particularly to one school—I personally know others as bad—but the fact is that we are steadily overtaking this work. With the best will in the world, it is simply not possible to achieve everything at once.
  A more formidable problem even than the provision of buildings is the supply of teachers. I agree with the hon. Lady that, as is said in the Report, the outlook is most disturbing. This session we have had just over 38,300 certificated teachers in service, an increase of

  1167
  684 over the previous session. As to the shortage—I should like to define it rather carefully and hope that hon. Members will note the definition; by it I mean the number of teachers needed to fill vacancies, reduce oversize classes and replace uncertificated teachers and teachers over 70 years of age. The shortage has risen and is now 3,810, and it will rise still higher.
  As the hon. Lady pointed out, the other figures are those which the Standing Committee on the Supply of Teachers estimated in its Fourth Report. It estimated that, although the number of teachers in service would rise to about 40,000 in 1966 and to over 43,000 in 1975, the demand would increase even faster to 45,000 in 1966 and almost 50.000 in 1975.
  Mr. J. Grimond: The right hon. Gentleman has talked about oversize classes. What standard size of class is he working on, and is it uniform?
  Mr. Maclay: I should not like to give a snap answer to that question, because there are some variations. I am not entirely certain what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind about the size of class.
  Mr. Grimond: The Secretary of State attached great importance to the definition of the shortage of teachers, and as part of the definition he has referred to the number of teachers in addition who are required to bring down the numbers in the oversize classes. I should like to know what standard size of class he is working on.
  Mr. Maclay: Certain standard sizes of class have been used for all these purposes. I have not the actual figures with me. They vary slightly according to circumstances. I will ensure that the right hon. Gentleman is supplied with the exact figures for different sizes of class.
  The difference between the numbers that we expect to have and those we shall need to achieve the standards that we want will, therefore, become about 5,000 in 1966 and 7,000 in 1975. Unfortunately, these figures take no account of the extra teachers that we shall need to reduce the prescribed class sizes
  1168
  further below the level to which we are working at the moment, or to raise the school-leaving age. Even when every allowance is made for the speculative nature of forecasts of this kind—they are bound to be speculative so many years ahead—there is no doubt that the figures give cause for serious concern.
  There are four principal causes of this increasing problem. First, there is the very heavy loss of young women teachers through earlier marriage. Between 1957 and 1961, in spite of the record recruitment of women teachers, the number of single women in service actually fell by just on 800. Six years after having been trained, only about one-third of women teachers may be expected still to be single. This may be a good thing from certain points of view, but it presents a very serious problem in relation to the supply of teachers.
  Secondly, there will be the abnormally heavy losses through retirals in the next ten years or so, particularly among graduates. There is a variety of reasons for it. It is one of the waves of age distribution in the population.
  Third and fourth, there are the factors now known as the "bulge" and the "trend". The first "bulge", the sharp postwar rise in the birth rate, has been followed by a second which shows no sign of ending. On top of this is the "trend"—the tendency for more and more pupils to stay on at school after the age of 15. We all welcome this, but it imposes immediate additional demands on our limited teaching force.
  This is the grave problem which is facing us, as it is almost every other advanced country. I do not think that anybody believes that there is any one simple solution—in a free society, anyway. We must all think about it constructively and try to arrive at sensible and practical solutions. I am very glad indeed that the Educational Institute of Scotland has decided to set up an ad hoc committee to formulate suggestions, and I shall be most interested to learn its conclusions in due course. For myself, I have already met representatives of the three Scottish teachers' associations for an exploratory discussion about the whole matter—it was very useful—and a further meeting is to take place later, probably in the autumn, when, I hope, we shall be ready to get

  1169
  down to the whole subject in more detail. In the meantime, we are making every effort to tackle the problem.
  Our best long-term hope lies in increasing the pool from which teachers are drawn, as the hon. Lady said, by encouraging pupils to stay at school and then carry on their studies at universities and colleges. The hon. Lady, rightly and understandably, attempted to draw me into detailed discussion of the universities' programme on the ground that I am the Minister responsible for education in Scotland so far as the teachers are concerned and that the universities play an essential part in providing the flow of teachers. That was ingenious; but I will not go into great detail on a matter which is not my primary responsibility in this debate, although as a member of the Government I have a responsibility.
  The real problem is that at any given moment there are only certain resources available for doing everything we have to do throughout the whole country, and the problem of deciding the relative priorities for the allocation of capital resources is an agonising one. There is no Minister in the Government more conscious of the problem than the Secretary of State for Scotland. Every day of my working life I am aware, because of the wide range of my responsibilities, of claims which could be made for increased expenditure over a wide range of projects and subjects. The simple answer is that we cannot do everything we want to at once. We are aware of the problem, and there have been substantial increases in the allocation of capital resources, even though there are some who say they are not enough.
  Miss Herbison: I will not touch further on the matter of university building, but will merely say that I think that the Government are wrong in their allocation of priorities. I expected an answer on a certain point, but the right hon. Gentleman seems to have left it. He says that we want to encourage more pupils to stay on at school. What does he propose to do about the recommendation made more than five years ago?
  Mr. Maclay: If the hon. Lady is referring to bursaries, I am just coming to that subject.
  1170
  We have substantially increased the allowances payable to students, and that should help. It is, again, a question of whether we can do all of this kind of thing simultaneously and effectively. It is difficult to know at what level school bursaries could be effective as a counter to the attraction of early entry into industry in one form or another. I recognise that this is an important point, and we are examining it again. At the moment, I am not too hopeful. I certainly cannot say anything positive this afternoon about the extent to which this kind of bursary might be increased.
  We expect that education will receive its due share of the increased output of the universities and central institutions. The salary increases which I prescribed
  last July were especially designed to encourage these able young people to become teachers, and we should know before long how far this inducement has proved successful. We could not get immediate results and cannot tell yet how far it has worked, but we are continuing to do everything we can to bring to the notice of students the attractions and opportunities offered by a career in teaching.
  For more immediate results there is the special recruitment scheme. This is designed to assist as many people as we can attract from other walks of life to train as teachers. It has been going well, bringing in 600 to 700 good candidates a year. We shall try to improve the publicity for this scheme. It is a scheme with which the hon. Lady had a great deal to do in its early days.
  The return of married women was also touched upon by the hon. Lady. Perhaps the most promising source from which we can hope to get more teachers quickly is married women who have trained as teachers. Many already remain in service for a year or two after marriage and others return to teaching when their families are off their hands. It is a remarkable thing that if all those women teachers who marry gave a year's extra service at some stage after marriage we should gain the equivalent of about 1,200 teachers. It would be an immense advantage and it is the biggest visible short-term gain that we have.
  A great deal is already being done to encourage married women to remain in or to return to service. Directors of

  1171
  education and headmasters were very successful last year in persuading them to come back. The number of married women in service rose by 315 to 8,105, or 144 more than the Committee on the Supply of Teachers expected. We are expecting before long to have the results of the inquiry which Professor Kelsall has been making into the reasons why married women decide whether or not to return to teaching. I await the report with interest. It should make fascinating reading. In the light of Professor Kelsall's conclusions we shall discuss with the education authorities and the teachers what further measures are desirable.
  The hon. Lady also mentioned another source which we must not overlook. It is the married women who were in other professions before marriage. Some at least may be later induced to take up teaching. They would be assisted financially during their training through the Special Recruitment Scheme. We are exploring this source. Intensive work is already being done during this period of great difficulty.
  Miss Herbison: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether any further thought has been given to making the year at training college much more attractive financially?
  Mr. Maclay: I should not like to give a quick answer to that question. We are examining what happens during that period at training college. I noted with particular interest the hon. Lady's remarks about the two terms for honours graduates. I am interested that she should raise this matter again. We shall consider carefully what she has said.
  I should like to say a few words about uncertificated teachers. There are now about 2,200 of them in the education authority schools, which is about 5 per cent. of the teaching force. I would emphasise that about 1,500 are graduates or have other good qualifications including teaching experience elsewhere, but 700 have qualifications seriously below standard. Our inspectors report that many uncertificated teachers are doing good or very good work, and this applies to quite a number even of those with seriously substandard qualifications. Nevertheless, they would not be em-
  1172
  ployed if certificated teachers were available. The obvious dilemma which faces an education authority is whether to employ uncertificated teachers or to have oversize classes or part-time education.
  I shall now leave the major problems
  of building and teaching and come to the constructive side of what is happening, but, first I should like to answer the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), who asked to what maximum class size we would work. The maximum prescribed for a primary class is 45 and for the first three years of secondary school it is 40. In the last three years of a secondary school the maximum is 30. There are minor variations in small schools with one or two teachers. That is why I was not risking answering the question out of my head when the right hon. Gentleman asked me.
  The problems which I have been
  describing are so serious and are so much in our minds that it is easy sometimes to overlook the very real educational progress that is being made. The whole job to be done by our schools, never an easy one, has been made still more difficult by the rapid pace of change in a modern world which calls for constant reappraisal of aims and methods. I should now like to tell the Committee something of what is being done to adapt the work of the schools to meet the needs of today, and, indeed, of tomorrow, and to ensure that all pupils, so far as is humanly possible, receive the education best suited to their capacities and needs.
  I shall not say very much about primary schools, because I have too much ground to cover and not because they are not extremely important, as obviously they are. We are engaged with representatives of the schools and the colleges of education in the preparation of a revised version of my Department's handbook on primary education, which I believe was very valuable in the past and a new version of which will take full account of modern trends.
  The hon. Lady referred to the procedure for the transfer of pupils from primary to secondary education. This concerns a great many people. The Advisory Council's Report to which she referred was published last December.

  1173
  It reached the conclusion that the working of the transfer schemes has hitherto been satisfactory as a whale, but it drew attention to the need for a proper understanding by the public and by parents of the need for some method of assessment of children at the end of their primary schooling and of the way in which this is done.
  There is certainly room for experiments in methods. In recent years certain authorities have modified their procedures substantially. I am also looking for a flexible approach to the initial allocation of pupils to secondary courses. It seems preferable that transfer boards should not attempt to go beyond a broad allocation of pupils between certificate courses and other courses, leaving the headmaster to arrange at a later stage for more specific allocation once there has been time to assess the pupil's aptitudes for secondary education. I have asked education authorities to review their existing transfer schemes in the light of the Advisory Council's recommendations and to give special attention to devising means by which parents can be given a better understanding of what is involved.
  The pattern of secondary courses is itself now much more diversified than it used to be. A much wider range is now available, and there is also a wider scope for diversity in the way in which secondary education is organised. The comprehensive school has advantages in a number of respects, and we have always recognised this in Scotland. Although it may not be appropriate in all the circumstances, we are ready to approve proposals from authorities which consider that the comprehensive pattern of organisation best meets the circumstances of their area.
  The hon. Lady said that I should be pressing all local authorities in this direction. I am not sure that she is right. It is a matter of opinion, but I do not fully accept her argument that we should press everybody to follow this model.
  Mr. John Rankin: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that in a society which I assume he claims to be democratic the comprehensive system of education is the one best fitted to promote the idea of democracy?
  Mr. Maclay: This brings us back to the age-old discussion in the House of Commons, and particularly in the Scottish Committee, where, when I tell a local authority to do something, I am described as a dictator and when I do not tell it I am told that I am wrong. Hon. Members must make up their minds whether they want me to be an absolute or a partial dictator. I have my own views, but I will not develop them now.
  There has been a spectacular increase in the number of candidates in this year's examination for the Scottish Certificate of Education—over 43,500 compared with 18,500 last year. This, of course, reflects the introduction of the ordinary grade of the Scottish Certificate of Education. This is designed for pupils in their fourth year and it replaces the old lower grade which was designed for pupils in their fifth year. More than 20,000 of the candidates for the ordinary grade were in their fourth year. This large number shows that in introducing the new grade we have met a real need. Success in this grade is the key to admission to many skilled occupations and courses of professional training. With its introduction, many more pupils now have an incentive to stay on longer and round off their courses in an effective way. There has also been a very satisfactory increase in the number of candidates presented on the higher grade, from 16,100 in 1961 to about 18,500 this year.
  There is another innovation which I should mention. The former leaving certificate could be taken only at school, but older students may now take the certificate in further education centres. Even in the first year, we had about 1,200 candidates in 70 different centres, a quarter of them for the higher grade. I am sure that the Committee will agree that it is excellent that people should have this "second chance", and I expect the numbers to advance rapidly.
  Another far-reaching development is our decision to introduce in the school session 1964–65 an advanced grade in the examination. We have no wish to see in our Scottish schools over-specialisation of the kind that has been the subject of a good deal of criticism south of the Border. On the other hand, it is important, not least for the transition from school to university, that work in

  1175
  our sixth year should have a certain degree of concentration and depth, and above all that the pupils should be encouraged in habits of private study and independent thinking. I fear that if has been one of the faults so far in our Scottish system that, in this last year, pupils are not sufficiently learning, thinking and studying for themselves. We are very conscious of this and are doing what we can to bring about an improvement. I believe that the advanced grade will do much in this direction.
  The preparatory work on syllabuses is being undertaken by a series of informal committees on which my Department has brought together representatives of the teachers, of the colleges of education and of the universities. It is a very satisfactory development that we have got these people together on this kind of subject.
  Hon. Members will recall that the Advisory Council on Education in the same Report which recommended the introduction
  of the advanced grade recommended also the appointment of an examinations board representative of the education interests concerned to take over from my Department the conduct of the entire examination for the Scottish Certificate of Education. This recommendation we have accepted. I gather that education opinion in Scotland approves of this. While the arrangements will necessarily take some time to complete, I intend to make the change as soon as practicable.
  Hon. Members have always shown a very proper concern for the interests of those of our secondary pupils—about two-thirds of the total—who are not following courses leading to the certificate, but who will provide the majority of our future citizens. In a comprehensive review published in 1955, my Department offered practical guidance on the ways in which pupils in these junior secondary courses might be given the best preparation for grown-up life. Since that time, changes in the organisation of secondary courses have produced a more diversified pattern than the traditional division into senior secondary and junior secondary. Nevertheless, the problem of devising a really suitable education for pupils whose bent
  1176
  is practical rather than academic still remains, and in the Report the opportunity has been taken to review the progress made in this important field since 1955.
  I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I dwell on this for some time, because this survey is one of the most interesting and important sections of the Report. It shows that positive and imaginative efforts have been made by a good many schools to provide an education suited to the needs of their pupils, and that there has been a lot of admirable and welcome experiment. There have been new and stimulating approaches to the ordinary subjects, for example, where science has been linked with local industry in Stirlingshire, and science and mathematics to bulb cultivation and the reseeding of common grazings, of which we heard a good deal this morning, in the Outer Isles.
  There have been efforts to effect a link between work and recreation through hobbies periods, as they are called, and to encourage interest in the arts through music, art and dramatic clubs. Pupils have gained experience in responsibility by taking part in the running of their own school functions, concerts, parties and the like, and have learned something of social responsibility through such activities as helping old-age pensioners or supporting enterprises like the World Refugee Year.
  Developments of this kind are by no means confined to the larger schools. Some quite small schools in the Northern counties have been conspicuously successful in this kind of activity. What is remarkable also and highly creditable is that many of the schools which are having serious
  staffing difficulties have, nevertheless, found it possible to raise standards and develop new methods and activities over the whole range of which I have been speaking. After tribute has been paid to these admirable developments, it may seem ungracious to say that there are still not nearly enough of them. It is important that far more schools should follow the excellent examples which are being set.
  Another most important matter which has been emphasised fairly often is the need to develop much more effective links than now exist between junior secondary courses and courses of further

  1177
  education—the hon. Lady referred to this—and I hope soon to receive the report of the representative working party which has been going very fully into the problem.
  Throughout the whole educational scene, we find a remarkable number of committees, working parties, advisory bodies, and so on. I have often asked myself whether there are far too many of them or not enough, and whether we should be using this method of approach. On consideration, I think that we are about right. So many of the matters we have to deal with must not be imposed from the centre but must be the result of working out with a lot of interested people what is felt to be right. Nevertheless, I sometimes wonder whether we have rather too many of these bodies.
  Sir M. Galpern: The Secretary of State needs them all.
  Miss Herbison: Why not take their advice sometimes?
  Mr. Maclay: I hear the hon. Lady say that it would be a good thing to follow cheir advice. In her speech, she advised me at one point to follow their advice, but at another, when she was dealing with the question of the two or three-term course, she advised me to go against the advice of one of my committees. There is no hard and fast rule. I think that we want to be stimulated by the advice of these committees and pay a lot of attention to it, doing what we think right in the long run.
  I come now to senior secondary education. The curriculum has been extensively overhauled, especially in those subjects which have been most profoundly affected by the advances in knowledge which are going on in our own time. For example, in the increasingly important subject of physics new syllabuses have been issued as alternatives to the traditional syllabuses and these new syllabuses are designed to bring physics teaching into line with modern concepts of the subject. This new approach makes very heavy demands on our teachers, and special courses in the teaching of the new syllabuses are being provided. The same applies to chemistry. Revised syllabuses are expected to come out
  1178
  shortly. We are working closely with the Nuffield Foundation in its study of the teaching of science in British schools. My Department's specialist in physics has been seconded to direct this aspect of the Nuffield Foundation's study.
  In mathematics, the syllabuses need revision and, as hon. Members know, we are faced with a growing shortage of teachers here which is more serious than in any other subject. The Committee on the Supply of Teachers estimates that by 1975 we shall have less than half the honours graduate teachers of mathematics that we need. The universities are as worried as anybody, and we are getting together with their mathematics professors, with teachers and with other people concerned to see what changes are necessary in the schools and in university and other courses to help to meet the situation. There is not a simple solution.
  Mr. James Dempsey: There is a solution.
  Mr. Maclay: The hon. Gentleman must know that there is not a simple solution. It must be worked out very carefully. If he thinks that there is, I shall wait with interest to hear what he has to say later.
  I should have liked to touch on many other aspects of the work of the schools —the need to review methods of teaching modern languages, progress in education research, our interest in the experimental work with what is called programmed instruction, the necessary basis for the "teaching machine", and the use of visual aids in the schools. But there is not time for me to go over the whole range of the work which we are trying to do.
  Mr. Dempsey: I am interested in the point which the right hon. Gentleman has made about the comprehensive nature of the instructions which he is approving. How does he propose to implement these suggestions in the school at Coatbridge, where the rector says that he has not enough accommodation to fulfil the Scottish Education Department's present curriculum, quite apart from any extended curriculum?
  Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member is using a useful method of getting in an important constituency point, which I agree is

  1179
  a very serious one, and I say that absolutely sincerely, but he did hear what I said about what is happening about building. Both the hon. Member and the hon. Lady know some of the problems which we are up against in school building in Lanarkshire, and I do not propose to go into them in detail this afternoon.
  This catalogue which I have been giving
  of work going on and of consultation with various bodies will have shown hon. Members that we are in very close consultation on many matters with the teachers. This links up with what I said in a debate in May of last year, when I expressed my readiness to join with the profession and the education authorities in an examination of outstanding matters of concern to the teachers.
  As I think the Committee knows, we discussed them with representatives of the Educational Institute, and, after these discussions, I set up several bodies, the first of which has already presented its report. This was the Working Party appointed last November to review the arrangements in my own Department and teachers' associations for consultation on educational matters.
  The Report endorsed the existing arrangements as generally satisfactory. It recommended that they should be supplemented by the appointment of a consultative committee which should be representative of the Department and of the main teachers' associations which are at present regularly consulted on matters affecting the curriculum, school organisation and the like.
  The Report has been welcomed, and I am proposing to set up that consultative committee at an early date. I am sure that it will be of considerable help both to us and to the teachers. Three other working parties are at present considering respectively the questions of relations between teachers and education authorities, of the eligibility of teachers for co-option to education authorities, and of pensions for widows and dependents of teachers. I understand that all these committees are making good progress, and that their reports will be published soon.
  The main inquiry was entrusted to a committee under the chairmanship of
  1180
  Lord Wheatley, which is reviewing the present arrangements for the award and withdrawal of certificates of competency to teach. It, too, is making progress. I am not certain when Lord Wheatley's Committee will be able to report, for it has a very heavy and difficult task; but I am sure that hon. Members will join with me in hoping that these inquiries, which together amount to a very comprehensive review of the status and conditions of service of teachers, will produce a useful result and help to create a better atmosphere than that in which we were living for a certain period of time.
  If the best is to be made of the work of the schools, there must be proper facilities for higher education. As the hon. Lady pointed out towards the end of her speech, there is no need to over-emphasise it, because we all know the immense importance to Scotland of the best possible training at all levels of technical, managerial and commercial skills. I am glad to say that the technical and commercial college building programme started in 1956 is now showing substantial results. Works to the value of almost £23 million have so far been approved, and yet more are being planned. Works to the value of just on £13 million are now under construction, and completions should increase steadily from now on.
  In the autumn of this year, the large and important College of Commerce and Distributive Trades in Glasgow will come into use. The work it will do has already aroused interest right outside this country, and we have had inquiries about it from countries in Europe. The new centre at Arbroath will be open in September, and I hope that the new technical college at Falkirk will be ready early in the coming session. In 1963 and 1964, we should see the completion of a dozen other major centres at present under construction, including, for example, the 15-storey College of Building and Printing which has now become a rather striking feature of the skyline of Central Glasgow.
  Although the demand for places for day-release students has been rising steadily—the Committee should know that the number of students in 1961 was more than a third greater than in 1956, but I am by no means satisfied with

  1181
  these figures—there has so far been no general difficulty in finding accommodation. Some authorities have acquired or adapted existing premises to meet urgent needs. For example, the administrative block of the North British Locomotive Company, in Springburn, has been acquired by Glasgow, and I am always prepared to consider exceptional proposals on these lines to meet the needs of industry.
  Mr. William Baxter: The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the new technical college being built at Falkirk by the Stirlingshire education authority, and has said that it is likely that it would be ready early next session. I believe that the Stirlingshire County Council Education Committee has approached the Secretary of State asking him to permit the contractors to work overtime in order to get the college finished before the beginning of next session. I understand from Press reports that the right hon. Gentleman has refused to agree to that overtime being worked. How can he then expect the college to be ready at the beginning of next session?
  Mr. Maclay: I am always glad to discover what I have done and what I have not done, and I will certainly examine what the hon. Gentleman has said.
  The building programme which I have been describing as already approved or under consideration should be enough to meet the foreseeable demands at the apprentice and technician level, but further projects will certainly be considered if the need arises.
  So far as staff is concerned, the number of whole-time teachers in further education has increased by 45 per cent. in the period from 1956 to 1961. This is a very substantial advance, and further increases can be expected, but we are concerned with quality as well as numbers, and we have to make certain that teachers recruited from industry and commerce not only are well qualified but also that they have adequate opportunities for professional training. A scheme has been devised whereby men and women who are interested in transferring from industry or commerce to teaching in further education can make the transition smoothly and with the minimum of financial inconvenience.
  1182
  The first of the new pre-service and in-service courses of training for further education teachers is now taking place at Jordanhill College of Education. It is
  being attended by 54 students, of whom 50 are teachers in service who have been released from their employing authorities. Their special interests range widely, including engineering, building, catering, hairdressing and printing. In addition to this course, we are proposing to introduce a central register of intending teachers about which I shall be making a fuller announcement later this month.
  Clearly, these measures for the expansion and improvement of technical education will require the full support of industry. It was the uncertainty of this factor which caused me a year ago to ask the Scottish Technical Education Consultative Council for advice on the progressive development of day release. The Committee which it set up under
  Mr. Charles Oakley recently presented its first report, in which it made a number of important recommendations for development within the existing voluntary framework.
  I have already commended these suggestions to education authorities, but the one
  which has attracted most attention is that for a scheme of compulsory registration of young people training for skilled occupations. This would require legislation, and I am at present awaiting the views of many different interests involved. I should emphasise that what has been proposed is not a scheme for compulsory day release. The Oakley Committee is going on to consider whether this would be practicable for selective categories. The present proposal is for registration of young people in selected categories for selective employment.
  Mr. Arthur Woodburn: The Minister is running the question of the training colleges into that of day release before I have been able to interrupt him at the proper time. I should like to ask a question about the period at the training college, because a great deal of stress is being placed by the teachers on the necessity for qualifications from the training college. I understand that considerable financial difficulty, or, at any

  1183
  rate, a financial barrier, prevents a number of people from considering that. Is he prepared to consider payment for people such as he has been describing when they take courses at training colleges? Could that not be regarded the same as already being in the job, because the gap when they have to go without money might be sufficient to deter them from taking the necessary training?
  Mr. Maclay: I agree that that is a matter that needs to be looked at carefully. I should not like to give a snap answer. I will look at it, however, and perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be able to touch on it in his winding-up speech.
  The present proposal of the Oakley Committee is for registration of young people in selected categories of skilled employment such as apprentices. Whether or not this proposal goes forward, I am sure that the provision of the new courses announced last year and the opening of the new colleges will result in a steady development in technical education in the next few years. There can be no possible doubt about this. It is something that we badly need.
  Another important new development is the increasing part that the education service is playing in industrial training as distinct from technical education. The Annual Report refers to the development of first-year full-time apprenticeship courses in local technical colleges. When the Report was published, courses were being offered in Edinburgh only, but they are now being offered in both Glasgow and Paisley in the coming session and developments elsewhere are coming along.
  The Annual Report also refers to an experimental scheme whereby a group of engineering apprentices during the first three years of their apprenticeship would receive industrial training together with technical education in a full-time course held in a technical college. This
  scheme, which has had the general approval of the employers' associations and the trade unions, has now been worked out in detail by the Technical Education Consultative Council. I understand that at a meeting in Glasgow yesterday there was a good response
  1184
  from the firms represented and I have every hope that a good proportion of the 40 places available will be taken up and that the course will start in the autumn. This is an interesting new development.
  I apologise for giving such a long list, but a great deal is going on and I am anxious to put on record just how much is happening in education. One side on which I must touch and with which hon. Members would wish me to deal is what is happening in the Youth Service. With the valuable help and backing of Lord Kilbrandon's Youth Council—I am extremely grateful to Lord Kilbrandon and to the members of the Council for the great attention they have given to this work, to which I pay tribute—we are doing what we can from the centre to stimulate and co-ordinate the development of the youth service.
  The "pump-priming" scheme of capital grants to voluntary bodies for local purposes is working well. The scheme is encouraging local bodies to launch out on ventures and education authorities to assist them. There are signs that this essential co-operation at local level will continue.
  In places like Falkirk, Stirling, Glasgow, Kilbirnie, Dundee and Dunoon, new or renovated facilities for young people are appearing where they were sadly lacking before. A good example of how it is working is the new and very well equipped joint Y.W.C.A.-Y.M.C.A. centre which is being built in the new town of Glenrothes. It will cost £20,000, of which £6,000 is contributed by my Department, £6,000 by Fife education authority and the balance by voluntary effort. This is a very good way of getting this kind of work going in which everybody concerned takes part.
  More important even than the premises, however, are the leaders, and the Moray House College of Education training course for full-time youth leaders is about to produce its second crop of trained men and women. The whole lot of them have already been offered employment and almost all, I am glad to say, are staying in Scotland.
  There is one other small development which I must mention, because it is a useful one. My Department is producing

  1185
  a new quarterly publication called "Scottish Youth News". It is getting quite a big circulation already. Its purpose is to keep leaders and others informed of all that is going on and of current trends and ideas. This can be valuable.
  Mr. Rankin: Will the right hon. Gentleman supply it to us?
  Mr. Maclay: I will supply it to the hon. Member for a consideration.
  I have covered a good deal of ground in this speech, as did the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North. In a subject as interesting and important, at this criticial moment we were both entitled to cover the points which we considered important. I have done so deliberately, because in spite of our obvious difficulties—and they are serious —it should be realised how much vitality there is in Scottish education and how well it is adapting itself to the changing needs of our time.
  I repeat that the stresses which Scottish education is experiencing are extremely uncomfortable. They must, however, be seen in their proper context. The context is that of a service which is expanding in size and range and which is doing its utmost to provide the varied and complex pattern of education which our country must have if it is to meet the rapidly growing demands of what must be called a new age.
  5.16 p.m.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I wish to pay tribute to my friend and predecessor, the late John Taylor. We in West Lothian know that he died of overwork in the service of his constituents, in the service of his party, and in the service of his country. The Committee might also wish to know that on Saturday I was asked by George Mathers, Who was Member for West Lothian between 1935 and 1951, if I would pass on his good will to those on both sides of the House of Commons who knew him.
  As a maiden speaker, I am entitled to certain courtesies from the other side of the Committee. Therefore, I think that I ought not to indulge in my profound and controversial criticisms of the Government's educational thinking but, will confine myself to certain problems of
  1186
  the secondary school, particularly related to the better use of teaching power.
  The first of these problems concerns headmasters. Is it really imperative that headmasters, who are highly skilled and successful teaching practitioners, should be tied up with milk returns and with lengthy telephone calls to education offices, often about nothing much in particular, and should sometimes be concerned with being taxi-man to wee Jeanie who decides that she is feeling ill and wants to go home?
  There is a case for having a special administrative assistant who is not just a shorthand-typist, possibly recently just out of school, who is of the calibre to take a whole range of minor decisions. A new profession should be set up, which could be called the School Administrative Service, with promotion and rates of pay comparable to branches of the Civil Service.
  I am convinced that headmasters, in their own being and in their own souls, would be happier people if they could return to the classroom for, say, half a day each schoolday, if they could make use of their teaching and their academic expertise, and get to know some of their pupils better. Is it not strange that a man who has been a successful teacher of algebra or French for a quarter of a century should suddenly find himself transferred to a totally different occupation because the business of petty administration, being headmaster of a school, is totally different from the profession of a teacher? Let us relieve these skilled men of their chores and set up a school administrative service to help them.
  Hon. Members may say that this really would not do and that headmasters must be available to interview parents. This is where I part company from the bulk of present educational thinking. I do not believe that headmasters are the people to interview the majority of parents. This should be done by the class teacher, the form teacher, or what some of us call the "register" teacher.
  I can tell the Committee that—never mind their politics—the majority of the electors of West Lothian, in their capacity as parents, are profoundly dissatisfied with headmasters' interviews. They frequently say—whatever their

  1187
  politics "The rector has never heard of my Peter. He was just a name to him before I went to the interview." To be fair, a rector cannot be expected to know every child, except by sight or by name, among 850 different pupils. Therefore, the present suggestion is that we allocate from the Estimates which we are now discussing money to provide—perhaps at a fee of £3 a time—for individual teachers to come to a clinic, once a month, on an advertised date, between the hours of say six o'clock and nine o'clock in the evening.
  First, I wish to deploy the advantages of such a proposal and then to focus the attention of hon. Members on the snags. The first advantage is represented by the contact which would be established. Often parents have volunteered to me, in my capacity as a canvassing politician, "My George cannot get along with Mr. X. Mr. X is, therefore, Q.E.D. a bad teacher". But in my capacity as a teacher, Mr. X may
  be known to me as a competent and conscientious colleague. It seems to me that there is nothing between the parent and the teacher which could not be put right in a five-minute interview if they were able to get to know each other and if a bid were made by the teacher for parental support.
  This whole concept of a confidential contact assumes added importance when many teachers have to travel, for instance, from Edinburgh to Bathgate or from Kilmalcolm to Glasgow. In the days of the "village dominie", who was a "kenspeckle figure" I should not have been urging the Government to pay for teachers to provide interviews. But in this year, which some people call "42 after
  Ford" one must accept the fact that many teachers have precious little connection with the community in which they operate. I think that the timing of the clinic from, six o'clock until nine is crucial to my argument. It is partly that between nine o'clock in the morning and four o'clock in the afternoon a teacher is too busy to see parents individually. It is partly because the fathers are out at work, but much more important is the point that pupils do not want their parents to be seen in the school during school hours.
  1188
  This is related to the whole "folk lore" of children. Somehow they think that by coming to school in school hours their parents would be carrying favour with the teachers. They use reasons which would seem strange and curious to the adult world, but to children there are pressing reasons why parents should not come to the school during school hours. These feelings must be respected. I know many parents who would like to visit the school but when asked by me, "Why did you not put this right with the rector?" they reply, "Jeanette did not want me to come." We may think that this is trivial, but it is not trivial in the actual circumstances. It would be totally different if we paid fees for assistant teachers to conduct interviews out of school hours.
  I think that young teachers would gain from such clinic interviews. The first thing that they would gain would be that elusive status which they want so much but which cannot be bestowed by we politicians or legislators. Status would come to those who met parents and who could explain to them all the good things that were being done for their youngsters. Far too often the only contact between a travelling teacher and a parent occurs at a time when things go wrong; at a time of minor crisis; at a time when there is likely to be antagonism. I would wish for additional contacts, and I think that this might be achieved by out-of-school-hours clinics.
  Secondly—I would rather that hon. Members did not smile at this; it is important to a young man fresh from training college—if they had these interviews, young teachers would get some of the appreciation that they richly deserve, or often richly deserve. Frequently the criticism is made that teachers in their forties are cynical, frustrated and—worst of all—sarcastic. They would not be cynical or frustrated or sarcastic, I believe, if in their early twenties or early thirties they had had a word of appreciation. I am not asking for flattery for my colleagues. I am making the observation that many parents, sometimes relatively inarticulate people, would like to say, "Thank you" to the teachers for what they have done. But they have not the opportunity to do so. The House may be assured that

  1189
  a small proportion of unsolicited encouragement would have a disproportionate effect on the output and the quality of the output of teachers.
  I think that from these individual interviews young teachers would get an understanding of their pupils that would serve them well in their relations with youngsters, and would certainly serve them in good stead when they become headmasters. Hon. Members may take it from me that there is a certain quite important dividend in the thought in the minds of the youngsters, "Well, teacher kens my dad." That goes a long way and can be very helpful.
  There are objections to teachers' clinics. The first is the parent-teacher association. Many schools do not have parent-teacher associations. I do not believe, when the first contact is made in an atmosphere of tea and scones, that a parent gets on the same wavelength as the teacher in discussing a number of views. I do not think that at these meetings the serious business that both parties would like to discuss can very well be discussed, particularly in the environment of a mass of other people.
  The second objection to teachers' clinics is of an altogether different and more weighty nature. It is that the teachers will make mistakes and that they do not have enough experience. Certainly they will make blunders. But I would wager that the young teacher will give more satisfaction to parents than would a headmaster to whom a pupil is no more than a name on a record card. The idea of a fire-eating parent who will bully young teachers is a myth, because 98 per cent. of the parents who take the trouble to come would be helpful to a young and inexperienced teacher. Those same parents may be very annoyed with a rector who gave second-hand answers.
  Equally, in anticipation of being confronted by parents, the quality of a teacher's work may well improve. I find it quaint that I am supposedly fit to represent 59,000 electors in this House of Commons. Yet, two months ago, under the system, I should not have been considered fit to interview a couple of parents at my registered class. What I claim for myself in the way of good sense I would certainly claim, neither more nor less, for every teacher in his
  1190
  twenties. Given their head they can take responsibility and failure and will be the better and more proved educators for it. I would ask the Secretary of State to give them their head and give them responsibility, when he will get far more of them.
  There are problems connected with the wastage of time by skilled teachers. One thinks of the hours spent toiling away with difficult bandas and obstinate cyclostyle machines preparing papers or notes for classes. One thinks of the time spent on mechanical corrections which could be done by anyone over the age of twenty-one. I am not complaining about the seven or eight hours which it would take any conscientious person to correct the compositions of a third-year class of forty. That is fair enough, and it needs the mature judgment of a teacher. But I am complaining about work which could be done very easily by other people.
  One also thinks of interruptions of class work. This may seem trivial to the House of Commons, but I am certain that it depreciates the efficiency of a teacher by at least 15 per cent., particularly such things, for example, as the objectionable practice of sending junior secondary pupils round the mixed school with messages. The deduction which they draw is, "Teacher can easily spare us from the class. Our education is not very important to him nor to the authorities." In these circumstances, I solemnly suggest to hon. Members that every department in every secondary school should have a secretary. Hon. Members may think this is going too far and is ridiculous, but every puppy business executive in the City of London seems to have a secretary. I do not take the view that teachers should not have a priority over puppy business executives. If hon. Members boggle at that, they would probably approve of appointing laboratory assistants to every science department. This is a priority.
  I am most concerned with the problem of the "lost" pupils, by which I mean those who have embarked on five-year courses but suddenly leave at 15 or 16 for no very articulate reason. It is partly a matter of inadequate fourth-year grants. When the Secretary of State asks where he should inject money into the system, I suggest it would be

  1191
  most worthwhile to inject it into fourth-year grants, particularly for girls. It may not always be a question of the actual purchasing power of the family. What teenagers tell me—many have said this—is, "We have two or three brothers or sisters and we feel it would be an embarrassment to our parents to go on living on them any longer." So, if the right hon. Gentleman has money to inject into the system, here is the place to do it.
  It is not wholly a financial question. There is the need for patience and sympathy during the time of puberty and biological change. I know boys and girls who were good scholars at 13 and again at 17 but at 15 drove me as a teacher to despair. Those are the ones who either by luck or courage have stayed on. What about all those of 15 and 16 who took a snap, hasty decision to leave school? I believe they and the country are the worse for it.
  Unfortunately, these biological differences coincide with a change in academic life. The fourth year in mathematics is the time they start calculus and in history they have to start to answer questions which require judgment no longer will the simple regurgitated answer of fact do. At this difficult point marginal pupils need help. It seems significant that in a town of 12,000, in West Lothian only two pupils are attempting higher mathematics and both are being privately coached by the
  ex-rector of the school, who is in his mid-seventies. What he says is meaningful: "I have taught them a little mathematics, but I have helped them to find out for themselves how to work." When the Secretary of State says that he wishes that Scots pupils would do more thinking for themselves, I suggest to him that they need to be helped to think for themselves.
  It is in the light of these considerations that I make the suggestion that generous funds should be given to any education authority which is prepared to hire retired teachers to give special coaching to marginal pupils at the request of their headmaster. There would be advantages in this. It could be done either in the
  school or in private homes by retired colleagues. It would augment their meagre pension. I hope that any
  1192
  money they were to receive if this scheme were adopted would not be deducted from their rightful pension. It would also give an opportunity for those who have neither the health nor qualifications to go on teaching at 67 or 68 a class of thirty-seven or forty pupils and it would give them a feeling that they were wanted.
  There is nothing more ridiculous in our society in the nineteen-sixties than the idea that a man who is working full speed ahead at 64 must suddenly cease at the magic date of his 65th birthday. Having gone full steam ahead on Friday afternoon, he then must do no more work on Monday morning because he has reached the magic age of 65. Surely there is an argument for allowing people to cease work gradually?
  In the light of this, I suggest that five groups of two or three pupils might go to retired teachers once a week each, or that teachers of 70 to 75, if they have the inclination, might have two or three groups of pupils twice a week. Some teachers might say, "Let us retire in peace". I would not inflict extra work on them, but I know many who would welcome such a scheme, not chiefly on financial grounds, but chiefly on humane grounds because they would feel that the world still needs them. I know of youngsters who would reap the benefit from such an idea. I know that some will say, "Can we afford the schemes you have produced this afternoon?" I prefer to put it the other way and to say, "Can we afford not to do these things?".
  5.36 p.m.
  Mr. John Brewis: It gives me great pleasure to congratulate most sincerely the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on his maiden speech. He spoke with great authority on a subject on which he possesses a considerable amount of knowledge, and we all listened to him with fascination. I wish to say how much we appreciated as Members of the House of Commons his tribute to Mr. John Taylor, who was a very respected Member and was known to a great many of us.
  What the hon. Member said, particularly about teacher clinics, I thought extremely interesting, but one of the difficulties we find in Scottish education

  1193
  is getting the parents to come forward and co-operate with the teachers. In America, seemingly, this is much easier. They have a great deal of success with their parent-teacher associations, but unfortunately this seems to have hung fire a little in Scotland. I feel that it would be difficult to lay down any definite rule because schools in Scotland vary so much. I could well understand that the head teacher of a small school would wish to interview all the parents himself and not leave it to his class teachers.
  We have today a very interesting Report from the Scottish Education Department, on which I congratulate the Department. The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and the Secretary of State for Scotland have spoken at considerable length on a number of interesting subjects. I can pick out only one or two matters in the time available to me as a back-bench member. As the age bulge passes through the secondary schools we must consider secondary education as very important, although primary education is the basis on which a child's education is started.
  In the last four years we have built twenty-two new junior secondary schools and twenty-nine new comprehensive secondary schools. As my right hon. Friend said, that shows that we have no particular bias on this question and are prepared to leave the choice of school to the local authority concerned. We should all realise what a tremendous effect these new schools have on the morale not only of the pupils in the school but also the teachers who work in them, when they get new laboratories, workshops, halls, and practice rooms in brand-new schools.
  Many of us feel that sometimes there are too many frills about the education system, but if we are to retain the high place which we occupy in the world, we cannot look back. If education had stayed at the level of a hundred years ago, there can be no doubt that the standard of living in this country would be very much lower today. The standard of living depends so much on the export of engineering goods and other goods in which invention is so important that we cannot possibly look back. We must look forward in education.
  1194
  The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North referred to completions being down in the last year. She is entirely correct, but I would point out that the number of projects approved, projects started and projects under construction for school building is very much higher, particularly in connection with technical education.
  The Report states—and I think that this is interesting—that there is a great acceptance of the fact that the junior secondary school provides a good education. We must thank the staff of the junior secondary school for what they are doing in making practical non-certificate work interesting for the pupils. The junior secondary school also gives boys whose bent is non-academic a chance to develop their character and to assume a certain measure of leadership which they would not find in a comprehensive school.
  Whereas in the senior secondary school there should be a connection with the universities and other academic institutions, there is room for the junior secondary school to have a closer connection with adult life. There should be visits to factories in local towns in order that boys can see the sort of work which they may well be doing when they leave school. They can then appreciate that what they are learning in wookworking or
  metal working will have an application for them in their later life. Much the same can be said about the junior secondary schools in agricultural districts, where the boys can learn a great deal about farming. There is an interesting piece in the Department's Report showing that some of the bulb growing research in the Island of Lewis was done in the secondary school there, and I understand that a number of crofters have taken up the cultivation of bulbs, which may in time become quite a prosperous local industry.
  I notice that about 35 per cent. of all secondary pupils attend the senior secondary or certificate course in Scotland. The Secretary of State has given more recent figures, but the figures for the Scottish leaving certificate last year were 18,562 presenting for the examination and 11,438 passes. Both of these figures are higher than the previous year. The figures
  which the Secretary of State gave are on a different basis.

  1195
  It seems that about 14,000 pupils have been leaving school without taking the Scottish leaving certificate at all. It may be that some of these would have done better had they gone into more practical non-certificate work at the junior secondary schools throughout the country.
  Turning for a moment to the subjects which were taken last year in the Scotish leaving certificate, I was interested to see that there were 71 passes in Russian and that the figure had risen from 33 in the previous year. It is pleasant to see that there has been a considerable improvement. Obviously, providing teaching of Russian cannot be particularly easy. At the same time, I hazard a guess that those 71 pupils who have passed in Russian will find their studies much more relevant to the modern world than will the 362 who passed in ancient Greek or the 3,733 who passed in Latin. This, I am afraid, is rather a hobby horse of mine, because having studied ancient Greek when I was a boy, I can say that I remember absolutely nothing whatever of it, not even the letters of the alphabet. Although one cannot be dogmatic about this, it seems that one can get just the same academic exercise studying French and even more academic exercise from Russian, which sometimes declines its words at both ends and is even more complicated than Greek.
  Mr. Rankin: While I appreciate much of what the hon. Member said, may I ask whether he realises that in Russia there are 24,000 teachers who are teaching English? Does this show him how far we are behind on the road which he would like us to traverse?
  Mr. Brewis: I thank the hon. Member for that very interesting piece of information. I think that we are in agreement on what ought to be done. It has always seemed to me that there is a
  self-interest in the teaching of the classics; we produce more teachers to teach more children in the classics and they in turn produce more teachers of the classics. I was interested to see that out of a shortage of 3,810 teachers in Scotland, we are short of only nine teachers of the classics.
  No one can make a speech on Scottish education without mentioning the short-
  1196
  age of teachers which is making the whole problem of the junior secondary schools and all secondary education very much more difficult for the staff. There has been some improvement, but it seems to me that ultimately it must depend on the proportion of educated manpower we can turn out from the universities. It seems that the proportion who go into teaching is fairly constant.
  The bulge will hit the universities in about 1964. I feel that when that happens hon. Members will receive a great many letters from people whose children have not been able to find the place in the universities to which they are entitled. To a certain extent the Government are victims of their own propaganda, because by encouraging boys to stay at school longer and to take more and more courses they are producing material which then will be unable to go to the university and in turn will not be abe to help to meet the teacher shortage.
  Mr. Dempsey: We are receiving those letters already. There are pupils leaving our secondary schools with the maximum number of higher leaving certificates who are still unable to gain admission, for example, to the University of Glasgow. Obviously the situation will be aggravated by 1964 when the bulge makes itself felt.
  Mr. Brewis: I have no doubt that the hon. Member will be able to make that point. I have had no letters on the subject.
  Mr. Dempsey: I have.
  Mr. Brewis: On the whole, we are not particularly short of university teachers, but I do not think that we can have all the buildings up before the early 1970's without interfering with other necessary building work which is taking place in Scotland, such as that in the Hospital Plan. Buildings are very important in primary education where we are dealing with toddlers, but when we are dealing with university students we find that they do not need molly-coddling; they are grown-up young men. When it comes to teaching them it is the quality of teaching and the spirit of the place which counts. When in South America recently I was interested to see an entire

  1197
  new university which had been set up in Nissen huts, including the scientific side of the university, the lecture rooms and all the classrooms. I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary whether it is possible to get on with something like that and at any rate get the people into universities where they can have the training and not just wait for the Robbins Committee to produce its report. We seem to have had considerable success with the building of technical colleges. I hope that we shall be able to do something about the universities. The 1960 generation is almost as large as the 1946 generation, and as the years go on and the Government achieve more and more success in getting people to stay on at school we shall not be able to get on in Scotland without establishing a fifth university.
  5.50 p.m.
  Sir Myer Galpern: First, I want to join with the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) in congratulating on behalf of my hon. Friends, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on what was undoubtedly an outstanding maiden speech. We are fortunate in having now among our numbers an hon. Member with the youthful, inquiring and stimulating outlook which was so abundantly shown this afternoon by my hon. Friend. We certainly look forward to many such contributions in the future and, what is of more particular interest to this side of the Committee, we hope that his ideas will he accepted by the Secretary of State for Scotland and implemented, as they should be.
  The Secretary of State stood at the Dispatch Box this afternoon with his usual urbane smile, disarming every bit of opposition from this side of the Committee by saying that he agreed here and he agreed there and that he would not like to give snap answers to many problems, which were awkward to him at the time they were raised, which is another way of saying, "I do not know". Was the right hon. Gentleman entitled to stand at the Box as he did this afternoon when the Report on Education in Scotland in 1961 is not one which can offer any ground for satisfaction or congratulation? It is a miserable confession on the part of the Government of their failure to cope with the many and serious
  1198
  ailments afflicting Scottish education today.
  The Report shows that there is nothing mysterious about the nature of the ailments, because the various specialists in the form of working parties—I am very glad to note that the Secretary of State is beginning to wonder whether he has too many specialists around him—have had no difficulty in diagnosing the malady and recommending appropriate treatment which would soon restore our listless education patient to a person of bounding energy, vitality and vigour who would become once more the admiration and envy of the whole world.
  That is how sadly we have fallen. From being a country which was in the van of
  every educational and academic development we now occupy a very sorry place well behind many other runners in the education stakes, because the Government, weeping and wailing in their financial distress, are unable to afford the 2s. for the prescription charge. That is the whole root of the trouble. We could solve 99·9 per cent. of our educational problems without any difficulty if the Government were prepared to find the money.
  We were told by the Secretary
  of State that there must be priorities. I know of nothing which can be regarded as of higher priority than the welfare and future development of our young citizens so that they will become the people who will occupy our places in the years ahead. The Government say, "No. It must wait. There are more important fields, such as Surtax, where we must give some benefits and education must take its proper place."
  Everyone has stressed and will continue to stress the fact that most of our troubles stem from the shortage of teachers. New schools are urgently required, despite the number that has been built. The old schools, which are in many cases a century old, most of them being built before the beginning of this century, need modernising. There is an inadequacy of equipment. There is the problem of oversize classes.
  I want to spend some time on the outstanding problem, the shortage of teachers, from which most of our troubles stem. We have had Departmental committee after Departmental committee; we have had reports of

  1199
  working parties, but there still remains the outstanding fact that the Government are not planning to relieve the shortage which is estimated must take place by 1975. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) has shown, despite the fact that the figures prove that the demand will rise in 1975 to 50,000, there will still be a shortage of 7,000 in 1975.
  There is no planning. There is merely the statement, "We are doing our best by public advertisement and by trying to induce people to stay on longer at schools." But the Government then debar them from the only means of becoming teachers, by keeping them out of the universities. The Government say, "We know that there will be a shortage of 7.000 teachers in 1975 and as long as we know that is always something on the road to some sort of satisfaction."
  The problem of getting the requisite number of teachers is a financial one. It still remains a question of salary. Despite what was done recently by way of increasing the salaries of teachers, there is still much to be done. People who have obtained a first or second-class honours degree, having done four years at, for instance, Glasgow University to get the honours degree and then undergone their training period at the college of education, start as teachers at the "magnificent" salary of £840. Can anyone suggest that for a person having that academic experience £840 is a reasonable starting salary in competition with what is being offered to policemen and workers in industry? It will rise by twelve annual increments to £1,600.
  The problem might well be solved if there was a far higher entrance salary. At the age at which they commence teaching, many people, both males and females, are contemplating marriage and that is the very time that they require money to set up house. All they get is £840. After an ordinary graduate has done three years at a university and obtained a degree and spent one year at a college of education he starts at the "magnificent" salary of £680, as much as is being offered to a typist in London with only two or three years' experience. Non-graduate women, who have received a welcome increase, having gone through
  1200
  five or six years at a senior secondary school and three years in a training college start at the "magnificent" salary of £560 a year.
  These are not pre-war salaries. These are the salaries being offered today. Yet we ask ourselves why an insufficient number of properly qualified people are attracted to teaching. It has been clearly shown that the number of pupils remaining at school and taking a four or five year course has risen in the last five years by more than 71 per cent.. but they are not being attracted to teaching.
  They inquire about the starting salary and the conditions of employment, and unless we are prepared to take immediate steps—and I do not mean waiting for the findings of committees, although I know that certain proposals have been made to the National Joint Council—about starting salaries, in particular, we shall not succeed in getting sufficient recruits to the profession.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian suggested that we should use retired teachers by sending pupils to them in their own homes for additional tutorial exercises. That is a very good idea, but why not bring some of those retired teachers into the classroom, where they are needed? We know that hundreds of retired teachers are refusing to return to the profession because, by doing so, they would penalise themselves financially.
  We on this side have raised this subject over and over again. We have a teacher shortage in our senior secondary schools—for mathematics, and so on—and we should say to the retired teachers, "If you come back, you will enjoy the same conditions as you would in any other form of work. You will have both your salary and your pension". But no, we resolutely refuse to do that, because it would create some problems.
  There was no problem when we had to do it for the police during the war. We then brought back retired policemen and gave them both their salaries and their pensions to relieve the shortage. When we deal with the police, of course, it is entirely different. When we discovered that there was a shortage in the police forces we almost doubled the salaries, with the result that practically every police force in Scotland can report that it is up to establishment.

  1201
  Marred women have been doing a grand job of work in education, and we cannot pay too high a tribute to their efforts to help us in our difficulties. I wonder whether, attached to each school or group or schools, we could establish a crêche where their children under five years could be looked after? We have failed lamentably in the provision of nursery schools. There are only 88 in the whole of Scotland, although on that topic the Report states:
  "…there is no doubt that the children benefit greatly from this form of education."
  The Government are not prepared to spend another brass farthing there, otherwise we might have had an adequate number of nursery schools. In schools where three or four married women are employed, could not a room be set apart in which their young children could be left in charge of some girl training for nursing, or nursery school work? The mothers would then at least know that their children were being looked after.
  When dealing with the Special Recruitment Scheme, the Secretary of State was careful not to mention that the numbers are dwindling. There were 50 less last year than in the previous year, so the scheme needs looking at again. The scheme serves a very useful purpose. It means that we get a number of people with wider experience, but there is no question of dilution; the recruits have to go through the usual channels to become qualified according to the school and the branch of education.
  The Secretary of State did not deal with the shortages in the primary schools, but page 13 of the Report states:
  "…in almost all counties the staffing situation is precarious."
  Apropos the shortage of primary schools, it states that a number of these schools have had to adopt a part-time system.
  The position in the secondary department is even more serious. According to the Report, there are 1,338 over-size classes. The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) asked what happened to those pupils who pass into the secondary school, but fail to pass out with a leaving certificate. I believe that 35 per cent go in, but that only 12 per cent. ultimately finish up with the senior secondary school certificate. Although at the stage of promotion from primary
  1202
  school to secondary school they have been assessed as being academically well endowed and possessing the possibility of acquiring the school certificate, it may be that the assessment was wrong, but a percentage of 12 is far too low.
  I think that we are entitled to suggest that the low percentage is partly due to the over-size classes in the secondary schools, where a little more specialised individual teaching is required. An able child, who shaped well in the primary school, probably requires that extra tuition in the secondary school, and in those 1,338 over-size secondary school classes may lie part of the answer to that 12 per cent. who get the senior secondary school certificate.
  The ratio of teachers to pupils works out very nicely in the Report, but we find that in some of the practical classes in the secondary schools the whole thing becomes absolutely impossible, and we must recognise the difficulties and frustrations of pupils, who are intelligent boys and girls, and realise that they are not being properly helped to master their subjects. In the secondary schools, in particular, serious efforts should be made by way of a substantial increase in salaries to attract more people from industry to those schools.
  There is another aspect of our primary and secondary schools which I wish to interpolate here, because nothing has so far been said about it. In some junior secondary schools there is juvenile delinquency. We have discussed in Committee the building of borstals, remand homes and the rest, but we need also to look after the welfare of children in our primary and junior secondary schools.
  The Under-Secretary should consider what has been done in Glasgow—it is no longer an experiment—where social welfare officers have been appointed to schools where the incidence of juvenile delinquency is unduly high. Those appointments have been very successful. The Under-Secretary will know that these able people, trained as teachers or holding a diploma in social science, have been able to do much good by dealing with incipient juvenile delinquency by getting to know parents, and trying to help them if they have serious difficulties.

  1203
  We should also examine our methods of dealing with truancy. We are rather lenient there, and should look at the whole structure anew. It takes far too long at present before a parent is brought before the school management committee to be questioned about the child's prolonged absence from school. The next stage of bringing them to court for prosecution takes an interminable time. It brings the whole thing into disrepute and has no effect at all upon the parent. I think that the Secretary of State should look at that aspect of our educational administration.
  On the question of the transfer of pupils from primary to secondary education, I regret very much that only two authorities out of 35 in Scotland have seen fit to abolish the formal promotion tests. I think that there is abundant evidence to show clearly that there is no need to subject a pupil at the age of 11-plus or 12 to a test which is one that can quite easily be swotted for. There should be a system whereby a formal examination does not take place but the pupil is promoted to an academic or non-academic course according to the opinion of the school teacher who has taught the pupil for several years plus the opinion of the headmaster of his school and of the receiving headmaster in consultation.
  I disagree fundamentally with the Report on the question of the transfer from primary to secondary schools in that I think that it should be made obligatory on every Scottish education authority to abolish the formal promotion test and to substitute a system of tests in which only the class teacher, knowing the work of the pupil, and the headmaster decide on the course of education that the pupil should take and the pupil allocated on that basis.
  The question of the transfer of pupils to the different types of school causes great concern, but the Secretary of State quite clearly indicated this afternoon that he was not all for the comprehensive school. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North pointed out, the Advisory Committee suggested that the only reasonable method of education was by having comprehensive schools. Looking at the statistics for Scotland, we find that the tradition in
  1204
  Scotland has always been in favour of the comprehensive school. We have in Scotland 149 schools providing four- or five-year courses, whereby one assumes that the pupil in the primary department continues his education right through the school. I think that the finest method of education is continuous progress from the primary school right through to the secondary department where provision can be made for a particular type of pupil. A remarkable thing brought out in the Report is that of secondary schools not providing a four-year or five-year course, 376 have a primary department.
  My own experience as Chairman of the Glasgow Education Committee for some time is that the comprehensive school, of which we have 17 in Glasgow, is the finest basis of secondary education. The members of the committee on the question of the transfer from primary education to secondary education admitted that there was a great danger in this constant chopping and changing from one school to another, with all the upset to pupils, and the transfer from one particular course to another.
  Some people have fears as to whether the comprehensive school was worth while. Many of the conjectural difficulties which loom large in the imagination of the critics have already been shown to be quite unreal in the light of experience. Fears have been expressed about the handicapping of pupils educationally. One of our comprehensive schools has the largest classical department in the City of Glasgow, including the fee-paying schools, and it offers considerable scope for social training. There is the important point that the non-academic pupil has many extra curricula activities in which he can participate.
  I think that the pupil benefits considerably from the facilities which are provided in the comprehensive schools of extra curricula activities. If a mistake has been made in assessing a child's ability under the promotion scheme it cannot be rectified, but if a mistake has been made in the transfer from the primary department to the secondary department of a comprehensive school

  1205
  there is an opportunity to catch up with the error.
  On balance, and with the abundant evidence that we have in the comprehensive schools in Glasgow, I would like the Secretary of State to be more emphatic in saying that that should be the system of the educational structure in Scotland. The sooner we remove all these barriers to the transfer of children, the better it will be. We know that at present the parents of children allocated to a junior secondary school feel that the child is a failure and we all know the effect that has upon the child.
  My final reference is to the question of the alteration of the date of the school-leaving certificate from March to May this year. I know that as this is the first year this takes place it is probably too soon to pass an opinion on it, but already there have been grave misgivings by a number of headmasters as to the efficacy and advisability of this change. The Rector of Allan Glen's School, Glasgow, at the annual prize-giving, said:
  "The universities, in many cases, are not holding provisional places for boys and there may be some lads, who, not knowing their passes, will not be able to attend the university at the beginning of the session in October. I think this is most regrettable and I feel that we must, out of sheer necessity, return to having the examination in March."
  I have discussed this with headmasters and many of the pupils and I have been surprised to learn from the pupils that they were disappointed in that it cut out a lot of their extra-curricula activities, and that some of them had not been able to enter for the musical festival in Glasgow, and to take part in other spheres of cultural activity. I think that the first impact of this change-over has not been a good one. While in theory it looked as if it might be a practical proposition, I am afraid that on the first year's experience we must have another look at it.
  I know that other hon. Members wish to speak, and. I shall not say anything more. There are so many problems in education that, whichever aspect we touch upon, we are bound to find that there is something which could be remedied if the Government were prepared to be a little more generous in their financial allocations. I hope that the Secretary of State will not be so com-
  1206
  placent as to believe that the mere presentation of this Report, together with the reports of the many working parties that he has set up—which reports he will not act upon—will persuade us that he is discharging his duties adequately as the chief officer for education for Scotland.
  6.20 p.m.
  Sir John Gilmour: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern), both at the beginning and at the end of his speech, touched upon the subject of finance. Although there is no doubt that financial limitations hinder education, it would be wrong to think that finance is our only trouble. My only comment on finance is that, split up as it now is between the national Exchequer and local authorities, an unfair burden is placed upon the ratepayer.
  Nowadays, all our teachers' salaries are negotiated on a national basis, and there is a need to reconsider the way in which the provision of the necessary money should be spread as between local authorities and the Government. This is all the more necessary because rates are levied on householders, whereas taxation falls on the bulk of individuals. We need to spend more money on education every year, and the burden on the ratepayer is becoming out of all proportion. I hope that it will be possible to reconsider the question and at least to charge the whole of that part of the cost of education which derives from teachers' salaries to the national Exchequer, and possibly to alter the proportion spent on school buildings.
  I welcome the building programme
  completions which have been outlined by my right hon. Friend. It is a good thing to maintain local interest in the building programme. Nevertheless, I often wonder whether we spend, not on bricks and mortar but on the frills, so to speak, money which might he better spent in raising teachers' salaries. This argument is backed up by a report in a local newspaper in my county about a school which has an establishment in the Highlands to which it takes its pupils for recreation, nature study, and so on. Although it is only right that the children should be taken to a place of a reasonable standard, it appears that plans have been made to turn this into

  1207
  a sort of luxury home. That would be taking away the whole purpose of the establishment, which is to provide character training, nature study, and so on. Unnecessary money is often spent in this way.
  All those who have spoken, and especially the Secretary of State, have underlined the difficulty caused by staff shortages. On page 31 of the Report reference is made to television as an aid to teaching. We shall be suffering from a shortage of teachers for several years to come, and greater use could be made of television teaching, not in the primary grades but later on, and in further education. We should make the best use of this new adjunct to education. The Report mentions that 90 per cent. of Scottish schools are equipped with radio, but that only 350 are using television.
  In practically all the Scottish debates that the House has had recently hon. Members on both sides have referred to the difficulties which Scotland is experiencing in employment, and to the need to train our young people adequately, so that Scotland can take advantage of the newer industries and skills. For that reason we must welcome the steps which the Secretary of State
  is taking to try to increase day-release classes. At the same time, we must admit that we appear to be worse off in this respect than does England. We welcome the Report of the Scottish Technical Education Consultative Council, but we must urge that greater steps should be taken to speed up the number of day-release places available.
  Several hon. Members have spoken about the universities. Since I have St. Andrew's University in my constituency this is, naturally, a very important matter to me. I cannot help feeling that the Government are underestimating the strain upon and the demand for university places that is likely to develop in the next few years. It is not only a question of a bulge in the population; there is a growing demand from all kinds of people for university education. An 18-year-old Canadian niece of mine has been staying with me and I have had the advantage of hearing the views of the young people of Canada. I am sure
  1208
  that the demand for university places will be greater than the Government are likely to make available.
  The requirement should be reassessed. It is easy enough to say that the difficulty will not be overcome by opening a new university, because it would take too long, but we might consider separating Dundee and St. Andrew's University, so as to provide a new university more quickly.
  Mr. Rankin: We have only recently united them, after a big struggle.
  Sir J. Gilmour: I agree, but the situation changes very quickly nowadays. Simply because we have made a decision we must not always believe that it is the right one.
  Mr. Rankin: This is a fresh view.
  Sir J. Gilmour: I do not know. Everyone should be prepared to admit that he makes mistakes at times.
  I made my maiden speech only a short time ago, and I appreciate the great success which the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) had when he made his tonight. He underlined the need for humanity and understanding—the need to get to know pupils, and to establish the right relationship between teachers and the younger generation. The country—from the point of view of industry, Government and Opposition—is not led by those with the highest academic qualifications. Leadership is something which does not necessarily come in the earliest years of life.
  Scotland must not be too concerned about the standard of the top class of young people, many of whom will get on remarkably well by their own efforts. We must spend more time and energy in making certain that the average person receives a better education, so that, taking his place in industry, commerce, teaching or any of the other professions, he will be able to play his full part. The cleverest people will look after themselves. They cannot be kept down. It is the others who need leading and encouraging, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will spare no pains to make sure that the needs of that class of person receive the most urgent consideration.
  6.29 p.m.
  Mr. John Rankin: I agree with a good deal of what the hon. Baronet the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) has said, but with one or two cautions. I indicated one in my interruption. As he knows, we are striving for a fifth university, and we do not want to be distracted from it. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) put forward this afternoon one very valid reason why we want it, and we do not want to be deflected from our course. Already, there has been the suggestion that because the Royal College of Science and Technology has achieved degree-awarding status it should now become the fifth university.
  That, in my view, and in the view of a great many people who want to see the fifth university, is not the answer to the problem which faces us at university level, and least of all is the suggestion made by the hon. Baronet, that having recently united St. Andrew's and Dundee into one university we should now achieve our fifth university by separating the two of them. That I would oppose, because, again, it is not the answer to our fundamental problem.
  The other little caution which I would
  put before the hon. Baronet is this. I agree, of course, that radio, film and television have their place in teaching, and that radio and the film have been doing it very well for a long time. To some extent I was the pioneer in introducing the film to further education thirty years ago in the City of Glasgow —in face of a tremendous amount of opposition from most unexpected sources. Nevertheless, it has proved its use in educating our young people.
  When the hon. Gentleman mentioned television I wondered if he had in his mind the suggestion which has been put forward in certain quarters and journals, that, because of the teacher shortage which faces us, television should be the medium of helping to overcome the shortage. I welcome television as an aid in education, but not as a substitute for the teacher. I think—and I say so after a fairly long experience of the work of teaching, and I believe that many of my teacher colleagues would agree with me—that in the training of our young there is no substitute for the
  1210
  human element in the teaching profession.
  I want to confine myself to one particular aspect of the problem which we are discussing in a wider context. I want to look more closely than has been done so far at the impact of these problems we are talking about on the City of Glasgow. Like others here, I am a Member for a Glasgow division and, of course, I want to approach the problem as Glasgow sees it today. I want to take only one aspect of that problem as it faces Glasgow, and that is the staffing aspect.
  I agree, of course, with what the hon. Baronet said, that we want more buildings, that we want more and better equipment, and that we want more facilities. All these things are necessities, but the major problem which faces us now in Glasgow, and in Scotland as a whole, is the teacher shortage. Having all the other things but not having the teachers still places education in almost insuperable difficulty.
  In dealing with the problem as it appears to us in Glasgow I want, briefly, to look backwards, because I want to place it in its historical setting, not going too far back in history, but only a matter of a few years. My refreshment is derived from as good a source as I could find․my own speeches on this question. On 25th March, 1959, in the last Parliament, I raised the major problems which we are dealing with this afternoon. I hope that in this Chamber it is not an unusual course for a Member to quote himself.
  I used these words:
  "At this moment, there are 500 classes in Glasgow which are over-size."
  I went on a little later to make a prophecy, that
  "part-time education for many Glasgow children is a certainty for years to come."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1959; Vol. 602, c. 1478.]
  It had not just come, but I said it was a certainty. If, with the same certainty, I could have forecast the Derby winner a few months later I might have put more than the usual amount on my opinion.
  That situation was arising in Glasgow through lack of staff. We appointed the Knox Committee to inquire into the

  1211
  problem of the shortage of teachers, among other things, and two measures were recommended as being likely to bring early substantial relief to the schools. The first, in the words of the Knox Committee, was
  "to grant indefinite deferment forthwith to teachers."
  The important word there is the word
  "forthwith". The second was to pay pension plus salary to those who had retired from teaching and then returned to it.
  That Report was made in 1957, and when I raised the matter on the Adjournment, in March, 1959, the Secretary of State for Scotland had done nothing about those two recommendations at all. Admittedly, they were short term, but refusal to apply them inflamed the situation then and has made it worse for us today. Now, of course, the right hon. Gentleman has one in operation, but he put it into operation when it really did not matter. The other one is still awaiting his verdict.
  On the long-term side, if we compare 1939 with 1959, we see that the teacher supply in those 20 years increased by 20 per cent. Glasgow's share of that increase was 8·8 per cent. I pointed that out in 1959, and I pointed out a number of reasons why that happened, first, the slowness of promotion in Glasgow, and then the lack of housing, the higher cost of living, and the poor—the exceptionally poor—quality of some of our older schools. Therefore, on that occasion I argued for a salary differential for Glasgow teachers. I put that proposal to the Secretary of State.
  I said then:
  "The outlook for education in Glasgow is grim."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1959: Vol. 602, c. 1481.]
  There is no one who is associated with education in Glasgow who would deny the truth of that today. We were told then
  by those right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who occupied the Government Front Bench that the bulge was something which was temporary in operation: it would pass. I am trying still to convince them that that is not true.
  The Secretary of State today referred repeatedly to the bulge as being something which will pass—although he said
  1212
  that another bulge has developed. The question of bulges does not arise in the problem. We are now on a new plateau of education, and our problem is to try to lift the Secretary of State on to the plateau on which we on this side are assembled awaiting his arrival.
  I was told in the concluding part of the Government's reply that night that great advances have been made in education. In their view, everything was blooming or in bud; there was no thought of a blight in their mind.
  In the following year, on 7th April, I returned to the assault and said:
  "Last March I warned that, if the Secretary of State did not show more regard to what was happening in Glasgow, part-time education would require to be introduced into the city's educational system."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th April, 1960 Vol. 621, c. 734.]
  That happened within five months of my speech, and when the spring term, 1960, commenced 2,197 secondary pupils in Glasgow were subject to part-time education and 1,174 pupils in the primary schools were in the same position. That concludes the historical aspect of my speech, just a little history as a background for what I am now going to say.
  What is the position in Glasgow today? According to the Report for 1961, the oversize classes in 1959 numbered 500. They now number 723. Glasgow's staff have fallen by 100 in the same period—in two years—while the overall national figure has improved by 319, which means that the scheme of voluntary restraint which the Secretary of State put forward in Circular 499 issued in May last has failed in Glasgow and has been of no help whatever.
  Short time and part-time teaching which were unheard of in Glasgow at the beginning of 1959, are now a regular feature of primary and secondary education in the city. That is an appalling situation to have reached in the chief commercial city of Scotland. If Glasgow is not healthy, the rest of Scotland cannot be healthy. Therefore, our problem is not merely a Glasgow problem but a national problem.
  The 3,371 scholars who were receiving part-time education when I spoke in 1960 had become 4.970 by March of this year. In addition,

  1213
  Glasgow is now the only area in Scotland which is affected by this problem. The additional number of teachers that we should require in Glasgow if we were to attain the staffing standards existing in Aberdeen at the moment would be 2,286. If we were to try to attain the staffing position in Dundee we should require another 825 teachers. If we were to try to achieve the staffing standards in Edinburgh, we should require 969 extra teachers.
  This is put forward in no carping spirit. We welcome progress in every area of Scotland. It is merely that we want Glasgow to take part in the progress which is going on evidently, according to statistics, in other parts of the country. In turn, I am anxious to see our motto "Let Glasgow flourish" apply to the education of its school children. After all, one-fifth of Scotland's boys and girls live in Glasgow, and because of the maldistribution of teachers and shortage of teachers for which the Government must be held responsible, these children do not receive the education to which they are entitled and which they would receive if they lived elsewhere in Scotland. This fact emphasises what I have already said, which is the national aspect of the problem, and this cannot be solved by Glasgow by its own efforts.
  How are matters progressing today? Here, I turn to Cmnd. Paper 1601, dealing with the supply of teachers in Scotland, and issued on 8th January. The number of boys and girls aged 15 and over who were attending school in Scotland in 1956 was 35,374. The number attending in 1960 was 48,663. That is an amazing growth, at the rate of 9 per cent. per annum. We all welcome it, because the more fifth formers and sixth-formers that we have the better. Nothing is of greater importance to any nation today than brains.
  There are shortages of well educated and trained people in a great many services in Scotland; in industry generally, in medicine, in science and, at the very fount, in teaching itself. If we are weak in the fundamental supply service of teaching we shall be weak in all the other services which depend upon it. The Fourth Report on the Supply of Teachers in Scotland says:
  "But there is a new factor, namely, that in the summer of 1962 full presentation in the
  1214
  Scottish Certificate of Education examination on the Ordinary grade will be possible in the fourth year of the secondary course."
  As we have heard, this has just taken place.
  To gain definite evidence of the effects of the change, a questionnaire was sent to 60 representative secondary schools. I quote from the Report:
  "The answers suggested that in October, 1961, there were 6,000 more pupils in the fourth year classes of secondary schools, or aged 15 or over in the third year, than there had been a year before…".
  But to this factor we must add three others. First, according to inquiries going on, which are referred to in this report, the sizes of the birth groups already born and the probable sizes of groups yet unborn are on the increase. Survival rates among children today are also increasing.
  We have also to consider the growth of the provision for nursery schools and classes. Therefore, taking all these factors into account, the estimated rôle of education authority and grant-aided schools will have risen from the 887,000 of 1960–61 to 917,000 by 1966 and 991,500 by 1975. In other words, by 1975 there will be almost 1 million children in these schools in Scotland.
  What has been done to meet the need of which we know? A total of 45,151 teachers will be required by 1966. This figure covers further education, colleges of education, administration and the inspectorate, in addition to education authority, grant-aided, approved and independent schools. We shall require 49,763 teachers by 1975. The supply estimated to be available to meet these needs will be 40,240 in 1966. In other words by 1966 we will be 4,911 teachers short of the number necessary to meet the demand in that year. We know that now in 1962. In 1975, the supply will be 43,200 to meet a demand for 49,763. The shortage will have grown to 6,563 by 1975. At the moment our guides tell us that the staff shortage is expected to go on growing larger and larger right up to 1975.
  One cannot possibly exaggerate in words the gravity of these figures. We look round the world and see the school-leaving age being raised to 16 and 17 in some of the Commonwealth nations and we still cannot think, in the situation now facing us, of the raising of the

  1215
  school-leaving age to 16 as long as we have a Tory Government in power. These figures, of course, will bear most harshly on Glasgow for the reasons which I have given. I therefore make two proposals. I made them three years ago and, as usually happens to some of my proposals, nobody has bothered about them. Perhaps the Lord Advocate will instil some interest in them in the mind of the Secretary of State.
  I propose, first, because Glasgow fears that this increasing shortage would bear more severely on the city—as events are proving today with the existing shortages—than it will bear on other parts of Scotland, that teachers serving in Glasgow should be paid a special allowance. I know that this may be contentious, but we must face the situation. If there is to be hardship and a quota system then, within that system, we must have some sort of fairness. The making of special allowances used to be the practice before we had national salaries. The suggestion, therefore, is not novel. It also has a precedent, because the present salary scales permit special payments to attract teachers to remote areas. While Glasgow is not remote, its position is certainly unique and, therefore, I make that proposal.
  Secondly, in view of the fact that there is a considerable movement of teachers to and from the city due to housing difficulties, I suggest that we should consider the provision of houses for Glasgow teachers. Glasgow's net loss in this flow was 58 in 1957, and in 1958–59 we lost 73 due to this movement induced by lank of housing accommodation. This trend in the adverse balance still continues. Again, this is not a novel suggestion, because I understand that the provision of houses for teachers is accepted in eight areas in Scotland. Houses are provided at rents equivalent to the rateable value in those areas.
  Why cannot this be done in Glasgow? Is it because the Secretary of State lays down that an economic rent must be applied to houses for teachers in the city? Why should that be so only in Glasgow? If this is correct, it involves annual charges for rent, rates and maintenance of nearly £300 per annum, which means that young teachers simply prefer to leave the city.
  1216
  The problem of sub-standard education for an increasing number of our children becomes more difficult to solve as the years go by. We all lament the incidence of what is called delinquency, but I ask the Secretary of State to ponder seriously on the contribution made to its continuance by his rejection of the proposals which I have put forward and which would help in its diminution. I also ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember that boys and girls attend school not only to learn, but to learn how to learn. This is perhaps the most important aspect of their school attendance in the early years.
  Short-time and part-time teaching is a sure way to throttle this basic requirement. If we weaken the foundation on which all other forms of education grow, we threaten our prosperity and our position as a pioneer in educational practice. I therefore appeal tonight to the Secretary of State for Scotland to face the future with the courage and determination demanded by the times in which we live; and I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman enter the Chamber at this vital moment.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. Forbes Hendry: Before I fall into the temptation of following all the arguments of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) in the course of his criticisms of Glasgow Corporation, I shall refer to the very fine maiden speech which we had earlier from the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not here. I hope that we shall hear a great deal more from him in our Scottish debates, with his fresh mind and new approach to these subjects. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that it was probably one of the best speeches in this debate. It was one of the best maiden speeches it has been my privilege to hear.
  We have heard a great deal from the hon. Member for Govan about the shortcomings of Glasgow. He seems to forget that the education authority in the City of Glasgow is Glasgow Corporation. In my humble opinion he ought to address his remarks to Glasgow Corporation and induce it to put its own house in order.
  Mr. Rankin: The hon. Gentleman is too humble in his opinion. This is the place where I put my criticisms and suggestions, and this is the place where I should do so.
  Mr. Hendry: If the hon. Gentleman will read the Government's Blue Book, Education in Scotland in 1961, he will find out what the Government are doing in the rest of Scotland. As I have said on many previous occasions, Glasgow is not necessarily Scotland. There is a great deal of Scotland outside Glasgow. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the evidence of what is being done instead of grumbling about the Secretary of State and about the Scottish Department of Education, he will realise that there is cause to congratulate the Secretary of State on the magnificent work which has been done during the past ten years.
  I say that advisedly. Some years ago, right hon. and hon. Members opposite raised the school-leaving age without giving the slightest thought to what they would have to do as a consequence. They had not the faintest idea of what form of education would have to be produced for the children in that final year between 14 and 15. It was not until 1955 that any real thought was given to the education which should be given to these children, particularly those who would not go on to a certificate course.
  In 1955, there was published a Blue Book, Junior Secondary Education, and this has more or less been the Bible ever since. Nevertheless, even at that, it is a rather woolly sort of Bible for junior education, and I suggest that a great deal of thought on the subject is still required. For far too long junior secondary education has been regarded rather as the poor relation in education in Scotland, and new thought on the subject is necessary.
  It was a great delight to me to find in the Report on Education in Scotland for 1961 that more than twenty pages were devoted to junior secondary education in Scotland and its importance today. However, although I congratulate the Secretary of State and I praise his policy in education, I am very disappointed to find that, even in this Blue Book, there is no specific aim for junior secondary education. It is not specifically laid down what the teachers
  1218
  ought to try to do in the junior secondary school as opposed to the senior secondary school, and between the two there is the world of difference.
  In the senior secondary school it is very easy to carry on with the sort of course which the teacher has himself or herself gone through at school. It is an academic course. The teacher is an academic sort of person who sets out to teach those children who are capable of benefiting from this sort of course. But, if we are to keep children in secondary school until they are 15 and there seems to be no hope of their reaching leaving certificate standard at O-level or even at junior level, a great deal of thought must be given to making the best use of the opportunities which these children have at school. The aim for these children has never been stated.
  I was rather concerned about this matter when I read the Report and I set out to find out what the aim was. I visited no fewer than six junior secondary schools in Aberdeenshire to find out what the headmasters thought was the aim of their endeavours in junior secondary education. I got six separate opinions. None of them seemed to have the same idea as the others. One gentleman seemed to think that his purpose was to give what I can only describe as a very mild or modified form of senior secondary course. He went in for the academic languages. He tried to teach a bit of literature, a bit of algebra, and all the rest. He was the first to admit that many of the children to wham he was trying to administer the course were not capable of benefiting from it. Another headmaster, on the other hand, seemed to think that the course he should carry through was very largely vocational, with little or no educational content.
  A third headmaster seemed to have a very balanced view. He put it in this way. As regards English, it was his endeavour to teach the very lowest stream the basic essentials of English composition and English interpretation. I think that that is the technical term. As for mathematics, he thought that for the lowest stream he ought to aim at such mechanical calculation as might be valuable to the children in later life. I pointed out to him that in this aim he would be up against the difficulty that

  1219
  there would be in the school a stream of very much brighter children who could benefit from more advanced education. He agreed and said that he had tried, so far as he could, to introduce a balance in the school, even at the junior secondary level, with different streams. Where a child showed himself capable of benefiting from higher education, he was put into an even higher stream.
  This system has, generally speaking, worked well in Aberdeenshire. Children start off at the little junior secondary school where practically all children go for their early stages of education at least up to the end of the second year. At the end of the second year, they are graded again and some, perhaps, are sent to another school or even to take the full five-year course if that appears justified. The whole system has worked very well. We have heard a good deal from the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) about the difficulty of assessing children at the age of 11 or 12. I was told of a child who had been assessed as fit only for, junior secondary education but who, as a result of this system, had developed later and had gone on from the little junior secondary school to take the third year at another school. After the third year, she had been re-classified and sent on to a senior secondary school for the full five-year course, where she did reasonably well. That was an exceptional case, but I was told that there were lots of other cases of children developing to a greater extent than was originally expected and who had done rather well.
  The teachers who told me these things stressed the necessity of dealing very carefully with the child who is assessed in the lowest stream. A child in that position requires much more careful and skilled teaching than the clever child. The clever one, they told me, requires not so much teaching but guidance in his own reading. It is a very much easier proposition to teach a clever child than to teach a dull one, but, if great care and skill is used in teaching duller children, the results can be extremely rewarding.
  With the greatest respect, I suggest to my right hon. Friend that his Department might well apply itself to the formula-
  1220
  tion of the aims of what we are trying to achieve in junior secondary education, rather as so many of us were taught to do in the Army when appreciating a situation. The first thing is to ascertain the aim. One must express the aim very succinctly, setting out what one is trying to do. Having decided upon that, one can work out a method of achieving the aim one has set.
  It seems to me that there is in junior secondary education a tremendous opportunity if only guidance is given to those who are running the schools as to what they are expected to do. If thought were given to that and the matter were explained clearly, not in flowery language, the results could be excellent. There is a great deal of good stuff in these Blue Books, but, unfortunately, it is expressed in rather school-masterly language, and the basic essentials which every teacher must have instilled in him at the very outset of a junior secondary job are not laid down.
  I have given a lot of thought to this matter and, although any opinion I express must be an amateur opinion, I submit that these points are worthy of a little study and thought. We read on page 5 of the 1955 Blue Book, Junior Secondary Education:
  "Junior secondary education must resist the tendency to imitate blindly the senior secondary school. Satisfactory junior secondary courses cannot be provided simply by modifying, diluting or by otherwise adapting senior secondary courses…Almost all junior secondary teachers have, as pupils, passed through a senior secondary course, and it requires conscious and deliberate efforts on their part to avoid the tendency to lead their pupils along the paths that they themselves have followed. This tendency is perhaps most marked in schools where the presence of senior secondary alongside junior secondary classes may tend to discourage radical departures from the practices of the former."
  That leads me to ask the question whether the type of teacher who is being employed in junior secondary education is necessarily the best type of teacher for that purpose. I am subject to correction in this matter, but I understand that the aim is that, as far as possible, a junior secondary school teacher should be a graduate, and not only that but either an honours graduate or possess secondary qualifications under Chapter 39.
  I begin to wonder whether that type of teacher is necessarily the best type

  1221
  of teacher for that school, for the reason that that type of teacher is, in the very nature of things, an academic person. As one headmaster put it to me, he would far rather, as an honours graduate in English, dissect Lycidas than teach the elements of English composition, such as writing a letter applying for a job. He was the first to admit that the ability to write that letter is so very much more important from the point of view of the child than any ability in the higher flights of literature. Would it not be possible to attract a vast amount of human ability and skill in teaching these pupils in other respects? I know that this is probably heresy, but I suggest that possibly an honours graduate or even an ordinary graduate is not necessarily the best type of teacher. I understand that the teaching profession as such regards the possession of a university degree as essential in a male teacher. I suggest not only to my right hon. Friend but to hon. Members opposite that much thought along these lines might produce very good results.
  There is a scheme at the moment—we all know about it—for bringing people from other walks of life into the teaching profession late in life. I wonder if that could not be extended, because where men are concerned, I understand that the only men who are eligible for entering into the teaching profession are graduates. It seems to me that that is a pity. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that there are a tremendous number of men who have achieved what can he called a reasonably good standard in education, possessing the higher leaving certificate or, as it will be in future, the O-level certificate, whose ability in the English language is reasonably good, and whose ability in the lower branches of mathematics is also reasonably good, who are capable of teaching these children the required basic essentials. These children could be taught the basic essentials in that way.
  If it appeared to the teacher, in consultation with the headmaster,
  that the child was capable of higher education, then, as happens in Aberdeenshire, the child could be passed to a rather higher kind of school where he would have the advantage of a teacher who was more academic but possibly was not such a good teacher.
  1222
  Those of us who have been in the Services know the type who is a born instructor. There is a great number of them to be found among N.C.O.s in the Army, and I have no doubt there are many others in the other Services as well. These men spend a great part of their lives instructing, though not themselves highly educated. They have a flair for instruction and can teach even the most stupid people to do the jobs they are required to do. A great many of these people do not remain N.C.O.s. Many of them get commissions as schoolmasters, and they do extremely well. In a great many cases, these people sit the Services examinations in education, and I know of a case in which a warrant officer with a first-class certificate of education came out of the Army at 40 years of age and had great difficulty in getting a job. He is now working as a postman. That man could not teach in a junior secondary school. If, however, the colleges of education were open to people of that category—obviously, people with brains and a flair for instruction—there would be a vast reservoir of skilled people who are suitable for that sort of job who could be brought into the teaching profession very quickly when we require them. We do not require them so much in ten years' time as we need them now. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider this.
  As far as I can see, there is no scarcity of people being chosen for the higher technical education. Whatever we say about Scottish education, outside possibly the City of Glasgow and one or two places like that, we cannot find much fault with the selection of children for the type of secondary education we have. It seems to me that 36 per cent., which is the average figure in Scotland of children capable of higher education, have a very good chance of getting it. It seems to me that there is a unlimited demand for a child who has gat the ability for a rather lower level of education but who has not got the ability to sit the O-level examination. Here I think there should be some very careful thought given to it with a view to co-ordinating the needs of industry with the possibilities of education. I do not think that this is being done enough. I understand that even the lowest qualifications which it is possible to get in junior secondary school—the junior

  1223
  leaving certificate—is not regarded by the trade schools or the technical colleges as being sufficient for entry for the trades courses in these schools and that they insist upon having their own entrance examination, which may or may not bear any relation to the courses which these children have been given in their schools.
  It would be a tremendous advantage, from the point of view of the skilled artisan and the semi-skilled person, if there were a great deal more close co-operation between industry and education. I ask my right hon. Friend to think along these lines and to see whether he could not get very much closer links between industry and the schools and thus make certain that our education is geared to the needs of industry in all its forms so that these children leave school with not only a first-class academic education but with certain ability along the lines of a chosen vocation.
  I think it is right to say that my right hon. Friend has done extremely well on these lines as far as rural subjects and nautical subjects are concerned. Those of us who represent rural constituencies know about the tremendous advantages which are gained by the rural economy classes in the junior secondary schools. This experiment has been very successful. Similarly, along the coast boys are trained in nautical subjects, and it has been a success. But this experiment has not been applied sufficiently to the industrial parts, in the South and elsewhere. Even in places where there is high unemployment, it does not seem to me to have taken place to the extent which it might have done, to the very great advantage of the community.
  I understand that in the United States there is a growing body of unemployed among the people who possess no skill whatever but that in the United States there is virtually no unemployment among boys trained at or after leaving school, on the basis of a manual skill in same trade or another. If this is important in the United States, it is even more important in this country, where we have a much smaller population to deal with.
  Mr. G. M. Thomson: The hon. Gentleman does not need to go to the United States to prove that. If
  1224
  he would look at any Scottish industrial area, he would find a higher incidence of juvenile unemployment among boys from schools with no vocational training.
  Mr. Hendry: The hon. Gentleman simply underlines my point. If the United States cannot afford it, we can afford it very much less, and I beg of my right hon. Friend to think along these lines and to do something to produce this liaison between industry and education for which I am pleading.
  Every boy and girl has basically some sort of skill. The job of the schoolmaster is to find out what that skill is and to encourage and nurture it. It will never happen, however, if schoolmasters and schoolmistresses are given the sort of woolly advice contained in the 1955 Blue Book, which tells them to experiment and to try to work things out for themselves. It would add enormously to our educational success in Scotland if a clear directive of the aim to strive for were laid down by the Scottish Education Department.
  7.21 p.m.
  Mr. A. WoodburnI propose to intervene for only a short time, because a number of hon. Members on both sides wish to speak. I hope that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) will forgive me if I do not follow him into what seemed to me to be the labyrinth of his thinking aloud. The hon. Member put forward a great many ideas, some of which probably would not stand up to critical examination.
  It is true, for example, that some people have a natural capacity for nursing and healing. My mother used to be consulted by all sorts of people who could not afford to go to the doctor. There are people who go to wart doctors, people who go to doctors who prescribe all sorts of vegetable cures, and people have great faith in them. Nobody objects to these things. What society does, however, is to say that before people are entrusted with the right to treat people medically, society must assure itself that they have some knowledge of the human body.
  Before we hand children over to adults, there must be some social guarantee that those who deal with them have a background of knowledge and not

  1225
  merely inspiration and gifts. I realise that the best teachers are probably born and not produced by a university. Nevertheless, society must have that background assurance.
  The hon. Member criticised the raising of the school-leaving age to 15. Has he any idea what is happening in the education of children in Russia, America and other countries? We would be even further behind if that step had not been taken. In some respects, there never would have been a time when the school-leaving age could have been raised, because there were always employers who were wanting to employ children who were immature because they got them as cheap labour. We cannot afford to have uneducated children who are not educated at least to the age of 15. It is a tragedy that the age cannot be even higher.
  Everybody, including the Secretary of State, but except the hon. Member himself, welcomes the fact that so many children are continuing at school beyond the age of 15. In a contradictory way, the hon. Member praised the children who had qualified in the junior secondary school to take still more education. The hon. Member cannot both want children to stop at the age of 14 and to go on after they are 15. He needs to tidy up a great deal of his thinking in regard to education as a whole.
  Mr. Hendry: I criticised, not the raising of the school-leaving age to 15, but its being raised to that age without thought.
  Mr. Woodburn: A great deal of thought had been given by educationists for forty or fifty years. If the hon. Member was not aware of that, the Government of the day were quite aware of it and knew what they were doing. It was a great experiment, because nobody knew quite what the form of education would be.
  One thing which that additional
  education was not intended to do was to make further hoops to jump or to try to make academic people out of those who did not want to be academic. Children are different. Some want to do things and not to sit and think. Some children cannot be tied to a desk. They have energy and they want it to be directed into the best channels.
  1226
  The raising of the school-leaving age gave to teachers for the first time in their lives an opportunity not to work against the collar of an examination for a university to which the child would never go, but an opportunity to try to develop a child's mind according to its bent. Since the hon. Member has visited a number of junior secondary schools, he has discovered teachers who have made a success of that.
  In my constituency—Clackmannan—teachers have made a great success of it. Employers were enthusiastic about the change and the difference in the children who came to be apprentices and who had passed through the junior secondary school as against others who used to leave at the age of 14 and came without the extra training. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will not dismiss these things lightly. This is something which must be developed, and it is being developed extremely successfully in many of our cities.
  Edinburgh is proud of its junior secondary schools and of some of the successes that it has had. If children there qualify and want to go on to be academic, there is nothing to prevent them. But the world is not full of academic people. It needs people who work with tools, in factories and in engineering. They need brains as well, and they have them. We cannot have brainless people working with electronic machinery and the like. Therefore, there are all sorts of ways in which to develop our mixed community.
  We certainly need a large number of teachers. One of the tragedies which has come out of the debate from the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) is that in a few years' time Scotland will be 4,000 or 7,000 teachers short. It is no good moaning about it. If that is the fact, what are we to do about it? Merely to state the fact will not solve it. I address my contribution to the solution of this question.
  We can get more teachers if we reduce the standards. That course has been rejected. We have a lot of uncertificated teachers, who are trying to do their best but who do not possess the necessary qualifications to be the best. Can we do anything with these teachers? Is there any reason why there should not

  1227
  be vocation courses at the universities or at the colleges of education to try to give these people who are willing to do the job the necessary qualifications to do it? I suggest that the Secretary of State might consider this for a start.
  Part-time education might prove to be something of an advantage. America developed its high-class machinery only because it did not have cheap labour. For generations, America did not have the cheap or surplus labour that we had. Because of scarcity of labour, it had to develop machines to do the job.
  Education includes science. I complained several years ago that one body of people in the community who did not seem to be using science to improve their productivity were those who were supposed to teach science, the educationists. Science should be used to increase productivity per teacher, the same as is done by anybody else. Let us take the simple way of doing it. If children have to have part-time education, the first thing is to adopt the idea of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) and teach children how to learn.
  The Dalton system starts with very small infants with projects. I have seen infants aged 7, 8 and 9 doing projects on their own because they have been taught to do them. A wealthy woman who sent her child to a school of that kind said that she was astonished that a girl of 8 or 9 should develop a capacity for doing and learning things for herself when that did not usually occur until a person went to the university.
  Our Scottish schools have suffered from too much suppression and too little expression. In other words, children ought to be taught to express themselves. They ought to be given projects. If the Secretary of State looks back to the circular which I issued on primary education, when I was asked to abolish home lists, I said that I thought that was the wrong way to go about it. I quite agree that giving children more books to read and sums to do was a mistake. One of the tragedies of today is that people do not know how to use their leisure. We stopped them working and we stopped them delivering newspapers, and they got into mischief. They have to find on outlet for what they are doing.
  1228
  To give a child projects ought to be part of education. In some cases this is done. Children are given the job of finding out all about their town. They visit factories and other places and they inquire into what is being done. If a child is taught to learn it will develop a new character. That is one of the primary purposes of education. If a child learns how to learn it will go on educating itself properly for the rest of its life. Where it is impossible to obtain teachers to nurse children into knowing things the time should be used to give them a job to try to teach themselves, or to learn by doing things. A great many children will learn far more by doing things than from lessons or lectures given by a teacher.
  Science is available to assist in teaching. A great deal of teaching starts with lectures. Take mathematics as an example. The right hon. Gentleman said that mathematics would present a great problem. Not every mathematics teacher can teach mathematics. There are great differences. Some children fail examinations because they have been taught by the wrong kind of teacher. I know of a student who failed an examination, but who, when his teacher was changed, succeeded in passing the examination because the new teacher had the ability to teach mathematics. There are geniuses who teach mathematics and we have the machinery by which it would be possible to make the teaching of such people available to all the children.
  Mr. Dempsey: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that one must also take into consideration the type of material which the teacher is attempting to teach?
  Mr. Woodburn: We are assuming that a teacher is teaching children who desire to learn mathematics. If they are capable of learning they will learn better from a good teacher than from a bad teacher. The point is that there are different teachers, and if it were possible to make the best teacher available to all the children that would be a great advantage.
  Anyone who listened to Sir Oliver Lodge lecturing on electricity or on science could hardly help but learn from it. Anyone who listened to Sir Walford Davies lecturing on music might well

  1229
  think that he could himself start to compose tunes and songs. The teaching ability of similar geniuses should be made, and can by television, be made available to children all over the country. Children can learn from such people in a way in which it would be impossible for an ordinary teacher to teach them. The resources which
  are available to the B.B.C. or to I.T.V. are not available to all our teachers. Months may be spent preparing a programme and the subject dealt with will stand out. The teacher may even imitate such a programme and spend a whole evening preparing something for the next day's lesson.
  There is no reason why a teacher should not be assisted by an explanation provided either by a television programme, or—this would be a much more economical way to do it—by the use of sound film. It would be too expensive to continue to broadcast the same lessons year after year or month after month. But if a film were made, it could be used to capture the attention of the children. The same film could be used for generations. This is being done in medical schools to some extent and I cannot see why the same thing should not he done in our schools. If teachers are not available the children must be deprived of the privilege of being taught, or else a substitute must be found for the teacher.
  I agree that after a lecture has been given, and an explanation, the teacher must do the teaching part of it. But by that time a great deal of the drudgery will have been taken out of the lesson. Any teacher who is called on to give the same lecture again and again is bound to get bored stiff. He will become stale. But if he is able to carry out his teaching part after the lecture has been given, it will come fresh to the children.
  I am against the idea of endeavouring to make television a medium for this kind of thing because of the expense. But there is a man who lectures to children on painting. He receives many paintings and drawings from children every week. These children do not require to be drilled by a teacher into drawing and painting. They send in their own paintings and drawings to the lecturer by the thousand. I wrote to the
  1230
  B.B.C. suggesting that a colour film should be taken to be shown to the children, who would appreciate the colour.
  I was told that this would be too expensive and that it was a matter for education authorities. It seems to me that education authorities and the television authorities work in different compartments, which is ridiculous. The B.B.C. and I.T.V. should co-operate with colleges of education to devise films and methods of putting science and mathematics across to the children.
  I used to lecture on economics, and if anything can put people to sleep it is a lecture on economics.
  Mr. Ede: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Woodburn: To prevent the students from going to sleep I had to keep their attention, and I did it by the use of lantern slides. If one is explaining figures, after the first three sets have been given the brains of the listeners begin to get tired. But if the students can see the figures on a screen it will attract their attention and focus their interest. They will not be diverted by looking at the girls sitting nearby, or at the view through a window, or by the pictures on the wall. The matter becomes interesting because it has been illustrated. The eye can learn in a flash what an hour or three hours of lecturing can never teach.
  It seems strange to me that the world of education is so slow in making use of science. It is tragic, as is revealed by the Report, that there are so few television sets available in Scottish schools to make use even of the few television lessons which are broadcast. I raised the matter some years ago and we do not seem to have made much progress since then.
  There is one hopeful thing. It is the Scottish film library, in Glasgow. From there films and film strips are distributed throughout the schools and I am quite sure that the teachers derive great assistance from their use. I should like to have seen a great deal more in the Report about this matter. It is treated as a sideline of no importance, but it is something which is fundamental. If we are to be faced with a shortage of 7,000 teachers, some other way must be

  1231
  found to reach the children and to instruct them. Why should children be sent home through lack of teachers if we can find some way whereby the genius of the best teachers in the world may be made available to all the children all over the country at the same time, or at a time to suit the school if films are used instead?
  I wish to emphasise this matter because it is so important and because it seems to me tragic that we should anticipate a time when we shall be short of 7,000 teachers. An impossible burden will be placed on those teachers who are available. The account of what is happening in Glasgow is so depressing. One does not like to think that so many of the children in such a great city are not getting a proper education. If the Secretary of State does not do something about it I hope that the Glasgow Corporation will look at the possibility of making greater use of science to supplement the efforts of the teachers and overcome the deficiencies. The use of the film library in Glasgow could be developed. I am sure that the Government could help in such development if the desire were there.
  A college of education could be something to inspire teachers and train them in the use of these facilities. My hon. Friend the Member for Govan said that it was thirty years since he started using films. I began to use film strips at a time when the first little firm in London began to make them. I have used them ever since. One gets more across in half an hour with a film strip than with all the most wonderful lectures given by voice alone. The use of the eyes is just as important as the use of the ears. If we can enlist all the faculties of the child instead of only one while the others are diverted to all sorts of incidentals, we can make much more progress.
  I hope that when the next Report comes it will tell of progress in supplementing teaching by the use of science and that Scotland will give a lead in this work. America has evidently made great progress. People have visited America to see what has been done. I cannot understand why progress here has been so slow and hesitant and why
  1232
  education, faced with this great problem, is not making use of the facilities which are at hand.
  7.41 p.m.
  Sir Fitzroy Maclean: I find myself in agreement with a great deal of what the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshirt (Mr. Woodburn) has said. I am sure that a basic principle for any teacher—although my teaching has been limited and of a rather special character —must be to teach the pupil, as the right hon. Member put it, to learn to learn, to make his mind a useful and serviceable instrument. I also agree with what he said about the use of television and films. Like him, I have often found a film or a magic lantern a very useful device for keeping an audience awake.
  There has been a considerable measure of agreement throughout this debate. That does not mean, of course, that we shall vote the same way, but a note of agreement has run through the debate and that note has been one of disquiet. I was glad to observe that the Secretary of State, when he opened the debate, showed every sign of sharing that disquiet. That is the best guarantee we have that something will be done about it. My right hon. Friend used the expression "disturbing" about the outlook with the shortage of teachers. That is one of the biggest problems which faces us. We live today in a highly competitive world, a world which is rapidly changing.
  In education, it is of vital importance that we should adapt ourselves and make ourselves competitive if we are to survive. At present, not only Scotland but the United Kingdom as a whole has one of the lowest ratios of places for higher education in the whole Western world. That is a very disturbing state of affairs. What is equally, if not more disturbing is the rapidity with which we are being caught up and passed, not only by the Western world, but the Eastern world.
  The Soviet Union now produces 130,000 science graduates and technologists every year. For the whole United Kingdom our output is about 13,000. Already, we are lagging far behind a country which, twenty or thirty years ago, we hardly needed to bother about

  1233
  as a competitor in these fields. Another example by which we could profit is the extremely effective links which exist in the Soviet Union between science and industry and between education and industry. That is something which we are only just beginning to touch on in this country.
  I was glad to hear what the Secretary of State said about what is being done in this field and the measures taken for the expansion of technical education. I was also glad to hear of the new schools and colleges which are coming into being and also what he said about the importance of industrial firms taking steps to help themselves in this respect. We have to remember that Scotland, of all countries, can least afford to lag behind in this respect. If we are to get the prosperity which we all want for Scotland, if we are to get the new industry which we need to bring us employment, we have to depend in future not on national resources, but, in the first place, on brains and skill.
  The same applies more and more to defence. We spend hundreds of thousands of millions of pounds on defence. No one would support that expenditure more sincerely than I do, but it is no good doing that if we are not to produce the scientists who can help us to hold our own in that field. That can be
  done only by improving the opportunities for higher education. What is at stake is the future of both Scotland in particular and the United Kingdom as a whole in a world which is changing every day and which every day is becoming more and more highly competitive.
  At the beginning of the debate my right hon. Friend spoke of something of which we are all too much aware—the limited financial resources which are at the disposal of the Government. He spoke of the agonising decisions that he has to take every time he allots priorities. I wonder whether the time has not come in education for an agonising reappraisal of the whole system of priorities in Government expenditure. I have no doubt that we are moving into a future where if we are to have prosperity and full employment in Scotland, or even to carry on at all, we shall have to spend much more money on education.
  Whatever else we economise on, the one thing we should not do is to skimp
  1234
  on education, especially university education. I have been encouraged by what my right hon. Friend said about the measures which have been taken already in this direction, but I think that we need more still. The Government programme for university education is not adequate. Not so long ago my noble Friend the Minister for Science, when speaking as Rector of Glasgow University, said that we should aim at 200,000 university places by 1970. His job as Minister for Science is to be more conscious than anyone else of the need to fulfil that target. I wish that the Government would make it their target, also.
  I also hope that we shall get a fifth university in Scotland. I know that there is an argument that by the time the fifth university can be brought into existence the present population bulge will have subsided and there may not be the same need for university places. I cannot accept that argument. It seems to me a feeble argument, because even if the bulge has subsided we shall still need the places. Civil servants have a way of being obsessed by bulges. I have had some experience of dealing with Army manpower, and I suggest that we should remember that bulges take people by surprise; they have a way of occurring suddenly and subsiding suddenly—and not always when one expects them to do so.
  I hope that in thinking of the future the Government will do everything in their power to try to increase the number of university places available, bulge or no bulge, because I am sure that the future of Scotland is bound to depend on that, in prosperity employment and everything else.
  7.52 p.m.
  Mr. William Hannan: On this occasion, it is a real and sincere pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean). I agreed with him all the way through his remarks, and particularly in the latter part of his speech, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State was not so busy working with his papers as to miss what his hon. Friend said about the provision of university places. It will do something to remind the Secretary of State and his colleagues of what is required. What the hon. Member said about advances in Russian

  1235
  education has been summed up in an apt phrase by Professor Galbraith of America—"Either the Western world learns mathematics or science, or Russian". There is a great deal in that comment.
  But the hon. Member's speech was in great contrast to that of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry), and I can only hope that the Under-Secretary of State will pay no attention to that speech from Aberdeenshire, West. While listening to it the Secretary of State must have been saying, "Save me from my friends".
  I want to ask the Under-Secretary of State a question about university entrants and certificates of fitness. He will perhaps recall that last October I asked a question about the figures for each of the last three years of senior secondary pupils who obtained certificates of fitness. He replied,
  "The issue of these certificates is a function of the Scottish Universities Entrance Board, which is an autonomous body and which does not publish…figures."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th October, 1961; Vol. 646, c. 40.]
  When pressed, he admitted that it would be worthwhile to try to get this information. He said that he entirely agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) and added that we want all the relevant information we can get.
  I had also asked about the statistical report which, under the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1899, is authorised to be received by the Secretary of State from the universities. This is a unique Act which applies only to Scotland. My second question is whether the form in which those statistics and that information are provided has been modified since the report was instituted. Why is not this information given in greater detail? What are the reasons for the changes? Will the Minister include the information which we then sought?
  What is the wastage rate of students in universities in the first year? This is information which ought to be given to the public. If public money is to be used by the university authorities, there ought to be a greater degree of public accountability so that, while not interfering with the independence of the
  1236
  universities in curricula or in choosing students, at least we can voice a public opinion whether the money which is being spent is being used for the best purpose in providing the greatest number of places for the increasing number of young people who are coming from our schools.
  Recently we have had some criticism from the Chancellor of a university in Scotland in which he said that those who have been crying for and talking about another university have been talking gliby and that a new university will not provide the new teachers in time for the present crisis. Neither I nor others who have
  Been speaking on the subject, nor any organisation of a political party which I know, have been arguing for a new university for that purpose. They have been saying that in order to meet the next bulge, of which the Secretary of State spoke today, now is the time to make preparations; do not let us be facing a similar crisis in seven, eight or ten years' time.
  Without spending very much time on this business of universities, which I recognise is not quite within the Estimate, nevertheless I want to return to the increasing numbers of young people coming from the senior secondary schools for whom there are no places. Because of the increasing percentages of fourth, fifth and sixth-year students staying on, because of the introduction of the O-level certificates and because of the intended link-up of the junior secondary school with further education. We shall need more teachers. I am one of those who take the view that there are teachers ingenious enough to find ways and means of teaching even in huts and old halls. If we have to allocate resources, they should go into increasing the number of teachers. If there is to be a priority, then in my view more should go on the supply of teachers and less on the schools.
  The young people who are concerned also have a point of view which ought to be expressed—and which they express in their magazine called Sixth Form Opinion. I quote from the editorial:
  "We, along with more eminent and influential publications, deplore the irresponsible absence of foresight in the Government's attitude towards the universities. These are no longer the finishing schools of an intellectual cream but a vital component of the preparation

  1237
  for the most responsible posts in industry, technology and government, as well as the growth of self-realisation. In addition to noting its national consequences, we censure a situation which subjects sixth-formers to over-work, narrow specialisation, continual anxiety arid, frequently, shattered hopes."
  That is the situation in many homes in Scotland where the young people, having stayed on at school because of pressure from parents encouraging them to do so, and encouragement from their schoolmasters, find that they are disappointed at the last moment in failing to gain admittance to universities. The Chancellor of St. Andrew's University, Sir Malcolm Knox, a week ago made a speech which was not too helpful to the provision of more university places. Perhaps the best answer to him is Mr. Andrew Knox, who was chairman of a Committee which in 1959 produced a report which in nearly every paragraph stressed the need for more teachers, but which refused to accept the logic of its own case by going on to talk of another university.
  I support the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) about uncertificated teachers. Must we go on protesting about them, or will the Scottish Office do something to help them to take the necessary qualifications in the vacations, or in other periods?
  There were two other proposals in the Knox Report which the Government did not accept. One of them—on bursaries —was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), but why does the Government draw the line at allowing retired teachers returning to the profession receiving both salary and pension? The Report said:
  "For our part we cannot see what can be said at a time of crisis for a principle which permits full pay and full pension to be paid to a retired teacher if he enters some branch of the public service other than teaching, or takes employment with a commercial firm, or even if he returns to teach in a private school, but debars him from receiving full pay and full pension if he returns to teaching in a public school, where he is desperately needed."
  The report went on to say that if the Secretary of State refused to concede this, the Committee would find it hard to believe that he was seized of the crisis in Scottish education. There can be no stronger language than that.
  1238
  The report also said that the problem facing education was to attract nearly 300 more graduates a year into teaching than were recruited before the war from a present university output in arts and pure science that was only 300 more for all purposes. Those figures are astonishing.
  A recent report in the Glasgow Herald showed that in 1961 only two more Glasgow University honours graduates in arts entered teaching than in 1960; and that in 1961 only eight ordinary arts graduates from Glasgow University entered teaching over the previous year's figure. To be more precise, in 1960, 40 honours arts graduates from Glasgow University went in for teaching. In 1961, there were 42. From Glasgow University in 1960, 60 ordinary graduates in arts went into the teaching profession—46 per cent. of all the arts graduates in the university —but only 68, or 57 per cent. entered teaching in 1961. In 1960, 31–53 per cent. of Glasgow University's production of ordinary science graduates—went into teaching, but only 33, or 46 per cent., in 1961. The position in regard to science graduates is particularly bad. The attraction for those young men is industry, where they earn a salary at once, instead of having to go to a training college.
  Scotland is often compared with Norway for size, population, etc., but what has happened in Norway? The Norwegian Government propose a ten-year educational programme. They want to double the capacity of their universities from a present 9,200 annually to 18,500 by 1970. It also proposes two new universities, one at Trondheim and the other at Tromso. The programme is estimated to cost £28 million. I believe that the Secretary of State is perturbed about the present situation, but what we as members of the Opposition have to ask is whether he is showing real concern or whether, to use the language that percolates among Under-Secretaries and civil servants, he is only making pleasant noises.
  I am very pleased with the whole of Chapter 2 of the Report before us, which gives a review of the junior secondary school position. As I said in Standing Committee two or three years ago, those attending the junior secondary schools constitute two-thirds of the school population, but their problems

  1239
  and curricula are only occasionally mentioned. We recognise that teachers, administrators and the Department have shown their interest over the years, but the Report goes even further than I had expected.
  What particularly pleases me is to find in the later paragraphs of the chapter a comment on the very problem that some of us raised two or three years ago, and which has been hinted at by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West: what is the aim of the junior secondary school? It was the absence of the attainment of something at the end of a three-year period that gave rise to the dislike of parents, on social or other grounds, of the junior secondary school. The Report hints that there is a need for linking up the last year of the junior secondary school course with vocational training.
  It says that in the third year there should be a greater variety of courses, and more interest shown in them, and states that there should be greater emphasis on the needs of young people of 12, 13 and 14 years of age. Those young people are not children any more, and do not like to be looked on as children. The junior secondary school's task is to prepare these young people for adult life, and I note with satisfaction that the number of pupils in the junior secondary schools who complete the three-year course has risen from 39 per cent. to 55 per cent. Even this is not good enough. It is an improvement, but there is no reason why a percentage greater than 55 should not be involved, and I hope that headmasters will be encouraged to do something about this.
  A mistake was made by the Government when we were discussing the recent Education Bill when they refused to accept an Opposition Amendment designed to create one school leaving date. Acceptance of it would have ensured that young people stayed at school longer. It is stated on page 36 of the Report:
  "Nothing is more striking than the remarkable improvement effected in a school by its transfer from inadequate, uncomfortable and unattractive premises to one of the pleasant, well-designed, airy buildings which are now being provided".
  Hon. Members who have seen these new schools know what a difference they
  1240
  make to pupils and staff. It is not merely a question of improved accommodation for the pupils or, while on the subject, more pay for teachers. Their working conditions are important, too, and better buildings make for betterment all round.
  Even in these schools the position is aggravated by the shortage of teachers and frequent staff changes. There is a lack of clarity of purpose in many schools, and that is borne out by the Report, which urges that greater attention should be paid to this subject and that a radical reappraisal should be made of the aims and methods which have in the past made the position difficult. It is stated on page 38 of the Report:
  "One serious criticism which has frequently been directed at junior secondary education is that it leads nowhere 'since it lacks direct links with any form of further education corresponding to those which the senior secondary schools have established with university and other forms of higher education."
  The Report continues:
  "This view is not entirely fair, since no education which sets out to provide a prepartion for living, as junior secondary education tries to do, can be thought of as a dead end."
  The Report goes on to give the reason why some of us have hitherto thought it to be unfair and states:
  "…the whole question of the linkage of secondary with further education is at present being examined by a working party."
  That makes all the difference. If young people, in their final year, can get the impression that if they do well by the end of the term they will have a stepping stone towards further education, they will have greater interest in mathematics, science and the subjects associated with the jobs they will take up. The Report states on pages 54 and 55:
  "The commonest form of fourth-year course has so far been the intensive commercial course, mainly followed by girls, and there are many such courses in secondary schools of different types. These serve a valuable purpose in acting as a bridge between school and employment…"
  The Report points out that these courses round off education and help vocationally.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary has taken note of the statement in the Report that there is much less provision of this

  1241
  kind for boys. It is pointed out that only a few counties, notably Fife and Stirling, have developed intensive courses in technical subjects. The Minister of Education, the Secretary of State, education authorities and the Crowther Report all stressed the importance of education, particularly for young people between 15 and 18. They stressed the importance of the links between primary and secondary school and between secondary school and universities in the case of the erudite young persons. However, they pointed out that the links between the secondary junior school and industry and further education just do not exist.
  Until there is such a clear-cut line of progressive education we are going to have continued disabilities in trying to train our young people up to the standards we wish to see. Most people now believe that it is essential to think responsibility of the consequences of extending part-time education to 18 years of age. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West has talked about the school leaving age being raised to 15 as if we had no right to do it. I would remind him that at the time of the First World War hon. Members of his party were talking about raising the leaving age to 15. They kept on talking about it through the years between the wars, though it was left to the Government which came into power after the Second World War to take the step.
  The present Government have said that they are giving priority to raising the school leaving age to 16 but that promise is merely words because in the light of the present circumstances of teacher shortages and the inadequacy of existing school buildings either they mean what they say or they do not. I believe that they are not sincere and that their statements represent the fact that nothing will be done by them in respect of compulsory day release for young people in industry.
  Further education has grown up in response to the demands of industry, but if industry complains about its cost we have a duty to remind industrialists that a great part of the cost involved is borne by taxpayers and ratepayers. I hope that the figures I propose to quote concerning day release attendances are correct. In Scotland between 1956 and 1960 the day release figures went up
  1242
  from 28,000 to 35,000—a 25 per cent. increase. No one denies that that increase took place but it is really only relative. If the figure is compared with the rest of the country it represents only about a half the rate of increase that has taken place in England and Wales and does not compare very well with some continental countries. Thus we have nothing to congratulate ourselves about in this respect.
  In any case, is it not true that most of the increase has taken place for engineering apprentices and covers largely those over 18 years of age? The figures are not in respect of the young people we have mainly in mind; those between 15 and 18. Nevertheless, day release has been widely accepted by industry and could hardly be opposed at national level now. If technical education is an integral part of apprenticeship, it cannot be left as a voluntary act on the part of the apprentice.
  My hon. Friends and I consider that the Government have a positive part to play and that compulsory day release is the only answer to the problem. We will not be fobbed off any longer. There is talk of raising the school leaving age to 16 but that is not the real issue. The important thing is how best we can compulsorily continue education. The Report mentions that this matter has been sent again to a Committee for further consideration. One thing that is certain is 'that responsibility should not be put on the young person himself or herself to ask for 'permission to attend day release classes because then we are faced with another difficulty: to whom does the young person apply? Is it to be youth officer, to the Ministry of Labour, or to the employer? It is much better that we should be given a straightforward answer that compulsory day release is to be inaugurated.
  I should like the Under-Secretary to tell us what progress is being made in the provision and building of technical colleges which are at present on the programme. Many schemes already exist between the employers and the trade unions in which compulsory day release, for example, is accepted. There are agreements in the building industry, the electrical contracting industry, the printing and the furniture industries, and in these cases we have no complaint to

  1243
  make. If compulsory day release is to be introduced, it should be introduced trade by trade or perhaps area by area, so that the local authorities would have due warning and time in which to make proper provision for young people going to such classes.
  These are the points to which I should like some answer, and I hope that the Under-Secretary and the Scottish Office will continue along the lines outlined in the Report and try to cope with the urgent need for teachers for senior secondary schools.
  8.23 p.m.
  Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley: I apologise to the Committee in that for quite unforeseen and unavoidable reasons I was unable to be present for the opening of the debate. Although I have been in my place for an hour or two, and have heard the last half-dozen speeches, I was not able to hear them all and I apologise in advance if I refer to matters that have already been referred to and dealt with by other hon. Members.
  May I, first, say a word about the fifth university, to which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) referred in their speeches. As I understand the position, it is this. Over the next few years, because of the bulge, there will be increased pressure for university places. I do not think that anyone will seek to deny that or has sought to deny it. But a fifth university will not immediately help because, however quickly arrangements are made, we cannot possibly have a university ready in Scotland to cope with the problem of the bulge between now and 1970.
  By the early 1970s the pressure will have died down. There will not be the same pressure as there will be between now and 1970. Later, it may increase again. That is what the Robbins Committee is looking into. The decision which will have to be made is a long term decision and one which may well set the pattern for Scottish education for the next 100 years. The Government are quite right not to commit themselves without the fullest advice.
  1244
  In the meantime, we are very far from marking time in this matter. From now until 1967 grants to universities will be increased by over 50 per cent., and Scotland's share is not likely to be less. We are doubling the size of St. Andrew's University in a decade, and there are plans for the provision of 40,000 new places in higher education, of approximately degree standard, within the next ten years in Scottish universities, training colleges and central institutions. These are exciting and important possibilities which ought not to go unnoticed in this debate.
  When the Conservative Government came to power in 1951 three major problems faced them in relation to Scottish education. There was a need to provide school places for the bulge, a need to recruit and train a sufficient number of teachers, and a need to facilitate and encourage secondary school education. In Scotland, about 36 per cent. of our school children attend places in senior secondary schools, as compared with between 20 and 25 per cent. south of the Border. That in itself is very encouraging, and I was glad to see from the Advisory Council's Report on the Transfer from Primary to Secondary Education, published last December, that few pupils capable of profiting from senior secondary courses have been denied admission to them.
  I also want to refer to the other points —the provision of school places for the bulge, and of teachers for the greater number of children who have been coming along to be educated. In 1951–52 the average number of pupils on the registers of public and grant-aided schools in Scotland, to the nearest 100, was 808,300. There were then 32,600 certificated teachers. That meant that there was an average of 24·8 pupils to each certificated teacher.
  Nine years later, in 1960–61, there were still 24·8 pupils—exactly the same number, to a decimal point—to each certificated teacher, although the number of pupils had risen to just under 900,000 and the number of certificated teachers had increased by over 3,600, to more than 36,000.
  As Alice learnt from the Red Queen, in the topsy-turvy world in which we live, it is often necessary to run very fast in order to stay in the same place.

  1245
  In spite of the fact that recruitment is at a record level and that the number entering training colleges in 1960-61 was 40 per cent. higher than the figure of four years ago, we still need about 3,700 teachers in Scotland to replace the un-certificated teachers and the retired teachers over the age of 70, to fill vacancies, and to do away with oversize classes.
  On the assumption that educational policy in Scotland will remain broadly unchanged, the Departmental Committee on the Supply of Teachers, in its Fourth Report, made this year, estimates that whereas the supply of un-certificated teachers in service will rise to over 43,000 by 1975, the demand by that date will approach 50,000, and that the total shortage on the existing basis will rise from about 5,000 in 1966 to between 6,000 and 7,000 in 1975. Of course, the need will be very much greater if there are any major changes in policy. If, for example, there should he an increase in the school-leaving age to 16, or if there should be the introduction of compulsory part-time further education, and if all classes were reduced to a maximum of 30 pupils, between 7,500 and 10,000 teachers would be required.
  I welcome the campaign which was initiated last year to persuade married women who have been teachers to return to service as and when family commitments allow. It is one of the advantages, in a way, of the professions, some of them called sometimes ancillary to medicine—I mean the professions of the physiotherapist, of the occupational therapist. and that one which is so closely allied to educational work. that of the speech therapist—that the practitioners in those professions, when they are married, can return for part-time service. They can attend clinics; they can take pupils one morning a week, or a day a week, or two days a week, whatever may be required. Great benefit is derived from that.
  I think that we ought to get used to the idea that teaching, too, can be part-time for the certificated married woman teacher who is able to come back to take a few subjects, or a class, occasionally, once or twice a week, something like that. I think we ought to get used to
  1246
  that idea and encourage it when we can. One welcomes also the grants under the special recruitment scheme.
  We get so many ideas and values wrong; all too often the worth of the job is measured by the value of its emoluments. Teaching is a vocation, and one of the highest. That is a truism. I think that all of us— in this Committee, at any rate, because we would not be here if we were not interested in education— recognise that teaching is one of the finest vocations which there is. We ought to do all that we can— and this, again, has been said so often, and I have said it lots of times myself—to raise the status of the teacher. Emoluments are not everything.
  We ought to do all we can to bring back the status of the teacher to the status of the dominie in Scotland in the old days, the leader of the village community, the finest man, very often, in a rural community, and, no doubt, in an urban community, too. The minister and the dominie were the men to whom people looked up, to whom they went for guidance and advice, by whom they themselves had been educated, brought up, taught so much of value in their lives. Perhaps one can hardly say it in this context, but I wish so often that there could be more schoolmasters, and schoolmistresses, too, receiving recognition in Honours Lists. It is not a big point, but it is important that services of the kind that they give should be fully recognised by the State on every possible occasion.
  My final point relates to the non-eligibility of teachers for membership of local education authorities in Scotland, which has always seemed to me to be wrong. They have an inmportant contribution to make. After all, they are the people who know about these things and can advise the authorities. We do not debar farmers from county council work, nor contractors, even though they may be in receipt of contracts from the bodies of which they are members. There are certain rules about it, of course. They may not vote when the body is awarding them a contract. But they are not debarred.
  We do not debar landowners, and in these days of great increases in value as result of the decisions of planning

  1247
  authorities landowners stand to gain a very great deal from being members of local authorities and having advance information about how things are going and being able to influence a decision in a certain direction. We do not debar council house tenants.
  If we were to allow— I hope we may do so— teachers to sit on local education authorities, there should be guidance in a Departmental circular as to the matters on which they ought not to vote. That would be reasonable, and they would welcome guidance on that point. But until we admit these men and women to local education authorities, we shall be depriving ourselves unwisely of a source of expert knowledge of which we should do well to take advantage.
  8.37 p.m.
  Mr. G. M. Thomson: I very much agree with the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) in his last point about teacher representation on local education authorities. It would be a modest but very useful step in improving the status of the teaching profession. Teachers would make an immensely useful contribution to education committees. This works extremely well in many education authorities in England, and I can see no reason why it has not been applied a long time ago to Scottish education authorities as well. I hope that the Minister will take due note of what his hon. Friend has said.
  On the hon. Gentleman's main point about the educational progress during the last few years and the fact that, despite it, we have not been able to reduce the shortage of teachers, I would merely make the point that there has been a tremendous increase in public expenditure on education in this country and in other countries over the years since the war, but the fact remains that, compared with our general level of prosperity and affluence and compared with what other competing countries are doing, the Government have not done nearly enough. The growing shortage of teachers is proof of the Government's failure to match the immensity of the challenge they face.
  I want to concentrate attention on two narrow points, both of which are related
  1248
  to the shortage of teachers. The shortage of teachers is, above all, the dominating issue in educational problems at the present time. It is world-wide. It occurs in developed countries such as Britain, the United States and the countries of Europe and in acute form in the underdeveloped countries. Perhaps one of the disturbing features is that it does not seem to occur to anything like the same extent in the Communist countries, which is an urgent reason for our doing a great deal more.
  I refer, first, to the Secretary of State's responsibility to Parliament for information about Scottish universities, the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan). I want to refer, secondly, to the need for more research into educational problems. As I have said, they are both related to the overriding problem of the shortage of teachers.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill has mentioned the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889, I remind the Minister that Section 30 of that Act states clearly that
  "The University Court of each University shall make an annual report as to the statistics of attendance on the various classes, details of teaching staff, and such other information as the Commissioners, and, after the expiry of their powers, the Universities Committee, may from time to time determine …and the said reports shall be made to the Secretary of State for Scotland, and shall be laid by him before …Parliament, and an abstract thereof shall be published annually in such manner as the Commissioners shall determine."
  There have been many complaints in recent years from the House of Commons about the inadequacy of the information about what is happening inside the universities that is made available to Members of Parliament.
  There have been complaints about the lack of accountability by the universities to the nation through Parliament. To listen to some of the pundits in the university world dealing with this problem one would think that to suggest that universities ought to make detailed returns to Parliament of what is going on inside their walls is a heretical procedure that infringes in some way the academic freedom of universities. The fact is, as I have quoted from Section 30 of the 1889 Act, that far from being a heresy this requirement to give details to Members of Parliament about what is

  1249
  happening in the university world is the law of the land, and it is a law that is being broken.
  I believe that at the moment the Secretary of State for Scotland is breaking the law under Section 30 of that Act. I believe that the university courts are breaking it and that the University Grants Committee is breaking it. It is for this reason that I want to reinforce what my hon. Friend has said.
  I have here copies of the minutes of the Commission set up under that Act, laying out in great detail the kind of information which had to be laid before Parliament about what was happening inside the universities. I have also in this massive volume, which I show to the Committee, the results of this requirement which were laid before Parliament right from 1889 until 1916. In these reports to Parliament under the Act hon. Members will find all the kind of details that Members of Parliament on both sides have been asking for repeatedly in recent years.
  They will find details of the salaries paid to staff, of the individual staffing of every faculty, of the number of students attending classes and, exactly on the lines my hon. Friend asked for, not only all the passes but all the failures so that one can estimate the kind of wastage going on inside the universities. These details were provided to Parliament for many years until 1916 and then, as a temporary war-time economy measure, they were suspended during the First World War.
  After the war, the University Grants Committee was set up in 1919 and in 1921 the then Secretary of State for Scotland wrote to the university courts mentioning these reports about statistics and finances required under Section 30 of the 1899 Act. He said that
  "… he understands from the University Grants Committee that these reports will henceforth be included in the Universities and Colleges Blue Book."
  I gather that this Blue Book is the "Returns" by the University Grants Committee made to us each year. In addition to the Returns the Secretary of State puts in the Library of the House certain further information about the Scottish universities. I have some of it here. It consists mainly of abstracts of accounts and some of the proceedings of meetings of the general council. But
  1250
  the information which the Secretary of State makes available under the duty laid upon him by the Act is not nearly enough, nor is it information of the kind required by the Statute.
  It seems to me, reading these provisions, that, for any change to have been made in the details laid down by the Commissioners away back at the turn of the century, one would have had to have a decision of the Universities Committee of the Privy Council. My researches have not revealed that any such decision has ever been taken. My reading of the matter is that the obligation still lies on the Secretary of State and on the university courts to provide all these details which are exactly the kind of details for which we have been asking during recent years.
  I do not expect an answer to these points tonight because I believe that this is the first time that the question has been raised, but I pass on the information I have to the Minister and I should be very grateful if he and his legal advisers would go into it and see whether, in fact, we have a right to have the very kind of information for which we have so often asked, only to be told that it is heretical to demand it from the Scottish universities.
  The Government should make more money available for research into education problems. We all pay tribute to the work of the Scottish Council for Research in Education. The other day, the Minister told me, rather proudly, in a Written Answer that the allocation of Government funds to the Council had risen by 60 per cent. but he added that this meant an increase from £ 3,000 to £ 5,000. I was reminded of the story of George Bernard Shaw, who once claimed that the sales of his first novel had increased by 300 per cent. in a year because in the first year he had sold two copies and in the second year he had sold six. It is really pitiful that Scotland as a nation should be spending £ 5,000 a year on research into education problems, with a total education bill last year of about £ 100 million.
  We ought to be spending a great deal more money on trying to find out how to make the most efficient use of the trained teachers we have. I believe that we face an absolute shortage of teachers during our lifetime. Even though a

  1251
  Labour Government in the future did all the things which the Conservative Government have failed to do during past years, we should still find ourselves short of the number of teachers we need not only nationally but internationally. We must see this in terms also of our international obligations to the underdeveloped countries of the world which are crying out for our help in providing trained teachers.
  We ought to be doing systematic research into various new methods to make the maximum use of our desperately scarce trained teachers. I have already pressed on the Minister projects like an investigation into the use of teaching machines. These have produced very remarkable results in the teaching of mathematics in experiments within the Royal Air Force. Recruits using the teaching machines could pass the examinations with the same success as could conventionally trained pupils but with a saving of about 40 per cent. in time. I have mentioned the grouping of teachers in teaching teams in order to save scarce manpower. My right hon. Friend the Member for ClacKmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) has suggested exploring the uses of television.
  I speak as a layman in these matters. I do not presume to say that any one of these projects can by itself make a tremendous contribution. I just do not know. But the truth is that no one really knows. The work is not being done systematically to find out how far these new ideas could assist us in relieving the shortage of teachers.
  During a debate in the House recently on the general subject of expenditure on education research, one of my hon. Friends mentioned that Government funds, provided more money for research into stickier glue and into whiter whitewash than we spend altogether on research into the more efficient use of the trained teachers which we have in our schools. This is an indefensible situation. In the old days, Scotland was regarded all over the world as a country which pioneered in education advance, as a country which was a leader in education. I want Scotland to return to those great traditions and become the sort of place to which
  1252
  people will look for pioneering new ideas in overcoming the world-wide shortage of teachers.
  8.50 p.m.
  Mr. James Dempsey: Like the previous speaker, in view of the time factor, I shall require to curtail my remarks considerably, but I should like to say that we have covered a very comprehensive subject in the debate today. I am very glad that the Cinderella of modern education— junior secondary education— has been mentioned. While it is true to say that the school-leaving age was increased from 14 to 15, I do not believe that a concrete effort was made to ensure that that additional year would serve a fully useful purpose.
  I think that today the Secretary of State for Scotland has a responsibility to make that year an extremely interesting year, because at the present moment our junior secondary students have nothing to show for their studies. The teachers have no certificated pupils to produce, and there is a gap in the junior secondary schools on that account. Until the Secretary of State wakes up from his slumbers and introduces into the junior secondary schools a Scottish certificate of education which indicates the attainments of these pupils in various subjects, there is not the slightest doubt that for a long time to come many children will do nothing other than mark time in the junior secondary schools in Scotland.
  I speak as a member of a defaulters' sub-committee of an education authority, and I regret to say that a large percentage of the defaulting parents interviewed were parents of children who attend junior secondary schools. There is no end product
  in sight, nor any realisation of the value to the child of the last year at the junior secondary school— up to the age of 15. I therefore ask the Under-Secretary of State tonight seriously to consider among other things introducing a Scottish certificate for the junior secondary school pupils who attain a reasonable pass level in the course of their studies. Some authorities have had to take the initiative themselves and introduce a county certificate to their own school-leavers, some document to produce as a passport to industry, commerce or the Services, to indicate

  1253
  that they had achieved a certain standard of education while studying at a junior secondary school.
  I wish now to pass to another very important point which I want the Under-Secretary of State to examine. What are we to do about the various promotion grading of pupils' attitudes of mind which we now have in neighbouring local authorities in Scotland? Some Lanarkshire children, for convenience, have been attending schools in Glasgow and are graded by the Glasgow head teacher and his staff. Whatever school they are graded for, it does not follow that when they return for their secondary education in Lanarkshire they are sent to such a school. I have an outstanding case of a key worker who came into Lanarkshire, whose child was graded for a senior secondary school in Glasgow, but, now the Child is in Lanarkshire, that authority decides that the child is not entitled to such a school, simply because of a geographical boundary— a railway bridge. Here is a case of a child being denied the right of an academic education, and I want the Secretary of State for Scotland tonight to assure me that he will reach some understanding between authorities which are at least contiguous to one another in order to eliminate this anomaly.
  I was most pleased this evening to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) referring to the Coatbridge Secondary School in her opening speech. She quoted the rector's report, which I have in my hand, but, in view of the time factor, I propose to forward it to the Secretary of State to give him the opportunity to study it. I believe he does not do enough studying, and that if he did he would be cognisant of the serious problem in this school. There is no assembly hall, and, indeed, when the certificate examinations are held, they are held in the gymnasium. The pupils— there are over 1,200 at the school— do their gymnastics in a playground. This is indicative of the disgraceful standard of accommodation which children tolerate in my part of Scotland.
  After they have indulged in their physical education, they are brought back to the school, where, because of the Jack of hot water and decent toilet
  1254
  accommodation, they wash in baths in the playground. Those are the primitive conditions in which children are being schooled in my constituency, yet the Secretary of State tells us about the glowing achievement of himself, his Department and his party in education. It is disgraceful to listen to such palliatives when we realise that they are not accurate concerning my part of Lanarkshire.
  At an ordinary level school in Airdrie, children occupy a school which was built originally for advanced division pupils with some temporary hutments that were condemned forty years ago still in occupation. Every day, 120 girls march a quarter of a mile and back five times to go off to another building elsewhere in the town to receive tuition in secondary subjects. That is some picture for the Secretary of State to boast about.
  When will the right hon. Gentleman realise that this situation cannot continue indefinitely? The parents of these children are in open revolt. The Secretary of State knows that in the town of Coatbridge, St. Augustine's pupils had a school taken from them and were put into old halls so that the school would be used as a secondary school. As primary children, they are still being taught in halls. According to the present programme, under existing arrangements with the Scottish Education Department, there is no possibility of having a school until some time in the 1970s. This is a shocking state of affairs to which the children have to submit over the next ten years. In the neighbourhood of Shawhead our children have no school at all.
  I appeal tonight to the Under-Secretary of State and to the Secretary of State, if it is possible to appeal we—are beginning to lose faith——
  Mr. Willis: Has not my hon. Friend lost faith?
  Mr. Dempsey: I am giving them this opportunity. If they do not respond to this cogent, understanding, persuasive and eloquent approach, I will lose faith. If they do not respond to the appeal, it is the parents in Coatbridge and Airdrie with whom they will have to deal and not the Member for the constituency.

  1255
  In view of the picture of Scottish education which the Secretary of State has painted— but which, incidentally, no artist would paint— I am hoping that from tonight onwards, a realistic attitude will be adopted, a realistic view taken and an objective analysis made of the educational situation, especially in Lanarkshire. I might be asking too much of the Under-Secretary of State— I do not know——
  Mr. Willis: It is too much for this one, at any rate.
  Mr. Dempsey: I am giving him an opportunity. If he appreciates the I.Q. element of promotions, for instance, I depend upon his I.Q. in analysing the situation objectively and taking the only feasible decision, namely, making an arrangement with the Lanarkshire education authority immediately to provide the scholastic accommodation which is essential if our children, like the children of other parts of Britain, are to be assured of their birthright of equality of opportunity in education.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Harry Gourlay: As a "maiden speaker" at this Box, I feel greatly honoured at having the privilege of congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on his admirable, informative and extremely lucid speech. The whole Committee was greatly impressed by his knowledge of the subject and the deep sincerity with which he expressed his views. I know that we shall all look forward to hearing him on many future occasions.
  Today our debate on Scottish education has covered a much wider field than was the case last year, and in that respect possibly it has been more satisfactory than was the debate in 1961 which was held under the shadow of a teachers' strike. The Secretary of State for Scotland— I am sorry to see that the right hon. Gentleman is not present in the Chamber, at least not physically— at that time managed to achieve a state of affairs which had been considered virtually impossible to achieve. He caused the normally respectable and placid members of the teaching profession to resort to direct action. This arose from the possibility of their pro
  1256
  fession being diluted by the rejection of the salary proposals agreed by the National Joint Council.
  Tonight I do not propose to enter into details about teachers' salaries, though they have an important bearing on the major problems in the sphere of education. The Secretary of State spoke at great length. Hon. Members on this side of the Committee do not object to that. But we do object to the short time which the right hon. Gentleman devoted to the problems of education in Scotland and particularly to the manner in which he skated over the problems which face us today without giving any indication of now he proposes to deal with them.
  After this Government have been in office for more than ten years the right hon. Gentleman has appointed a series of committees and working parties to advise him on problems with which he should have dealt years ago. At the rate at which the teacher shortage is growing the right hon. Gentleman will soon find that there are no teachers left which he can appoint to his working parties. Much as I should like to, I dare not allow myself to be tempted by the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) into discussing the provision of a fifth university. I will merely say that in my opinion both St. Andrew's University and Aberdeen University ought to be expanded at the greatest possible speed, and they could be were the Government willing to provide the necessary finance.
  The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) suggested that the Government should accept 100 per cent. responsibility for teachers' salaries. I should be inclined to support such an idea, but only on the understanding that the Secretary of State did not make a corresponding reduction in the general grant to local authorities, as he did in respect of university grants, thus leaving the local authorities no better off.
  In the present world economic circumstances, and to a much greater extent than ever in the past, the wealth of this country is created by the skill of the people. In other words, the prosperity of Britain depends on our ability to sell the skill of our people abroad and to use it effectively and efficiently at home. Failure to do this will result in a lower standard of living for the people. It is

  1257
  absolutey vital, therefore, that the skill of our people should be developed To the full if we are to maintain our present standards, let alone improve upon them.
  In sharp contrast to pre-war days when university graduates were unable to secure posts either in the teaching profession or any other profession— when many worked as labourers and some remained unemployed— today we are faced with a great shortage of manpower in the teaching profession. With the tremendous advance of scientific knowledge which causes our civilisation to become more and more complex, the shortage of brain power becomes more acute with every year that passes. The problem is not confined to the teaching profession but is met in practically every profession. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it is not peculiar to Scotland. However, this is no defence for the right hon. Gentleman, or for the Government who permit a continual drainage of man-newer from Scotland to occur every year. The Government cannot deny that they are indifferent to this problem. Otherwise they would by now have implemented most of the valuable recommendations of the Knox Committee.
  Considerable research has been going on in the sphere of education, but a great deal more is required. We do not really know yet, in relation to the various standards of attainment which are required, whether the pool of ability is sufficiently large to meet the present demand for educated manpower. It is well known that a considerable number of able pupils leave the secondary schools before gaining their leaving certificates. Many reasons are advanced for this, but undoubtedly a major reason is the lack of encouragement from parents to their children to stay at school and this is often because of the financial circumstances of the family.
  If we are to make full use of the intellectual ability which is available, the Government must take steps to remove every disincentive to higher education. I must again remind the right hon. Gentleman of the letter sent to him by the Knox Committee on 8th May, 1957. So important did that Committee consider its views on the matter that it informed the right hon. Gentleman about them before it completed its
  1258
  interim report. I make no apology for reading extracts from the letter, because I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has been prepared at any time to accept the views of the Committee. It said
  "At any early stage in its examination of the problems of lessening the shortage of teachers for secondary schools, the Advisory Council realised that, whatever other measures might be taken, none could be more important than those directed towards increasing the pool of educated manpower on which all the professions draw. It seems to the Council that greater efforts should be made to induce a larger proportion of able pupils to complete course leading to the award of the Scottish Leaving Certificate and also to encourage pupils qualified for higher education to proceed to it undebarred by financial obstacles."
  Paragraph 3 of the letter said:
  "The council considers that the higher school bursaries should be more generous. There is no point in being generous at the university stage if bursaries are insufficient to allow able students to complete their secondary education."
  The recommendation of the Committee was that the rate for higher school bursaries should be increased from £40 in the fourth year and £50 in the fifth and subsequent years to £78 and £104 respectively. It is now five years since the recommendations were made, but we find that the respective figures are still only £45 and £60. The difference between the maximum bursary of £60 for a pupil in the last year at high school and the maximum grant of approximately £320 during the first year at university is far too great and cannot be justified under any circumstances.
  The need for such university grants is unquestioned in the light of present-day costs, but because of the ridiculously low rate of bursaries for pupils at school many widowed mothers and parents in the lower income groups are compelled to deny their talented sons or daughters the opportunity of higher education. This position is even more farcical when it is realised that the present regulations rightly do not allow the son of a millionaire a high school bursary but permit him to enjoy a grant of £ 50 during his first year at a university. The Secretary of State looks puzzled, but if he examines his regulations carefully he will discover that that is a fact. In the interim many able pupils who are potential teachers will have drifted from school to jobs less rewarding both to themselves and to the community.

  1259
  This is one of the many manifestations of the Government lack of purpose in dealing with the problem of increasing the pool of ability. I do not claim for a moment that increased bursaries would of themselves solve the problem, but they would be a major factor in easing the burden where there are several children of secondary school age in the same family. Investigations show that at present only about 6 per cent. of any age group attain the standard required for entry into a profession or go to university. The Government must really make a genuine attempt to raise this to 10 per cent. or 11 per cent. of any age group which it is estimated have the ability to achieve university standard. As is obvious from our debates today, education is beset with many difficulties, of which undoubtedly teacher shortage is, not only the basic but also the greatest single problem at present. Speaking in an education debate in the House in November, 1960, the right hon. Gentleman said,
  "To some extent it may have been said that we have done too little, but the main charge has been that we have been too late. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite must ask the question which every Government have to ask themselves: can one do everything which one wants to do simultaneously."
  The Government have done some remarkable things simultaneously in recent times. They increased the insurance contributions and the prescription charges and raised the price of welfare foods, at the same time as they saw fit to give £ 83 million away to the Surtax payers. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say, as reported in the same column
  of HANSARD:
  "From what my right hon. Friend said in opening the debate and what I propose to say, it will be seen that the Government have: an intense sense of urgency about the education programme."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November, 1960; Vol. 629, c. 773.]
  By no stretch of imagination can one accept that the Government have shown any sense of urgency about the problems of education and of the staffing problem in particular. The teacher crisis confronting Scotland today is like a creeping paralysis which becomes progressively worse. It is not something which has suddenly emerged from the blue. It was even foreseen by some Conservative Members nearly 10 years ago. They even mentioned it during the debates at
  1260
  that time in the House, and the Government cannot plead ignorance of the facts in their defence. Even the dullest crystal would have been unable to conceal from the crystal-gazer this critical shortage of teaching manpower. The Government must, therefore, stand condemned at the appalling lack of urgency which they have displayed in this matter.
  Today Scottish education is facing its biggest crisis in living memory, and the way ahead under this Government, far from being clear, is so befogged that no one can tell the severity of the disaster which the next few years will bring. Before the last war, teaching was a profession offering
  salaries which were comparatively high in relation to other occupations, along with security in the midst of mass unemployment. Education authorities could then afford to pick and choose from among those qualified people who wished to become teachers.
  In this post-war era, however, with its formidable demand for highly educated manpower, graduates leaving the university find themselves in a sellers' market. Employers vie with each other in offering good salaries and untaxed perquisites, which now make the job of teaching less attractive. It is at this stage that the right hon. Gentleman can do something of a practical nature to encourage more graduates into the profession. The Government ought to implement, for example, the recommendation of the Knox Committee which my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) referred to and which is mentioned on page 13 of the interim report of the Knox Committee:
  "All graduates and any others training for the Teacher's Special Certificate should receive during their period of professional training awards on the scale of those given by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research."
  As an alternative I suggest that the Government might examine the possibility of paying such graduates a salary a little less than that paid to a first-year probation teacher. Graduates have a natural and understandable resentment at having to rely in their early twenties on the generosity and in many cases the self-sacrifice of their parents, even with the present Government grants. This payment of a salary by the Government might in my opinion

  1261
  help to offset the present tempting offers being made by industrialists. I refer hon. Members to the last sentence of paragraph 17 of the White Paper which was issued in 1958:
  "A supply of well-qualified teachers is a necessary condition of any educational advance, and the Government intend to maintain and intensify their efforts to obtain more teachers by all practicable means."
  As I say, those words were written in 1958, but so far there is precious little evidence of the Government's intention to implement them.
  An examination of the training -methods adopted in the colleges of education might also prove useful. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North mentioned the question of the two terms as opposed to the three terms, hut I have received numerous complaints from graduates about the waste of time and the childish treatment they have experienced in the colleges. That might appear to be a minor point, but it is one of the many factors that militate against attracting more graduates into the colleges.
  The Knox Committee made a very strong recommendation about the reentry of retired teachers into the profession. It said that during a period of staffing shortage, and subject to certain safeguards, any teacher who retires and re-enters the service should he paid full salary for the post in which he or she serves, and full pension for his or her past services. That recommendation was not adopted, and the right hon. Gentleman should be thoroughly ashamed of the paltry inducement offered to retired teachers to re-enter the profession; namely, £ 100 in lieu of full pension— which, incidentally, only attracted 284 teachers in 1961.
  Let the Government show that they really mean business in dealing with this problem. If some principle prevents them from accepting the full recommendation of the Knox Committee, let them at least increase the gratuity from £100 to £400 or £500, so that, after allowing for tax, the teacher will have some additional recompense for his services, and not something like £1 a week, which is the total amount of his extra emoluments at present.
  Whilst the overall shortage of teachers presents a great problem, there is a very
  1262
  serious aspect which requires immediate and resolute action, otherwise it will cause a collapse in our educational system which will have the most far-reaching and unfortunate repercussions on the economy. I refer to the shortage of mathematics and science teachers. The bleak prospect in this field is, perhaps, more fully realised when we are told that about 60 per cent. of honours graduate teachers of mathematics in Scotland are over 50 years of age, and that a considerable number of them will be due to retire in the next ten or fifteen years.
  In my opinion, those in this category, must, in present circumstances, be regarded as key workers, and treated similarly to key workers in industry. In other words, additional financial inducements must be given to secure an increased flow of graduates to train as teachers in those subjects, instead of going into industry. Nobody denies that the 'problems of staffing our schools is one of extreme complexity, but it requires to be tackled much more energetically than the Government 'have so far done.
  Chapter 5 of the Report on Education in Scotland, 1961, which deals with the supply of teachers, is a shameful exposure of the inadequacy of the Government's attempts to date to recruit sufficient teachers. I would suggest that, perhaps, the setting up of a manpower board, responsible for estimating the proportion of educated manpower required in each profession or industry; and for determining the standards necessary for admission to the various professions, might help to solve the problem. The board, if it were established, would also be required to consider and to advise on how best each profession could attract the appropriate proportion of manpower.
  Since planning is no longer a distasteful word to hon. Members opposite, and since the Government have only recently created the National Economic Development Council, there appears to be a case for the creation of a similar board to deal with the national problem of the shortage of educated manpower. If we, as a country, fail to maintain the standards of education hitherto provided in our Scottish schools, our position as a country in the van of scientific and

  1263
  engineering progress will be taken by other countries, and the tragedy of lower living standards will be upon us.
  I turn to another important aspect of the subject. I note that on page 9 of the Report it is indicated that there has been a slight reduction over the previous year in the number of oversized classes, a fact one is always pleased to welcome. There is, nonetheless, a long way to go before we can remove this handicap because, according to the Report, we still have 859 oversized primary classes, 52 of which contain more than 50 pupils.
  The position in secondary departments is even worse, for we have 1,338 oversized classes, representing almost 10 per cent. of the total number of secondary classes in Scotland. Is this what the Government describe as equal educational opportunities? In the gloom of the staffing position and the lack of drive from the Government one almost despairs of ever having an improved situation.
  Speaking in Swansea during the last General Election—at the time of the "never had it so good" phrase—the Prime Minister said:
  "In education, as in so many fields, haste can be the enemy of speed. Let us never fall into the error in our schools of sacrificing quality for quantity."
  The Prime Minister's policy, with the large number of oversized classes in the country and also with part-time education, as we have heard about today, is causing us now to sacrifice not only quality but quantity.
  In the event of the unexpected happening and there being an increased supply of teachers becoming available, that increased number should be used first of all to reduce the present maxima of primary and secondary classes, as indicated in the Schools Scotland Code. There is no point in our spending large sums of money building an elaborate superstructure on poor or shallow foundations. It is in the primary school where the child requires the maximum individual attention, yet it is at this most vital and painstaking stage that classes are often too large to enable this.
  Page 12 of the Report gives a table showing the average number of pupils per certificated teacher over a number of years. In 1947 the figure was 25· 9
  1264
  pupils per teacher. In the fourteen years up to 1961 there was an improvement of only 1, making the latest figure 24· 8 pupils per teacher. This table, however, is misleading because primary, secondary, local authority schools and private fee-paying schools are all grouped together. We should be given a more accurate picture of the various categories and I hope that this information will be given in more detail in future reports.
  On this question of pupil-teacher ratio, I received a rather interesting reply from the right hon. Gentleman to a Question I put to him recently in connection with grant-aided, fee-paying schools. The reply gave some revealing figures and we learned— in the secondary departments of fee-paying schools— that in the group of Edinburgh Merchant Schools there were 15 pupils per teacher. Dundee High School had a ratio of 15 pupils per teacher, Dollar Academy had 13 pupils per teacher and in John Watson's School in Edinburgh the ratio was 10 pupils per teacher. These are very good pupil-teacher ratios, but to examine the position in the local authority schools I need not go further than Kirkcaldy High School where the figure is 22 pupils per teacher, taking into account the small classes at the top end of the secondary department. This is by no means the end of the disparity of treatment because when one looks at the grant position the right hon. Gentleman's Answer disclosed that Dundee High School received £55 per pupil, the Edinburgh group of Merchant Schools £72 and Dollar Academy £76—while local authority schools received only about £36 per pupil.
  This special treatment of the so-called independent schools does not stop there. I believe it is known in education circles that, with regard to interviewing students for vacancies, education authorities have an understanding that they will not approach any student in training before the date intimated to them by the colleges. It is a fact, however, that before such a date has been intimated students in training who had applied to local education authorities had been interviewed and had accepted posts in grant-aided schools. These schools are thereby securing the cream of newly-trained teachers. There is undoubtedly a considerable drift of highly-qualified staff to these fee-paying schools where better

  1265
  facilities obtain as a result of the substantial grants received from the Government. While there may be a case for such subsidy, there is certainly no justification for more favourable treatment being given by the Government to these institutions than to local authority schools. No wonder the waiting lists for fee-paying schools in Scotland are longer now than they have ever been. How can the Government claim that equal educational opportunity is being provided for all children in Scotland when such injustice obtains under the present system?
  I come to the question of technical education. Despite the legitimate
  criticisms which have been levelled against the provision of technical education in England, we in Scotland are still falling far behind. There appears to be no sense of urgency about erecting technical buildings, despite what the right hon. Gentleman quoted this afternoon in relation to the building programme. In reply to a Question last year, the right hon. Gentleman said that it was a matter for the local education authorities. But if the authorities decide just to jog along nobody seems to care. A comparison of English and Scottish figures for day-release is most illuminating. So far the Government have done nothing to find out how many small firms in Scotland can combine to ensure adequate technical training for their apprentices. One practical step would be for the Secretary of State to fix a date for compulsory day-release, even though it may he one or two years ahead, and call upon local authorities to present schemes for implementing this decision.
  This afternoon the right hon. Gentleman referred in his speech to the fact that he has accepted the recommendation of the Committee for compulsory registration. This, in my opinion, is only toying with the problem. The present position in which the apprentice has to seek the goodwill of his employer in order to attend school ought not to be allowed to continue. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) made some detailed references to this particular aspect. Last year, the Scottish Technical Education Consultative Council circularised 9,000 firms about the provisions made for their apprentices and only 600 replied out of that 9,000. This shows the scant respon
  1266
  sibility that the firms are accepting in this matter. The Government must therefore realise that they cannot toy with this important problem of education any longer. To ensure the technical education of these thousands of young people is in fact a responsibility of the Government which cannot be left to the whim of any private individual. The need is, therefore, for effective Government action.
  I would ask what is the Government policy with regard to day release. When do they propose to strengthen the hands of the local education authorities which have been pioneering in this field. Do the Government have a plan and, if not, when are they going to produce one? Why do not the Government for once take the educational authorities into their confidence and help them to plan their future technical programme? Is it because the Government have no policy or, if they do have a policy, is it because it is too dependent on election strategy? The shadow of teacher shortage also darkens the technical education scene. This problem could be relieved if industry were encouraged to co-operate and release employees on a part-time basis for instructional purposes.
  Paragraph 8 of the White Paper, Education in Scotland— The Next Step, sates:
  "If every pupil is to be able to pursue to the limit of his capacity an education suited to his individual needs, the most urgent requirement, amongst other things, would be buildings and equipment that satisfy modern standards."
  How that requirement is to be achieved with the stop-and-go building programme of the Government is difficult to understand. First a circular is issued urging education authorities to prepare modernisation schemes, and then, as soon as the schemes are prepared, another circular is issued curtailing the programme due to the Chancellor's restriction on capital investment. So it goes on, leaving local authorities in a state of complete bewilderment.
  This afternoon the Secretary of State said that in 1961 £13¾ million had been spent on building, but if we turn to page 128 of the Report we find that 422 fewer classrooms and 17,750 fewer school places were provided in 1961 than in 1958. Is this an indication of stepping up the programme?

  1267
  In a memorandum to the Estimates Committee in the last Session, the right hon. Gentleman's Department stated that nearly 1,200 average-sized schools in Scotland were more than 80 years old and that some were more than 100 years old. But the most disturbing feature of the evidence given to the Estimates Committee was that it would take at least 20 years to complete the programme of modernisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Aidrie (Mr. Dempsey) made some very pointed remarks on this subject earlier this evening, and I know that shocking conditions still prevail in a number of old schools in my area, where children have to use outside toilets of a primitive character, and where the staffroom accommodation is virtually nonexistent. In this age of speed and modern techniques nothing could stop a Government, determined to provide the finance, from removing such deplorable conditions, for both pupils and staff, well within the twenty years' period.
  One startling admission is given in the evidence on page 293 of the Eighth Report of the Estimates Committee on School Building. One of the officers of the right hon. Gentleman's Department, in reply to a question by the Chairman of the Estimates Committee, said:
  "All I can say is that in order to get the building programmes submitted to us by education authorities within the limits of our investment programme, it is necessary to divide them by two and that process has been going on for quite a number of years."
  Here we have, in all its nakedness, the supreme confession of the browbeating tactics of the right hon. Gentleman's Department.
  I am not very impressed by the arguments advanced that local authorities' proposals were cut in two in order to correspond with the technical and building facilities available. Once again the Government have failed miserably, in determining their priorities, by allowing such building resources to be dissipated over the private sector, in providing such buildings as petrol stations, to the detriment of the more urgent school building programme. It is obvious from the evidence that I have just quoted that, as usual, finance is the bogyman, despite the Tory promise made in the 1959
  1268
  election, when the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. G. Lloyd)—then Minister of Education— said,on 22nd September:
  "The Conservative programme will mean a tremendous enlargement of educational opportunities. Every boy and every girl, whatever school he or she attends, will have exactly the same opportunity to carry his education as far as his abilities and perseverence will take him. It will also mean that within four or five years we shall have an education system which will be producing in vastly increasing numbers the skilled men and women needed to meet the challenge of the second Industrial Revolution."
  That is but one of the formidable number of Tory election promises which have not been kept. Hon. Members on this side of the House realise the inherent difficulties in education, and we would be the last to minimise them, but we also recognise the lamentable weakness of the Government's attempt to safeguard the progress of education in Scotland.
  I regret that time does not permit me to deal in more detail with other aspects of the educational scene. I therefore briefly refer to the need for providing residential schools for pupils of ability, entrance to be determined by the pupil's scholastic ability and not by the contents of the parental purse. Secondly, I commend for consideration, as a new pattern for Scotland, the experiment which is proving so successful in certain quarters, of setting up junior high schools to which all children in the area are promoted from primary schools. Then, after two years, those capable of specialising proceed to the normal high school. This process eliminates many of the objections to the present system of segregation at the age of 12 and provides a much easier method of transfer from one course to another.
  In conclusion, I would say that unless we plan our resources of educated manpower purposefully and are prepared to accept the disciplines which are necessary we shall not be able to meet the challenge of Japan, of Russia, of America. As the years go by we are seen to be languishing behind, trying all the time to catch up with the others because the Government have not acted soon enough. We in Scotland have fallen behind in the education race because the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to read intelligently the lessons of the

  1269
  twentieth century. The Government ought to show us by resolute action, and not by pious words, that they regard the economic survival of this country of ours as being largely dependent on a first-class education system capable of holding its own with that of any nation in the world.
  The ruinous teacher recruitment policy of the Government, their failure to tackle the problem of staffing, their failure to modernise and to replace timously old and primitive school buildings, and, above all, the Government's failure to provide equality of opportunity and to give facilities to enable our children to develop their talents to the full, compel us tonight to demonstrate our dissatisfaction with the Government's record in Scotland by dividing the Committee at the end of the debate. In present circumstances, education in Scotland is a sham and equality of opportunity a myth. I am convinced that every Member of the Committee who is concerned about the future of Scottish education will support us in the Division Lobby tonight.
  9.37 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. R. Brooman-White): Let me begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay) on what is, I believe, his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. He made a very vigorous speech, ending with the best sort of peroration to justify the vote which hon. Members opposite are determined to nave this evening. He made some quite effective play with various quotations from ten years ago.
  Mr. Willis: Two years ago.
  Mr. Brooman-White: Ten years ago.
  I prefer to refer to the quotations of ten years ago, because that seems quite a reasonable amount of time for events to occur which would enable me to issue a small warning to the hon. Member— that quotations may 'be thrown back at him. It may be that in about that period of time he will find himself regretting that he made some of the radical proposals he did this evening. He also made some very interesting suggestions.
  Mr. William Ross: There is no need for the Under-Secretary to worry. Nobody will ever quote any of his speeches.
  Mr. Brooman-White: That will be highly satisfactory.
  I may come back later to some of the specific points raised by the hon. Gentleman, but I have a good deal to say, and though it may be, perhaps, an untidy performance, to come back to his points at the end, in view of the time, and of what I have to say, that will, perhaps, be the best way to deal with them. As the hon. Member himself said, this debate has ranged rather wider than usual and, though that is satisfactory, it does make it rather more difficult satisfactorily to reply to the debate.
  Before I move on to more general subjects I should like to add my congratulations to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) upon a most interesting maiden speech, and I should also like to add my own feeling, which, I am sure, is that of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, to what he said about his predecessor. I served opposite his predecessor as a Scottish Whip for some time. We all remember him with the deepest personal respect and friendship.
  The hon. Member for West Lothian in previous years has, as we all know, made very substantial contributions to new and progressive thinking on Scottish education, and he made clear this evening that in his new role he will be able to continue to contribute to Scottish education. We shall welcome his future contributions even though when the inhibitions of a maiden speech are removed from him the Government may well find a searching and well-informed critic as well as a source of profound comment on educational topics.
  The speeches made in the debate and the various points raised can be grouped broadly under four main headings, and I will so deal with them: first, buildings; secondly, teachers, and, above all, the problems of teacher shortage; thirdly, and perhaps most important of all, 'because they are the object of the whole operation, the pupils and the question of how they are handled in the school and the problem of transfer, raised by the hon. Lady the Member for

  1271
  Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison); and, finally, what happens to the pupils when they leave school and move on into the sphere of further education, technical training and such-like matters, referred to in a number of speeches.
  To deal, first, with school building, in his opening speech my right hon. Friend gave figures relating to the progress which has been made, and I shall not take up time with any more figures. The hon. Lady referred to the "stop and go" programme. The fact remains that year after year the amount of work done has steadily increased. Very substantial progress is being made. Nothing can detract from that, though we fully recognise that, as the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) said, progress elsewhere is little solace to those schools where replacement or modernisation needs to be carried out.
  The hon. Gentleman attempted to draw me into a discussion of the Lanarkshire programme. As a Lanarkshire Member, I should deeply like to follow him, but time will not permit. However, the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members know that the Lanarkshire position is complicated by various factors not all of which can rightly be laid at the door of the Government.
  Miss Herbison: It is not only the position in Lanarkshire.
  Mr. Brooman-White: But there is a complicating factor in Lanarkshire. I have said that we appreciate the difficulties in respect of school building.
  I would add one thing to what my right hon. Friend said. The present buildings are
  a great advance on previous ones. Some of 'their features have been criticised this evening. This is inevitable and some of the criticism is no doubt justified, but whatever may be felt in our own country, looking at ourselves as others see us, it is accepted in most countries now that the schools being built in Britain today are among the best in the world both in design for efficient use and in value for money.
  To substantiate that fact, the British school which was exhibited at the International Architectural
  Exhibition at Milan in 1960 was one of the main focuses of interest and favourable com
  1272
  ment. We have also had some welcome commendation from within this House. In its recent Report on educational building, the Estimates Committee commented that schools today, though smaller in total area, are larger in teaching area and 50 per cent. cheaper in real terms than in 1949.
  But, of course, the drive for improvement has to go on. One possible means of getting still better value for money is the recommendation by the Estimates Committee that the educational departments should give further publicity to the building and contracting methods adopted under the C.L.A.S.P. programme — the consortium arrangements. We have mentioned this before in Scotland, but we are renewing our discussions on this point. Subsequent to the Report of the Estimates Committee, the Minister of State has had two meetings with education authorities, one in Edinburgh and one in Inverness, in which the advantages of the C.L.A.S.P. system and cooperation by local authorities in school buildings were explained. Though a decision on this matter is for the local authorities, there are considerable possibilities in going further in this field.
  As for teacher shortages, again, I will not repeat the figures, but I can assure the hon. Lady, who said that even the Government felt anxiety about them, that indeed we feel deep anxiety, as everyone who is concerned with the problem must and does feel. The hon. Lady said that we needed a crash programme. We certainly welcome the wide variety of constructive ideas which she and other hon. Members have put forward. The wide range of suggestions made, is very much in keeping with the spirit with which the Scottish Office and teachers' organisations and everyone concerned is approaching the problem.
  As hon. Members know, the E.I.S. has set up an ad hoc committee to consider suggestions and possibilities and my right hon. Friend has had discussions with teachers' organisations. Everyone is searching for ideas to further stimulate recruitment. I say "further stimulate" because we are all well aware that measures taken up to now have led to a substantial increase in recruitment. This is fully appreciated inside this Committee and I hope that it is appreciated outside.

  1273
  The problem is not that recruitment has been lagging. It has been expanding, but there have been a certain number of losses because of the earlier marriage age and other factors which have reduced the number of teachers available. It is generally accepted that there is not one point of attack at which we are likely to make a sensational breakthrough on this problem and that we must try to gain what ground we can all along the front.
  I was interested in the hon. Lady's views on the controversial point about the money to be spent on graduates in training colleges, about the part-time employment of retired teachers, and about university evening classes. We would not be loath to see headway made on proposals of this kind, but, clearly, in this and many other matters it is a question of securing general agreement with other people who have great responsibilities in them.
  As is so often the case with the Opposition, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs, in criticising my right hon. Friend's activities, was unable to make up his mind whether my right hon. Friend was too dilatory or too Draconian. At one moment he accused him of not making up his mind and at the next of bullying and relentlessly imposing his will on local authorities. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite must make up their minds on the rô le in which they wish to cast my right hon. Friend before they criticise him.
  I have not the time to discuss the whole wide range of suggestions which have been made in the debate. The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North was good enough to mention the degree of success achieved in attracting married women back to the teaching profession. These have been the result of strenuous efforts made by the Department in extensive advertising in the newspapers and in other directions. The same applies to the special recruitment scheme for bringing recruits from outside the teaching profession and financing them while they are acquiring the necessary qualifications to enter the profession.
  Perhaps it is not sufficiently widely appreciated that for a considerable number of years the Department has arranged for teams of practising teachers to visit universities and other major institutions
  1274
  to interest students in teaching as a profession. We deeply appreciate the efforts which the teachers have made in carrying out canvassing of that kind. We have had many reports of the competence which they have shown in bringing in recruits in that way and in meeting on level terms representatives of industry who are doing the same thing. The high percentage of graduates continuing to enter the teaching profession is a fairly good illustration of the way in which teachers going out and fighting for the interests of their own profession in this way have been very successful.
  The right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) raised a point in this connection about additional aid or inducements to mature people to be trained as teachers. One factor which
  will help us considerably is the increase in bursaries. Also, there is the special course now being organised at Jordanhill which may lead to the way to the extension of similar arrangements whereby somebody coming into teaching from outside at a later age will serve only four months before going on to earn a salary. We think that this should be very helpful.
  Many hon. Members have spoken about the pool of manpower available. It is generally accepted that we have been getting a satisfactory proportion of the graduates available, and, logically, hon. Members have turned their minds to consider what more can be done to increase the number of graduates from which we may draw a similar or, we hope, better proportion. I do not wish to embark on a discussion of the university expansion programme, but it will be appreciated that, what-every may be the views of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) and others about a new university, or about the adequacy of the programme as a whole, we are committed to a substantial increase in the Scottish university programme over the forthcoming years, and this in itself will make a worthwhile contribution.
  We are committed, also, to a very substantial programme of building in the educational colleges. I have no time to go through the long list of extensions — hon. Members will know about them already— Jordanhill, Moray House, Notre Dame, Dunfermline, and the plans

  1275
  at Hamilton and elsewhere. There is a substantial improvement going on.
  There have been references to teaching aids, the various ways in which assistance can be given to the teacher. I agree with the hon. Member for Govan when he says that the teaching aid could not replace the teacher, but, nevertheless, the teaching aid may be capable of assisting him substantially and making it possible for the personal interest of the teacher to be devoted to individual cases by taking some of the routine burden off his shoulders.
  We have been making increasing use of
  film strips and background material. Some hon. Members will have seen the extremely interesting report recently issued by the Scottish Liaison Committee for Visual Aids in Education. We have been going into its recommendations, and we fully endorse what the Report says about the part which visual aids can play in teaching in future. Also, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) has been exhorting us to do, we have been in close touch with the experiments with teaching machines carried out in Sheffield, Aberdeen and elsewhere.
  During the debate, we have discussed the handling of the pupils in the schools, and I shall take up briefly the comments of several hon. Members who suggested that the present junior secondary course tends to peter out in an unsatisfactory way and asked whether some inducement could be given in the form of an examination at the end of the course. This is one of the subjects which the committee on links between the schools and further education has been studying and we shall have its report about that. It is not a simple matter. There is a strong school of thought which takes the view that the establishment of an examination at that level would tend to formalise junior education too rigidly. Another school of thought, as does the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie, takes a different view. This is one of the matters we are considering.
  I hope that hon. Members will not say that we are investigating many things and taking no action. As my right hon. Friend said in his speech, substantial changes and improvements have
  1276
  been made in the examination structure as the result of previous studies and reports. This is a continuing process. We have had a number of studies and inquiries before, we have taken action on them and we are continuing to do so. If the hon. Member thinks that we have done nothing, what about the introduction of the ordinary grade certificate in this field alone? Again, following our White Paper, we have taken action and new arrangements have been made to make available and to extend facilities for technical education over a wide range and to try to adapt these facilities at various levels so that each child can advance to his objective, which is the limit of his own capability.
  May I now try to pull together some of the main threads of the debate? The hon. Lady asked me about solutions. We have made substantial progress with the problem, and we are working together with the teachers' organisations. Whatever may be said about the type of solution we ought at any given moment to adapt for the next stage of our advance, I do not think that there is much disagreement about the main objective. The main objective is to try to adapt the traditional system, of which we have all been justifiably proud for many generations in Scotland, to meet greater strains than ever before, and adapt what was largely a craft system to meet the new pressure of numbers. Today it is becoming something very much like a mass-production system, and has to deal with the increase in quantity without sacrificing quality. This will make tremendous demands on the adaptability and inventiveness of our teachers.
  Whatever is said on the whole range of this problem, we come back to this fact, that we are making, and will continue to make, increasing demands on the efforts, ingenuity and inventiveness of our teachers. I do not like borrowing phrases from Khrushchev, but one thing is essential if we are to carry out and achieve the tasks which are being set. One phrase which I saw over the
  weekend seemed to me very apposite. The essential thing is that there should not be among our teachers any trace of what he calls a "decay" in the sense of overriding purpose. This has not occurred among our teaching profession, and we

  1277
  do not expect it to occur. We believe that the various measure under discussion now will progressively continue with their assistance and co-operation to contribute to the advance which has been and is being made and which, in comparison with other countries, will maintain Scotland in a highly satisfactory position in the educational world.
  Miss Herbison: The performance of both Ministers has convinced us that our decision to vote was completely right. Therefore, I beg to move that Item Class III, Vote 2B (Scottish Home and Health Department (Revised Estimate)), be reduced by £5.
  Question put:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 154, Noes 211.

  Division No. 242.]

  AYES

  9.59 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Ainsley, William

  Hannan, William

  Peart, Frederick

  Albu, Austen

  Harper, Joseph

  Pentland, Norman

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Hayman, F. H

  Prentice, R. E.

  Awbery, Stan

  Healey, Denis

  Proctor, W. T.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegis)

  Rankin, John

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Redhead, E. C

  Beaney, Alan

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Reid, William

  Bence, Cyril

  Hilton, A. V

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Blackburn, F.

  Holman, Percy

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Blyton, William

  Houghton, Douglas

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Boardman, H.

  Hoy, James H.

  Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Ross, William

  Bowden, Rt. Hn. H.W. (Leics. S.W.)

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Short, Edward

  Bowles, Frank

  Hunter, A. E.

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Brockway, A. Penner

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Small, William

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Chapman, Donald

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Sorensen R. W

  Cliffe, Michael

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Soskice Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Spriggs Leslie

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Kelley, Richard

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Cronin, John

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Stonhouse, John

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Stones, William

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Stones, William

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Lubbock, Eric

  Swain, Thomas

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Taverne, D.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  MacColl, James

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Dempsey, James

  MacDermot, Niall

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Diamond, John

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

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

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

  Thornton, Ernest

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Wade, Donald

  Edelman, Maurice

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Manuel, Archie

  Warbey, William

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Mapp, Charles

  Weitzman, David

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Marsh, Richard

  Wells, William (Walsall, N)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Mason, Roy

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Finch, Harold

  Milne, Edward

  Willey, Frederick

  Fitch, Alan

  Mitchison, C. R

  Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Moody, A. S.

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Forman, J. C

  Morris, John

  Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Moyle, Arthur

  Winterbottom, R. E

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Neal, Harold

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Ginsburg, David

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

  Woof, Robert

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C

  Oswald, Thomas

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Owen, Will

  Grey, Charles

  Padley, W. E

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)

  Parker, John

  Mr. Charles A. Howell and

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Parkin, B. T

  Mr. Lawson.

  NOES

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Brewis, John

  Alien, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Bitten, John

  Brooman-White, R

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Balniel, Lord

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Barber, Anthony

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Buck, Antony

  Barlow, Sir John

  Bossom, Clive

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Barter, John

  Box, Donald

  Burden, F. A

  Batsford, Brian

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

  Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Braine, Bernard

  Chataway, Christopher

  Chichester-Clark, R

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

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Hobson, Sir John

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Holland, Philip

  Pott, Percivall

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Hollingworth, John

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Hornby, R. P

  Prior, J. M. L

  Cole, Norman

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Collard, Richard

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Cooke, Robert

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Cooper, A. E

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Rees, Hugh

  Corfield, F. V

  James, David

  Renton, David

  Costain, A. P

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Coulson, Michael

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Craddock, Sir Beresford

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Roots, William

  Crowder, F. P

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surry)

  Deedes, W. F.

  Kimball, Marcus

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  de Ferranti, Basil

  Kirk, Peter

  Sharpies, Richard

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Kitson, Timothy

  Shaw, M.

  Doughty, Charles

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Skeet, T. H. H

  Drayson, G. B

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

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

  du Cann, Edward

  Lilley, F. J. P

  Smithers, Peter

  Duncan, Sir James

  Lindsay, Sir Martin

  Smyth, Rt. Hon, Brig. Sir John

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Spearman Sir Alexander

  Emery, Peter

  Longbottom, Charles

  Speir, Rupert

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Longden, Gilbert

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Farey-Jones, F. W

  Loveys, Walter H

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Farr, John

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Finlay, Graeme

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Talbot, John E.

  Fisher, Nigel

  McLaren, Martin

  Tapsell, Peter

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Foster, John

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

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

  Taylor, W. J. (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, w.)

  Temple, John M.

  Freeth, Denzil

  McMaster, Stanley R

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Gammans, Lady

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Maddan, Martin

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Gilmour, Sir John

  Marshall, Douglas

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Marten, Nell

  Van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

  Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

  Vane, W. M. F

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Mawby, Ray

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir

  Cower, Raymond

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R

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

  Wakefield, Sir Waved

  Green, Alan

  Mills, Stratton

  Walder, David

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Walker, Peter

  Gurden, Harold

  Mott-Radcliffe, Sir Charles

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Nabarro, Gerald

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Neave, Airey

  Whitelaw, William

  Hare, Rt. Hon. John

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

  Wise, A. R

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Hastings, Stephen

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Woollam, John

  Hay, John

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Percival, Ian

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hendry, Forbes

  Peyton, John

  Mr. Noble and

  Hiley, Joseph

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Mr. Gordon Campbell.

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Original Question again proposed.
  The Earl of Dalkeithrose—
  It being after Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Proceedings on the Building Societies Bill [Lords] and the Town and Country Planning Bill [Lords] exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]

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

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. J. E. B. Hill.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  COYPUS AND MINK
  10.12 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. W. M. F. Vane): I beg to move,
  That the Coypus (Importation and Keeping) Order, 1962, dated 28th June, 1962, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th June, be approved.
  I hope it will be for the convenience of the House if, with this Order, we can consider the following Order relating to mink.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I think that that will meet the convenience of the House.
  Mr. Vane: We are reluctant to add to the number of Orders of this kind, but in a case of coypu and mink there are good reasons for doing so.
  First, a word about the background. Coypus have escaped from fur farms in this country, in particular during the war, and by 1960 there was general complaint in East Anglia about the damage they were causing to river banks and to crops, particularly sugar beet.
  To meet this situation, rabbit clearance societies in the affected areas were allowed to claim a 50 per cent. grant for their expenditure against coypus in the same way as against rabbits. A number of societies have worked very hard, but none the less the coypu is still gaining ground in East Anglia. The Government have therefore decided that special measures should be taken before it is too late and, as a once-for-all measure, we are organising a coordinated drive against the coypu in East Anglia as recommended by the Estimates Committee.
  We doubt whether extermination is possible, but we hope in about two years to have driven the coypu back to a few difficult areas in and near the Broads. The idea of this campaign has been welcomed by the national organisations. I hope the House will agree that £20,000 a year for two years is not a very high price if we can break the back of this problem and safeguard the country as a whole. The House will
  1284
  remember that the musk rat was cleared up completely as the result of a somewhat similar campaign before the war.
  Now I turn to the question of escaping mink. There are a large number of well-run mink farms, and no doubt a few less well-run. In any event, mink have escaped in recent years and now, unfortunately, have shown that they can breed successfully in the wild in several parts of England and Wales. In a wild state, the mink can do serious damage to poultry and fish and bird life. If mink were allowed to increase, as has happened over large parts of Scandinavia, we should have a serious problem on our hands. I hope the House will see that we have good reasons for seeking approval of these two Orders.
  The Destructive Imported Animals Act, 1932, empowers the Minister and the Secretary of State jointly to make Orders applying its provisions to "non-indigenous mammalian species." These two Orders extend the provisions of the Act to deal with mink and coypus. Under these Orders, Ministers will be empowered to prohibit the importation or keeping of coypus or mink absolutely or to permit them under licence. We are proposing a licensing system which will give us both information and a measure of control. We are in consultation with Fur Breeders' Association about the conditions which can reasonably be attached to such licences, which will not be onerous.
  Almost the most important part of a campaign like this is to have early information about escaped animals, and occupiers of land will be under an obligation to notify the presence of coypus and mink at large on their land. The Departments will then be able to take steps in one way or another to see that they are destroyed if they are not recaptured. There is ample evidence to show that we shall be the losers if we allow either or both of these species to increase without hindrance, and I do not think that it is over-optimistic to say that co-ordinated measures taken in time ought to enable us to prevent this from happening.
  10.16 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick PeartThe Opposition agree with the Government, and we are prepared to see these Orders accepted by the House. We recognise that they are an extension of the powers which were given under the Destructive Imported Animals Act, 1932. The amount of money mentioned by the Minister—£20,000 per annum over two years to deal with coypus—will be money well spent.
  From time to time, questions have been asked on this subject by hon. Members Who represent East Anglian constituencies. It has been shown that the coypu does serious damage to drain- age facilities in East Anglia, with con- sequent effects on agriculture. This animal, which has became a pest in this area, must be tackled. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the Government cannot possibly think in terms of full extermination, but that they hope to drive back this pest which is causing so much damage to our drainage areas and the river banks. I accept the reasons for the schemes which have been put forward, but I would point out to him that he is wrong on fact. I am in—formed—and I have checked this—that the coypu appeared, having escaped, in Sussex and Devon in 1932, and by 1939 it had escaped in 37 places in 11 English counties. This matter has a long history. I hope the Minister appreciates that even before the war the coypu had become a serious menace in many parts of the country. We endorse what he said this evening and the instructions which have been given to the rabbit clearance societies which have been dealing with this problem in Norfolk. The Opposition support the Government's proposals.
  In dealing with wild mink in Britain, we are dealing with a rather different problem. The mink is of a different species. It does not affect drainage areas, but it attacks poultry and causes harm to wild life which we seek to pre- serve. It does not present the same problem to agriculture as does the coypu, but I accept the case put by the Parliamentary Secretary that it must be tackled. I speak as a member of Nature Conservancy, although I am not putting the Conservancy's point of view, and I
  1286
  should like to know whether the Conservancy has been consulted about this Order. One of the Minister's own scientists, Mr. Harry Thompson of the Ministry of Agriculture's Field Research Station, Worplesdon, put forward some proposals in an excellent article in the New Scientist on 18th January, 1962. Have those proposals been accepted? In this excellent scientific article dealing with wild mink in Britain it was shown that the species had escaped from our mink farms and is breeding in the wild in parts of the country and killing poultry. Mr. Thompson suggested how the problem could be tackled effectively by the organisations concerned. Mr. Thompson, who is an employee of the Ministry, suggests that the marking of the species in captivity by the breeders should be considered, in which case there could be a check.
  Have there been consultations with such organisations as the Fur Breeders' Association and the National Farmers' Union? Those two bodies held a conference in Winchester in August, 1959—have similar consultations taken place?
  We all tend to smile about mink, but it can be a menace——
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: Really?
  Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend may be an expert on mink—I hope that he will take part in this debate. In Scandinavia, mink has become a serious pest, and we should not like to see that situation develop here. I am all for mink—after all, they say that a girl's best friend is, first, diamonds and, second, mink. My hon. Friend may know about both. We are anxious that breeders should be able to continue careful farming of the animals with adequate safeguards. If these animals escape, we could have a replica of the Scandinavian situation here. There must be proper control, and as that is the purpose of the Order, we welcome it.
  I only ask the Minister whether these proposals are fully appreciated by the Fur Breeders' Association and has there been consultation with the National Farmers' Union and the Nature Conservancy? Has there been discussion about this suggested marking of mink by breeders so that if any of the animals should escape they can be easily checked.

  1287
  It is easy to dismiss this subject humorously, but we are dealing with a serious problem affecting our agricultural industry and our natural wild life which we seek to protect. Although we may have regard for both species, we want their activities restricted. I therefore support these Orders.
  10.23 p.m.
  Sir James Duncan: I support the Orders, but I want to ask a couple of questions. I understand that after a certain date anyone who wants to keep mink must get a licence. In order to breed mink, a man needs a good deal of capital. There are those in my constituency who have invested quite a lot of money—Army gratuities, and so on—in mink farms, and it would be unfortunate if they were to be refused a licence to keep mink after a certain date.
  My second question arises out of the Explanatory Note. These animals do not readily show themselves to the public. I understand that the coypu lives and breeds in and around and underneath river beds; and that mink are not very common and hunt in various secret ways. I also understand that it would be an offence if a mink or coypu were found on a man's land and he had not disclosed that fact to the authorities. What will happen to an unfortunate man if a Ministry official finds one of these animals on his land and prosecutes him for not obeying the Order and for not disclosing the fact to the Ministry? These are two practical points to which I hope we shall be given a reply.
  10.25 p.m.
  Mr. John Mackie: I would not have intervened in the debate had my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) not missed an important point. I am also surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) did not quickly jump to his feet, because only the other night he expressed concern at public money being spent on agriculture.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: I am thinking of intervening in the debate, because I have a constituency interest in the matter.
  Mr. Mackie: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East was quick to rise to his feet on this occasion, but he was not
  1288
  so quick to do so when the hon. Member for Workington was speaking. However, we are discussing a luxury trade —mink—and when reading oneself to sleep through the financial columns of The Times it is easy to discover that a second-hand mink coat costs up to £1,000. What a new one would cost I hesitate to think.
  Since it is luxury trade, why should the brutes be allowed to escape so that a great deal of public money must be spent on exterminating the escaped animals? Yesterday, objections were raised to the spending of public money on drainage, but so far in the debate tonight no objection has been raised to the spending of taxpayers' money because those engaged in a luxury trade have allowed the brutes to escape to the detriment of agriculture. I protest most strongly at the fact that spokesmen of neither Front Bench have raised this point. I would tax those engaged in this luxury trade for allowing their animals to escape.
  Mr. Peart: When the escapee has been caught it is extremely difficult to decide whose mink it is. That is why I spoke about marking arrangements, so that ownership could be decided.
  10.28 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Collard: My personal acquaintance with mink is, alas, all too slight, but I should like to make a brief intervention on the subject of coypus because they have, of recent years, been a grave menace in my constituency and have done a tremendous amount of damage.
  The Order comes none to soon. Indeed, there have been strong representations in the past for some such action, and this has
  been pressed by many people, including my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior). In East Anglia, Norfolk in particular, vigorous and, on the whole, successful efforts have been made by landowners and farmers to exterminate the coypus which have become such a menace.
  There are a tremendous number of these pests. They seem to breed rather freely, and it is not all that easy to exterminate them. However, the menace has been kept in hand. Although the importation restrictions and the keeping

  1289
  of them as pets—and it is a strange individual who would keep a coypu as a pot, though I think it is done—are important, the main thing is to exterminate those coypus which are at large at the present time.
  It is important that, as a result of the Order, the extermination of coypus should not, so to speak, be put in a straitjacket and that no kind of bureaucratic controls or delays should be introduced as a result of the Order. Rather, the case should be that in those areas, particularly Norfolk, where efforts have been so vigorously made to exterminate the menace, these effective efforts of the local people should be encouraged and nourished in every way.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. A. V. Hilton: Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I welcome these Orders. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) referred to mink as a luxury. In Norfolk, at least, the coypu is regarded as anything but a luxury, and as the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Collard) said, in recent years in Norfolk and other parts of East Anglia they have been a costly menace. They have done tremendous damage to many miles of drains and river banks.
  I am glad that the Ministry is taking this action, because I am sure that if it is not taken now it will not be long before large sums of money will be needed to repair river banks and drains which are being damaged by these pests.
  A few years ago, rabbits were a greater menace in the countryside than they are now, and rabbit clearance societies were formed to destroy them, but very often the good work that was being done was held up because one farmer, or his wife, liked rabbits and refused to participate in the scheme and often refused to allow people on to the land to exterminate the rabbits. If it is known that these coypus are in a certain farmer's drains and he does not report the fact to the Ministry, will the Ministry take powers of entry to exterminate these pests?
  If in a certain area the majority of farmers are prepared to help to get rid of this menace but there is the odd farmer who holds up the operation, we know what will happen. The land will soon
  1290
  be smothered with coypus and the Order will not have the effect which everybody wants. Does the Ministry intend to take powers of entry to deal with these pests if the farmer on whose land they are known to be does not report the matter?
  10.33 p.m.
  Mr. 1, M. L. PriorI do not want to be unduly rude to my hon. Friend, but we had an Adjournment debate on this subject as long ago as December, 1961, at which time coypus were a serious menace in East Anglia. On that occasion, I beseeched my hon. Friend to treat the coypu as a pest, but the Ministry thought otherwise and decided that it could fight the battle against these horrible creatures by other means, such as encouraging rabbit clearance societies to get on with the job of destroying them.
  Rabbit clearance societies and individuals have been extremely successful in dealing with these animals, and now that we have got well on top of this menace in East Anglia the Ministry decides to treat this animal as a pest. This strikes me as extraordinary. Nearly two years after it was well known that these animals were a serious menace in East Anglia, the Ministry decides to ask the House to treat these animals as pests. This really does annoy me, to say the least, because people on the spot in East Anglia have been saying this for a very long while.
  The fact that we have got the Order tonight will help to get on with the job a bit, but 1 am wondering what this £20,000 is to be spent on. I should like to have more details about that. Why is it that we require £20,000 of Government money to be spent on this now when we have managed in the last two years to get on top of the nuisance without having any Government money except that provided through rabbit clearance societies?
  It strikes me that, though this Order may help a bit, it has come far too late. I hope that my hon. Friend will make it quite clear to his inspectors or whoever is responsible in the Ministry for this that on the whole they are far too late, that they ought to know their job, and that if they do not know their job it is time they found out. This does really make me extremely annoyed. I

  1291
  hope we shall not be asked on another occasion to pass an Order like this two years after the menace has been dealt with that it is intended to deal with, and I hope the Ministry will get on with the job rather more quickly next time than it has this.
  10.36 p.m.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: When the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) has been in the House a little longer he will realise that most of the things this Government do are extraordinary and that a mere matter of two years' delay is nothing really unusual on the part of the Government.
  I would ask the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to give us an indication of what damage has been done in Scotland by these animals. It appears from the debate so far that the damage which has been done has been done in East Anglia. Nothing much has been said about Scotland at all in this connection. I am wondering why the Orders should necessarily apply to Scotland. I am quite prepared to say, if damage has been done, that something ought to be done about it, but so far the application to Scotland of these Orders has not been justified, and I think that when Ministers want to apply any Order to any area they ought to justify it.
  The second point which interests me is the £20,000. I was not quite sure what the Minister said about it, whether he said it would be something like £20,000 spent in two years or whether it would be £20,000 per year for two years. I thought it was the latter. It seemed to me rather strange that the Minister made no mention of anything beyond that. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) suggested that I ought to be opposing this expenditure. I was not quite sure whether he was in favour of it or against it, I feel bound to say after listening to his speech. He suggested that the coypus ought to be dealt with and that as the mink trade was a luxury trade that ought to be dealt with, but I was not quite sure whether he wanted the mink parlour to deal with it or the Government. That by the way. Perhaps the Minister would say a little more about the £20,000 for the first two years of the Order, because, as I read it, it
  1292
  extends for five years; it is to cease to have effect on 31st December, 1967. I could not quite link the expenditure with the length of time the Order is to last.
  The next point I wanted to mention is this. The hon. Gentleman, in moving the Order, said he would consult the breeding societies about issuing of licences. Surely that ought to have been done beforehand? The hon. Gentleman does not seem to have consulted anybody before introducing the Orders. There should have been consultation with the N.F.U., for instance, and also, in respect of licences, the Fur Breeders' Association—and I would hope that that would include the Scottish Fur Breeders' Association—before the Orders were Introduced. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will say something about that.
  10.40 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Smithers: When the Orders were announced on the B.B.C., Hampshire was the only county mentioned in which mink were said to be at large, and, as the Minister has said, the conference relative to this matter took place in Winchester.
  I want to ask two questions. The first relates to the extermination of wild mink. The authority which I have consulted—it is an American one—says that no fur breeding animal is so unsuspicious of traps and so easily caught as the mink. It may well be that some of my constituents would like to catch mink. Will my hon. Friend be circulating some information on this subject?
  Secondly, does "mink" in the Order mean both the European mink and the North American mink, which are two distinct animals?
  10.42 p.m.
  Mr. William Ross: I, too, have a constituency interest in regard to mink. I make no apology far intervening on this very important Order, because there are some very serious questions to ask.
  I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) raised the question of the expenditure of public money to deal with something which was originally a matter of profit to individuals and for the purpose of commercial gain. He will

  1293
  equally remember that in Scotland we are spending at least £15,000 a year to keep down yet another pest—red deer —once a matter of profitable and leisurely pursuit by certain classes over their lands until such time as they could not afford to keep it under control, and once again it became a matter for the public purse and the ordinary individual to deal with.
  Two Departments of State are involved in these Orders. I must take my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) to task in this respect. He says that he is not responsible for Scotland. But the two Orders are being taken together, and all we have had have been statistics about expenditure in England, the troubles in East Anglia, the troubles in Norfolk particularly, and the rest, and there has not been a single reference to Scotland. But we have a Scottish Under-Secretary present, and I do not doubt that among the battery of civil servants concerned with this problem there may be some who have been brought down from Scotland to deal with the Orders.
  What we are concerned about is that many of the coypus in East Anglia may have escaped and made their way up to Scotland. If we had not been aware that this was something to do with animals, what we heard from the Government Front Bench would have sounded something like a war bulletin about a great new invasion from space —these mysterious coypus invading England, all the damage that was being done, the concern of the Government, all stations being alerted, and so on. It was almost like the peroration of the Secretary of State for Scotland about Scottish education—nothing was going to be left undone, the Government were going to press on, and so on.
  Can the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland tell us exactly how Scotland is concerned in this? Is this something about which we have not been duly warned, something about which we have been unconcerned, while all the time we have been faced with this great danger? [Interruption.] An hon. Member says something about the absence of Scottish Members. There are more hon. Members on the Government benches at the moment discussing coypus than there
  1294
  have been all day during the discussion of Scottish education. There are probably more Scottish Tory Members present——
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. The hon. Member should perhaps recollect that we are discussing two small Orders relating to coypus and mink and nothing else.
  Mr. Ross: I apologise. I was making a passing reference, but I was led astray by my hon. Friend. I would be glad if the Under-Secretary would tell us how we in Scotland are concerned about this matter and what is being done about it.
  Mr. Edward Short: Would it not be a good idea to rebuild Hadrian's Wall to keep the mink out and the Scots in?
  Mr. Ross: At one time I was concerned whether we were dealing with the menace of the coypu or the K.O.Y.L.I.
  As for the menace of the coypu in Scotland, I do not want the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to be too hasty in rising, as he appears to be about to do, because I am not nearly finished yet. I want to know exactly whether any danger from mink has been evidenced in Ayrshire. The hon. Gentleman will know that there are a few mink farms in Scotland. There is an important one in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). There are farms on the East Coast. One thinks of Perthshire, and there is an important one in my constituency. I believe, from an indication by one of the triumvirate of Under-Secretaries of State, that he has one in his constituency.
  Are these escaping animals? Where are they escaping from, what damage have they done and how much has it cost us up to now? I know that action for the control of pests
  in Scotland is usually taken by the Department of the Ministry of Agriculture responsible for England and Wales which has more or less overall control in consultation with the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. This is why we have one Order instead of the usual two; but we are entitled to some information about Scotland.

  1295
  I also want some information about the Order. I am a very simple and ordinary Member, but I like to be sure what we pass in the House. Both the coypu and mink Orders state that—
  "The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland, being satisfied with respect to the animals the subject of this Order that by reason of their destructive habits it is desirable to control the importation and keeping of them and to destroy any …"
  and so on. Evidently the Government have suddenly discovered that these are animals of destructive habits. How long have they been thinking about this matter? I gather from remarks made by speakers opposite that they have been thinking this matter over since 1932. Why at this point of time have the Government come to the conclusion that they should take action?
  As for the kind of action taken, under the heading "Citation, Commencement and Duration", both Statutory Instruments state:
  "This Order… shall come into operation on the 1st September 1962 and shall cease to have effect on the 31st December 1967."
  Why should it cease to have effect then?
  Mr. Willis: To get ready for Hogmanay.
  Mr. Ross: There may be some reason under the original Act, but there is something more mysterious later in the Order. Paragraph 2 (2) provides that
  "The Interpretation Act, 1889 shall apply to the interpretation of this Order as it applies to the interpretation of an Act of Parliament."
  That is a formality with which we are all familiar in relation to Statutory Instruments. Then by sub-paragraph (3) it is provided:
  "When this Order ceases to have effect as aforesaid section 38 (2) of the Interpretation Act, 1889 shall apply as if this Order were an enactment repealed by an Act of Parliament".
  If there is one Section of the 1889 Act with which I am not familiar, it is Section 38 (2). It is right that I should declare my ignorance and ask for clarification of what it is that I am asked to approve in this Order. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State—I shall not be fobbed off with any English Minister— will explain exactly the meaning of paragraph 2 (3), why it is there and how it follows.
  There is also the point which has been raised by the hon. Member for South
  1296
  Angus (Sir J. Duncan) as to what happens in regard to a person who, knowing that coypus have been seen on his land, fails to give notice of the fact to the Secretary of State.
  I hope that I have given the Under-Secretary of State sufficient to go on. I am sure that he will be delighted to inform me about all these important matters and give us a break-up of this expenditure of £20,000. How much will be spent in Scotland, or will any be spent? Will it be eleven-eightieths? Is there any problem in Scotland, or have we in Scotland decided to take these steps now as a prudent measure, having realised that the imprudence of English Ministers has meant that they are too late in their action and are faced with grave danger from escaping coypus and mink?
  10.53 p.m.
  Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), who is expert in the ways of this House and the practice in debate on Measures which affect Scotland as well as England, did not do himself justice. I think that he underestimates his ability when he says that he is a simple and ordinary Member of Parliament. Perhaps, on future occasions like this, after the House has had a debate on Scottish education or some other subject affecting Scotland, he will come better prepared to consider Orders of this kind than he is tonight.
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in a short and very clear speech, explained the need, but I think that he may, on reflection, feel that he did not pay tribute to what has already been done without Government help. The point was very well put by my hon. Friend the Member far Norfolk, Central (Mr. Collard). From Suffolk, I emphasise that our farmers have been taking action. One can hardly open one's local paper each week nowadays without seeing reports of the steps which have been taken.
  I hope that when this money is being spent—it is not a very large sum—it will not be devoted to a new scheme but will be used to back up the work which has been done already. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will bear this in mind and pay a tribute to what has been done in the past.
  10.55 p.m.
  Mr. Edwin Wainwright: I intervene because I am not yet satisfied that the Government are entitled to stop the coypu, which has valuable fur, from corning into the country. It makes a useful contribution to the economy of the country, even though some of the coypus may be in Scotland.
  Mr. Ross: We do not know. We have not been told.
  Mr. Wainwright: I wonder whether the Government are introducing the Order against the coypu because the balance of nature has been overweighted in so far as the water rat is in abundance.
  It may be that the Government should bring in weasels and stoats to kill the coypu and the water rat, and the mink as well, for that matter. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) suggests that we should get the mink to kill the coypu, when they would balance each other out. That would be a good idea if only the message could be passed on to the mink to do so, or vice versa to the coypu to kill the mink, and it would then die from overweight.
  I am rather surprised that no Member on the Government side has mentioned why we have
  an abundance of the coypu and of the water rat running wild. Is it not true that since the war we have done a good deal to preserve game for the landlord and his friends, and that by so doing we have increased the number of coypus and mink and other animals of that kind?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Member, but he is going beyond the two Orders which we are discussing.
  Mr. Wainwright: We are talking about a species of rat which is allowed to come into the country for commercial purposes and which, obviously, must at some time be allowed to run wild.
  Because these animals have been allowed to run wild, they are damaging our crops. Therefore, the Government want to stop this kind of animal from coming in. They want to stop it coming in, not because of its valuable fur, but
  1298
  because the owner of the animal has not been able to keep it under control within his farm which he has kept for the coypu. That being so, and because the animal runs wild, it has a detrimental effect on the crops of farmers.
  If other species which would keep this
  kind of animal under control were not being destroyed by the landlords so that they can preserve their game for shooting purposes, the species that would destroy the coypu when it runs wild would be able to keep it down. People cannot destroy kestrels, stoats, and so on, and then not expect the water rat to grow in number. Much of the blame rests upon people who are destroying the other animals and birds that would keep this kind of animal under control. Even though I do not object to the Order, the Government should look at the matter again.
  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. F. M. Bennett: Before listening to this debate, I thought that I had heard everything. But I must admit that the idea of a kestrel or a stoat consuming an animal which at its adult size is no less than two feet long and lives almost permanently under water is a fantasy of natural history that I had not expected to hear about. I should like to know what animal it was that the landlords have destroyed which would attack the mink.
  However, it was not that aspect of the matter, nor the entrancing thought of a coypu swimming all the way along some unknown waterway from the North, which prompts me to make this short contribution to the debate. I merely wish to ask the Minister to say a word about how it is proposed to deal with the licensing aspect of the matter. I have in mind not only the question of keeping these animals for their fur, but the keeping of them in zoos, both public and private. Presumably the Minister has in mind some system whereby under recognised zoological conditions, when there would be no question of the animals escaping, licences would be issued.
  Remarks have been made against the coypu, and no one would deny that they have proved a menace in many districts. But they serve one useful purpose, as I know from practical experience There is no cheaper or more expeditious

  1299
  method of clearing a lake or waterway of reed and weeds than by the use of coypus, if one is able to ensure that one has a pair of males, or females, so that they will not breed.
  11.2 p.m.
  Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: My constituency is what it is largely because of the water courses which run in embanked channels, and so I do not think there is another constituency in the country which could be more adversely affected if coypus got out of hand. I am conscious of the fact that many of my constituents are becoming increasingly perturbed at the enormous number of coypus coming to the Isle of Ely from the north. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was worried about whether he understood the Bill. I am anxious about whether my constituents will understand the Order. I do not know how many hon. Members have read the Act under which this Order is introduced. Section 10 of the Destructive Imported Animals Act, 1932, allows any other animal that is non-indigenous and is of a mammalian species which, by reason of its destructive habits, it is desirable to prohibit, to be treated as if it were a musk rat—that is what it boils down to. This Act was introduced originally in order to deal with the musk rat or, as it is better known to the ladies, musquash.
  The offences which may be committed
  against the provisions of the Act are rather important, and it is surprising that the Order should be so short when there is considered to be an emergency with which it is necessary to deal. No reference is made in the Order to the penalties which may be imposed as a result of the Order, or what are the offences, beyond a short footnote to the Order. Section 10 of the Act gives powers to the Minister or the Secretary of State over coypus or mink running wild which enable the Minister to invoke Section 6, to which no reference is made in the Order. That Section 6 will mean under this Order that any person who (a) at a time when the importation of coypus is prohibited absolutely, imports, or attempts to import, any coypu into Great Britain, or at a tame when such importation is pro-
  1300
  hibited except under a licence, imports or attempts to import, any coypu into Great Britain without having in force a licence authorising to do so; or (b) at a time when the keeping of coypus is prohibited absolutely, keeps any coypu in Great Britain, or at a time when the keeping of coypus is prohibited except under a licence, keeps any coypu in Great Britain without having in force a licence authorising him so to do; or (c) being the holder of a licence granted to him under this Act, acts in contravention of or fails to comply with any regulation made under this Act, or any term of his licence; or (d) turns loose any coypu, or wilfully allows any coypu to escape; or (e) obstructs any officer of, or person authorised by or on behalf of, the appropriate department, in the execution of his duty under this Act; or (f) fails to give a notice which he is required by subsection (2) of the last preceding section to give.
  That is Section 5, which contains the provision:
  "The occupier of any land who knows that musk rats,…"
  In this case coypus—
  "kept by him under a licence, are to be found thereon shall forthwith give notice to the appropriate department."
  Any person who does not comply shall be guilty of an offence under this Act, and shall on summary conviction be liable—in the case of an offence under paragraph (a), paragraph (b) and paragraph (d) of this subsection—to a penalty of twenty pounds, or if the offence was committed in respect of more than four animals, to a penalty of five pounds in respect of each animal; in the case of an offence under paragraph (c), to a penalty of ten pounds, and to a further penalty of forty shillings for every day on which the offence continues after conviction therefor; in the case of an offence under paragraph (e) to a penalty of twenty pounds; and in the case of an offence under paragraph (f) to a penalty of five pounds; and the court before which any person is convicted of an offence under paragraph (a), paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) of this subsection may order any coypus in respect of which the offence was committed to be forfeited and destroyed. That is not the limit of these penalties.

  1301
  It seems extraordinary that this Order, which has such an excellent purpose, should be drafted in such imprecise terms that anyone reading it could not be at once aware of all these things. If we have no other duty in this House, we have the duty to our constituents to see that when we are running the risk of making them subject to penalties and the payment of quite substantial fines we should make it absolutely clear and let everyone know what is happening. I hope that if I have done nothing else this evening I have made it a great deal clearer than it was.
  11.8 p.m.
  Mr. Vane: It is flattering to the animal kingdom that there should have been such a large attendance and so many speakers in this debate at this hour.
  It is gratifying that no one from any part of the House has asked us to take back this Order, although I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) came near to doing so. I think the best thing I can do is to try to answer the questions which have been put to me.
  Mr. Ross: The Scottish ones?
  Mr. Vane: I shall attempt to answer them also.
  The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) asked about consultation. I can assure him that we had consultations with the Nature Conservancy, the National Farmers' Union, with fur breeders and so on, and everyone agreed that the general basis of this Order is fair. There may be further details about certain things as we gain experience. Mr. Thompson is an official of the Department and one of our scientific officers. It ought not to be necessary to mark mink if they are properly housed and fenced. There is some difficulty in doing it. Some experiments have been conducted. But I can assure him that this has not been overlooked.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) wondered whether it is the intention to issue licences on a strict basis. This is not so. The purpose of the licensing system is to enable us to know where these animals are being kept and to ensure that those who are keeping either species follow the recognised codes and
  1302
  ensure by proper fencing that the chances of escape are reduced to a minimum. This is not an indirect attempt to prevent any legitimate fur farmer or zoo from keeping either of these species.
  My hon. Friend also asked what would happen if someone failed to disclose that he has seen these animals at large on his land. I said that an obligation would rest on all occupiers of land to disclose it. There is a possible penalty of £5, but I have great faith in our magistrates' courts, and it is not our intention to prosecute people who do not act immediately—even though this is important. We hope to deal with it by advice and education, but if we are to spend public money in dealing with such a problem we must be able to ensure that we are not frustrated by one person who refuses to co-operate.
  In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), it is not customary to repeat in an Order all the details and all the penalties in the parent Act. I had hoped that on this occasion I might have been complimented because the Order was brief and clear; rarely have I seen Orders which are shorter and clearer. The parent Act, too, is remarkably clear. It was devised to deal with one type of wild pest, and at the end there was a useful proviso that Ministers could apply the provisions to other animals should they seem likely, like the musk rat, to become a serious pest. My hon. Friend read with considerable emphasis the various offences which can be committed under the Act, but if he compares the Act with our normal Statute he will see that there is nothing which is out of step.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I accept that the Parliamentary Secretary is right in saying that it is common practice in the House, but I am anxious to ensure that people who will be affected by the Order will understand it. If we are not to have an Order setting out these facts, may we have an assurance that those who will have to obey it will be fully informed of the consequences of not doing so?
  Mr. Vane: It has been the practice of our pest department to print leaflets dealing with these pests; some of them

  1303
  have been not only very clear but very good. They have dealt with pigeons, grey squirrels and rabbits, for example. We will follow exactly the same practice here.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Collard) asked when this campaign against coypus was likely to start. I do not think that all hon. Members appreciated that this special campaign, which I estimate will cost about £20,000 a year for two years—then we can look at it again—is not being set in motion under the Order. We have provided for it in the Estimates. It is an extra effort which will be made by our pest division to deal with the coypu because the existing measures against it, great though the efforts of many people have been, with and without any form of Government assistance, have shown that the coypu is not being contained in the difficult areas in Norfolk but is gaining ground. The campaign will be in the charge of a senior pest officer of the Ministry who, hon. Members will be interested to know, was a commando during his war service. He is already planning this operation, and there is no question of delay in setting it in motion.
  The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton) asked about the power of entry if someone is unco-operative. The power of entry exists in the Act, and the Order gives the Minister and his servants the power of entry written into the Act.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft said that he was annoyed. He appears to be very easily annoyed, considering the steps we are now taking. He did not seem to appreciate that the coypu has been recognised as a pest for quite a long time. As I said in opening, I think that it was in 1960 that, in certain areas, expenditure by rabbit clearance societies on coypu destruction ranked for grant in the same way as work against the rabbit. I therefore do not think that my hon. Friend's contribution was very accurate, nor did it add very much to this debate or to the solution of the problem.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) asked why I had not referred to the difficulties of dealing with these pests in Scotland. He will be glad to learn that at present there are no such
  1304
  difficulties, but the parent Act deals with Great Britain and Orders made under it cover both countries. The presence of these animals is possible, since they could both be kept in Scotland. However, to the best of my knowledge none is at large there, although two dead ones were found at one time in the waters of Leith. There have been several reports of damage by escaped mink in Scotland, but there is as yet no conclusive evidence of mink successfully breeding in the wild country north of the Border. For the present, at any rate, there is no such serious problem there as there is in the South.
  The hon. Member also asked about the expenditure of £20,000. As I have explained, we estimate that the cost of the campaign—extra staff, extra transport, and so on—will be about that sum, and we hope that after two years to see very substantial progress. I can also assure him that we have already carried out consultation on a wide scale.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Smithers) asked for information so that his constituents who thought that they would like a cheap mink would not be deprived of the opportunity. I can assure him that we shall put out a lot of literature which, we hope, will help him and them, and will apply to both species——
  Mr. Smithers: Would my hon. Friend be quite clear about the species? The Order distinctly refers to the species designated as Mustela vison, but the other species of European mink is designated as lutreola, and I do not see how it is excluded from the Order.
  Mr. Vane: I can assure my hon. Friend that both species are covered. If, by chance, it should later be discovered that his constituency is being ravaged by some species not provided for this evening, I hope that he will help the passage of another Order on another evening. To the best of my belief, both species are now covered.
  The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) asked why we had not brought forward this Order sooner or later. The question of timing is always a matter of timing. We do not always want to inflict on the House and the country a whole lot of Orders when the menace does not seem to justify it. There are other Orders current under the Act, and we had hoped that our

  1305
  efforts against the coypu would have been more successful than they have, fact, proved. It is only recently that there has been evidence that the escaped mink is capable of breeding successfully.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the references to the Interpretation Act, 1889. The answer is that the present form of words has the effect of preserving on the termination of the Order any rights acquired or liabilities incurred under the Order. If, for example, a case were going through the courts, at the time when the Order ceased to have effect, in respect of an alleged offence against the Order it would be possible to take that case to a conclusion, notwithstanding the termination of the Order in the meantime.
  On the question of the termination of the Order in 1967, the wording of the Act provides that an Order would run on indefinitely unless a terminal date is inserted. It seemed to us, in all the circumstances, that 1967 was an appropriate date.
  While I have covered the question of fur breeders and zoos, my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) mentioned that on the credit side we should say that coypus could be useful in clearing reeds out of certain waterways—provided one had two young male coypus to do the work. One must be careful about fencing, for instance, because young male coypus have been known to chase all over the countryside, and there is no guarantee that they will remain in the place where some well meaning person has put them in the hope that they will clear their reeds. The use of coypus for such a task has been found not to be as successful as one might think.
  I think I have answered every question put to me. I hope therefore, that the House will approve the two Orders.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Coypus (Importation and Keeping) Order, 1962, dated 28th June, 1962, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th June, be approved.—[Mr. Vane.]
  Mink (Importation and Keeping) Order, 1962, dated 28th June, 1962, [copy laid before the House, 28th June], approved.—[Mr. Vane.]

  SCHOOL LEAVERS, STOCKTON
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]
  11.22 p.m.
  Mr. W. T. Rodgers: I am glad to have this opportunity of raising a local aspect of a national problem—largely the result of the passing of the bulge from the secondary schools—that must be very familiar to the Parliamentary Secretary. I am sure that in this case familiarity does not breed contempt, for it is hard to think of a more painful social situation than one in which young people leaving school find that they are not wanted or are wanted only for jobs much below the level of their ability and proper aspirations.
  It is not easy to exaggerate the consequences of the demoralisation that results. This demoralisation is infectious and can have disastrous long-term consequences, both on individuals and for the local community. But if contempt is lacking, a certain acceptance, a taking-for-granted, seems to characterise the attitude of authority towards the problem in Stockton and on Tees-Side generally.
  The good will is there, together with a sense that something ought to be done. Voluntary organisations are particularly concerned, and I should like to mention and commend especially the positive and praiseworthy interest and activity of the Churches. There is talk of opening the youth clubs by day and improving sports facilities, but official initiative at the right level and over the whole of Teesside is lacking. There seems to be no urgency and no leadership whatsoever.
  Opportunities for school leavers and the problem of youth employment are inseparable from the overall employment situation. Here the significant fact is that the unemployment figure for June at the Stockton and Thornaby office was, at 1,563, the highest for many years. For the first time since 1958, total unemployment in the second quarter of 1962 has exceeded total unemployment in the first quarter.
  It is not surprising that in these circumstances the figures for youth unemployment show a similar increase. The June, 1961, figure—this time it is

  1307
  for Stockton and south-west Durham, because the two offices do not cover the same areas—was 13 boys and girls. Last month the figure was 154 boys and girls —twelve times as many. I am glad to say that by yesterday the figure had fallen to 73 boys and 21 girls, but this remains very high. It is a serious matter that 94 young people are without jobs.
  This is the background against which the task of providing jobs for those leaving school must be seen. In its letter dated 2nd July sent to employers' organisations and trades unions, the Industrial Training Council said that it was—
  "concerned that the general employment situation for young persons is poorer than at this time last year and that the placing of the Easter school-leavers has been slower and more difficult."
  It is impossible to show statistically exactly how difficult this process has been. There are many at school, for example, who are only staying there because there are no jobs available for them to go to. How many left but did not register at the youth employment bureau? How many have merely displaced those in jobs already, shifting the burden of unemployment to those who left school a year ago? How many—and I think that this is a very important point—are doing jobs which make minimum demands on their talents and lead nowhere?
  Of the 450 boys and girls who left school in Stockton at Easter—and I now mean Stockton alone and not the larger area covered by the bureau—very few remain registered as unemployed. This appears to be reassuring, but what does it conceal? Apart from the unknown number who never registered, it is agreed that it was difficult to find jobs for one-third of them, perhaps 60 or 70 who wanted an apprenticeship and were capable of it failed to get one, and many with a General Certificate of Education took jobs much below their ability. It is an unhappy situation, loaded with danger for the coming weeks when many more young people will be leaving school. The hon. Gentleman may have local figures not available to me of the number expected to leave school within a few weeks, but there is no evidence that the position in Stockton will be very different from
  1308
  the position in the country as a whole, for which a peak forecast has been made.
  I said that demoralisation was the result of finding no job to go to. May I say in passing that this demoralisation must begin as soon as a boy or girl enters the premises of the Stockton youth employment bureau. This is a quite outrageous place. It is an abomination of dirty puce and yellow paint, a disgrace of which the service should be thoroughly ashamed. The bureau is above, of all places, an undertaker's, and it cries out to every boy or girl, "Abandon hope all ye who enter here". I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, if he cannot manage a visit himself, to encourage an immediate investigation and use his considerable influence to rehouse the bureau by the end of the year at the very latest. There is certainly no excuse whatever for leaving it in its present squalid surroundings.
  The long-term solution is, of course, the expansion of industry and full employment generally throughout Tees-side, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) dealt with this very clearly in his Adjournment debate of 15th May. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will represent to his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade the importance of quickly completing the contract for the sale of the former Metropolitan-Vickers factory which has stood empty for far too long; and through him to I.C.I., who are purchasing it, the desirability of resuming production as soon as possible and finding jobs amongst their new employees for young people.
  Secondly, there is the possibility of increasing part-time education for young people in employment, thus somewhat increasing the total demand for young people to do the work available for them. I hope very much that some of those who have stayed at school will benefit by the decision and continue their full-time education for a longer period but to hang on and learn nothing serves no useful purpose and only postpones the moment at which the problem has to be faced. There should be no return to what, I believe, were called the "dole schools" of the nineteen-thirties. Day release extended to all

  1309
  young people and properly planned is very worth while, as I know as a governor of a large day-release college in central London, and I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to say what steps are being taken to increase day release in Stockton and whether the facilities at present existing are adequate for expansion.
  Thirdly and most important is the question of apprenticeships. A partial survey two and a half years ago showed that the number of apprentices actually employed was 7 per cent. below the quota. There was room for an additional 300, and a number of firms had facilities which were not being used. I should like to know what happened since. Have more apprentices become available? What is the anticipated increase in the number of them in the coming years?
  I fully appreciate, of course, that there are difficulties in getting an increase in this number. A number of small firms lack proper facilities, and some would Perhaps be jealous of an offer from some of the larger ones willing to undertake training on their behalf. At a time when unemployment is high and the future insecure, the trade unions naturally have hesitations about accepting additional young people for training who may displace other skilled men. The whole matter requires patient and tactful handling. But what I should like to know is, who is doing anything at all about it? Have firms been approached at the highest level—and I do not just mean by circular letter—to get them to play their part in solving the problem of jobs for school leavers? Is there continuous and practical consultation with local trade unions so that they fully share in the problem? Who is responsible for taking the broad view over the whole of Tees-side, which is the natural employment area, making policy, co-ordinating activities, collecting figures of demand for and supply of young people, making visits, bringing the parties together, looking at both the educational and employment sides?
  I understand that three years ago or more a representative meeting of employers and trade unionists was addressed by the then Parliamentary Secretary. Following this, a joint committee of local youth employment committees was set
  1310
  up—it was presumably a Carr Report continuation committee—which met on several occasions and organised the survey to which I have referred, but to the best of my knowledge it has not met for more than two years and has done nothing lately about the problem.
  Since this debate was arranged, I have been told that the joint committee is being reconvened and will meet on 19th July. I hope very much that this is so. It would be a very great encouragement to know that a senior representative of the Ministry of Labour will be present and that the meeting has the full blessing of the Minister.
  More important, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will ensure that the means and facilities, whether financial or in personnel, will be available for a very practical job of work to tackle the problem. What we need is not another talking shop but a co-ordinated plan of attack. I do not say that the solution of the problem of jobs for school leavers is easy. I do say, with regret, that there will be no solution at all without a far more determined effort than we have hitherto seen.
  11.33 p.m.
  Mr. Timothy Kitson: I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. W. T. Rodgers) on raising this matter tonight. The two Members for Middlesbrough are here as well. A pressing point the hon. Member mentioned, and which I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will raise with the President of the Board of Trade, is that we require other industries to be brought to Tees-side. It may be wondered why a Member for a rural constituency should be intervening in this debate, but I have a number of constituents who are employed on Tees-side. Our great difficulty is that, when the steel industry runs down, there is very little alternative employment on Tees-side. We are, dependent on the steel industry, and I hope the President of the Board of Trade will bring to Tees-side other industry which is very much required there at the present time. I think this has been a splendid time to raise this matter tonight, because it is a very pressing problem very much in the minds of all of us in the North-East.
  11.35 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Alan Green): I add my congratulations to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) to the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. W. T. Rodgers) on raising this very important issue of employment opportunities not merely in his constituency but on Teesside as a whole. I also congratulate him, if it does not sound patronising, on the very able way in which he has put the case. I hope he accepts from me that I share his concern about the future of these young people, and I hope that at any rate some of the things I shall say will be a little reassuring to him even if I cannot satisfy all the points he raised.
  I take some comfort from some of the things the hon. Gentleman said, in that he clearly indicated that this is not a problem that one can solve in five minutes with a few very simple words. I do not think it is either. The problem, as I know the hon. Gentleman appreciates, is not peculiar to Stockton. It is, indeed, found almost everywhere in the country. More boys and girls are leaving school. The hon. Member is right; this is basically a problem of the "bulge" which appliess to the whole country. The problem is made more difficult in the tighter employment situation which generally prevails this year.
  The "bulge" in school leavers in Stockton itself is not quite as large as in the country as a whole. Compared with last year, there will be about 20 per cent. more school leavers this summer in Stockton, and in the country as a whole there will be about 40 per cent. more. In that sense—I agree that it is a limited sense—the problem is a little less in Stockton than in the rest of the country.
  On the other hand, I could not agree with him more that the employment situation is more difficult in Stockton and on Tees-side generally than it is in many other parts of the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks put his finger on the basic reason for that. If iron and steel goes down, then Stockton and Tees-side get into some trouble.
  I should like to set the problem in its proper perspective, as the hon. Gentle-
  1312
  man also attempted to do. Employment opportunities for young people are very much bound up with employment prospects generally in the area as a whole. I agree with him about that. I am sure that we should not consider these young people in isolation. I am sure that from the word "go" we must get their problems in their right perspective, relating them to the problems of all people in the area.
  Tees-side industries felt the 1958–59 recession acutely, and they have suffered recently in the tightened employment situation which applies throughout the whole economy. The area is very dependent on a small number of heavy industries, of which iron and steel and chemicals are the two largest, followed by engineering. Any change in the prospects of those industries has grave repercussions on employment prospects as a whole and, therefore, on the prospects for school leavers.
  However, on the brighter side I think that those who live on Tees-side and who are concerned about it are right to be proud of the high level of efficiency in the iron and steel industry there and the expansionist spirit of the chemical industry. While accepting that the problem is a real one, I do not want to take too pessimistic a view of the prospects there, so that by creating gloom I make the present situation worse, which is very easy to do unless we are careful.
  I turn now to the subject which the hon. Member particularly raised, and that is the prospects for young people in Stockton itself. It is quite right that the Stockton youth employment area includes Billingham, Sedgefield and Hartlepool. In this area, the number of boys and girls unemployed is substantially higher than in 1961. The problem, however, is largely confined to boys. There are no serious difficulties for the girls at present and, though factory work is scarcer, there is still a reasonable demand for girls in clerical work and distribution.
  Just because of its distinctive industrial structure, Stockton is an area where a high percentage of boys can and do enter apprenticeship. In 1961 in Great Britainas
  a whole 38 per cent. of boys entering their first employment obtained apprenticeships. In Stockton, the proportion was 51 per cent., one of the best

  1313
  figures in the country. Those who live in and represent such an area should welcome this good record.
  Therefore, we have two factors which are helpful in Stockton itself. Firstly, there is a smaller bulge to be expected this summer than applies generally over thee, country. Secondly, there is the record which I believe will be maintained, of a higher than average entry into apprenticeship. These will be two helpful factors in dealing with what I agree is a substantial problem in the district.
  Even this year, with a much tighter employment situation to contend with, in the five months, January to May, 37 per cent. of the boys entering employment obtained apprenticeships compared with 34 per cent. in the rest of the country. Therefore, while I cannot expect that last year's very high percentage will be reached, because the actual numbers will he greater, I would expect that this summer boys in Stockton will do as well in getting apprenticeships as boys elsewhere, and I would hope that they might continue to do a little better so that the comparative record will be maintained.
  I attach great importance to these apprenticeship opportunities, as the hon. Member clearly does, because the building up of a high degree of skill in an area is one of the best economic defences that the area can have. I realise that short-term difficulties can easily obscure this fact, but I hope that this debate, if it does nothing else, will encourage employers with apprenticeship openings to use them to the full, regardless of the immediate state of their order book. In the years ahead they will be very glad of that additional bank of skill in the area.
  I would say to them what I have said elsewhere in the country. Whenever I have had the opportunity I have asked an employer to ask himself the simple question, in the period since the war of which has he been the shorter—skilled labour or orders? The answer in almost every case has been that he has been shorter of skilled labour than of orders over the post-war years. I hope, therefore, that this lesson will be learned and that no opportunity of
  training boys in Stockton will be missed by any employer. I hope, and indeed I am sure, that the unions locally will co-operate in securing this.
  Mr. R. E. Prentice: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any special steps are being taken by the Government or by the Industrial Training Council to stimulate apprenticeship in that area? In particular, is one of the Department's officers working in the area to try to increase apprenticeships this year?
  Mr. Green: I think that I should answer that question more generally. The hon. Gentleman knows that my right hon. Friend and I have been doing our level best in talking to industry—industry by industry—to secure not merely more apprentices in the industries concerned but better opportunities for training and shorter training periods where appropriate. This does run up against the difficulty, as the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees said, of basic attitudes of mind, and we have to overcome this as best we may by persuasion rather than by compulsion. But we work jolly hard at it, and shall continue to do so. We recognise the importance of this subject. We discuss this also with the trades unions as well—which was another point raised by the hon. Member.
  In addition, we have the Industrial Training Council, now growing in influence and force. It has not been in existence very long and, like most such new bodies, it has taken a little time to find its feet and get going, but I have been quite encouraged recently by what it has been able to do. Although I cannot give a particular answer about how well it is doing on Tees-side, I can say that it is an active body with a growing influence in industry.
  I turn now from that general answer to a particular point made by the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees. The number of Easter school leavers unemployed in his constituency yesterday was, I am glad to say, only four boys and five girls, and I think that there are special circumstances in some of those cases which make them difficult to cater for. This fact speaks well for the local youth employment service. But I do not want to conceal the fact that there is a substantially larger number of older young people unemployed in Stockton and the surrounding area than was the case last year. Nevertheless, the fact that there are only that number unemployed out of

  1315
  the Easter school leavers suggests that something is being done locally, and not being done too badly.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke about the actual appearance of the youth employment office and the way it is housed in Stockton. He will know that the Durham County Council, the local education authority, is directly responsible in the area for the youth employment service, having taken the option extended to it under the 1948 Act to be so responsible. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is in close liaison with the local authority which is responsible and will help it wherever he possibly can to do its duty, as indeed my own officers are ready to do. I can tell him that something has been done along the lines he suggests. Arrangements have already been made for co-operation between the various youth employment offices on Tees-side and, in particular, for the circulation of vacancies throughout the travel-to-work area. Recently, recognition of the need for further co-ordination of efforts led to the decision to revive the joint committee of the Stockton, South Cleveland and Middlesbrough youth employment committees, so that the problems of the area can be seen as a whole. As the hon. Gentleman said, the joint committee will be meeting again on 19th of this month.
  As for the youth employment service in Stockton itself, although it is the responsibility of the local education authority, something further has been
  done by my Department. A recent inspection by officers of the Department has led to the making of certain recommendations to the local education authority for the improvement of the staffing and efficiency of the service. These recommendations are at present
  1316
  being considered locally. I hope that we shall not have to wait too long for some fruitful results from that consideration.
  To sum up, I recognise to the full that the general employment position in the area is bound to affect the opportunities for these young people. I hope that locally, it will be recognised that the best thing that employers can do, with the active help of trade unions, is to fill with these youngsters every conceivable apprentice or other training job in the area and not to be too worried here and now about the immediate state of the order book. Unless this foresight is applied, when demand revives in the area—as, I am certain, it will in the fulness of time—there will simply not be the bank of skilled labour to take full advantage of it and further to multiply the employment opportunities that will, I am sure, later exist on Tees-side. Certainly, if the utmost use is not made of training for skill, it will be appreciably more difficult to induce diversified industries to move to Tees-side, because if there are no human resources of the kind that are needed, industries will be less inclined to go there.
  I am, therefore, grateful to the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees for giving me the chance, through him and through his hon. Friends and mine, to make this plea to all employers in the area to do their proper duty by these young people, not only in the interests of the young people, but in the interests of those who can give them training and employment later. I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising the matter.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Twelve o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE
  Public Works Loan Board
  Public Works Loan Board
  British Academy Report (Humanities and Social Sciences)
  British Academy Report (Humanities and Social Sciences)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Hyde Park (Duke of Edinburgh Gate)
  Hyde Park (Duke of Edinburgh Gate)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Coal Exports
  Coal Exports
  Films
  Films
SCOTLAND
  Mental Health (Scotland) Act (Section 36)
  Mental Health (Scotland) Act (Section 36)
  Hamilton Sheriff Court
  Hamilton Sheriff Court
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
ROYAL NAVY
  Long Service Pension
  Long Service Pension
COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS
  High Commission Staff (African Language)
  High Commission Staff (African Language)
HOUSING
  Older Properties
  Older Properties
  Slum Clearance
  Slum Clearance
  Overcrowding
  Overcrowding
EDUCATION
  Deaf Schoolchildren, Lancashire (Secondary Education)
  Deaf Schoolchildren, Lancashire (Secondary Education)
POST OFFICE
  Sub-office, Fareham (Uplands)
  Sub-office, Fareham (Uplands)
ROADS
  Road Safety, Whitwell
  Road Safety, Whitwell
BRITISH ARMY
  Long Service Pension
  Long Service Pension

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

LONDON TAXICAB REGULATIONS
2.35 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the technical advisory committee, appointed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to review the conditions of fitness for London taxicabs, has completed its work, and whether they will now publish the new regulations.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (EARL BATHURST): My Lords, this technical advisory committee has completed its work and I am glad to inform the noble Lord that copies of its report are in fact in your Lordships' Library. The Deputy Commissioner has accepted the recommendations of the committee and the revised conditions of fitness, which tare to come into force on January 1, 1963. They will be published in August.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, whilst thanking the noble Earl for that very satisfactory reply, and congratulating him on his success in running this report to ground in the Library, may I ask by which Department the report will eventually be published, and where it will be obtainable by members of the cab trade, who are most anxious to know know what is in it, in order to make preparations in readiness for January 1 next year?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I think this report will be published by my right honourable friend at the Home
134
Office. Should I be wrong, I will let the noble Lord know. In any case, it will be available to all who are interested in taxicabs.

LOANS FOR EGYPT AND BRITISH NATIONALS' CLAIMS
2.37 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give an assurance that they will not grant to the Egyptian Government any loans or credit directly, or give support to the granting of such by any international financial institution to which Britain is a subscribing participant, until the Egyptian Government has properly and adequately met the claims of dispossessed British nationals.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, my noble friend the Foreign Secretary has asked me to apologise for his not being able to answer this Question himself. He has gone to meet the President of the Liberian Republic, who is arriving this afternoon on a State visit to London. My noble friend is still having discussions with the United Arab Republic Government about the need to settle the claims of these British subjects whose property has been desequestrated but who have not yet been able to get out of the United Arab Republic the money to which they are entitled under the financial agreement of 1959. As soon as my noble friend has anything to report to your Lordships he will do so.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for his reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that it does not in any way answer the Question I put on the Order Paper? If the Minister would kindly look at my Question, he will see that it asks whether Her Majesty's Government can give an assurance that no further monies from the British taxpayers will be paid to the Egyptian Government until the question of British nationals is settled. He has in

135
no way answered that particular question. May I ask him whether he could now give an answer to the Question which is on the Order Paper?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I do not think it would be very sensible to give an assurance, such as is suggested in the terms of the Question, that Her Majesty's Government will not grant any loans or credit unless these claims are met in full. I do not think that that would have the desired effect.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, do I understand that the Minister is now kindly answering my Question by saying that Her Majesty's Government cannot give that assurance?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I think so, yes. We certainly cannot give the assurance in the terms which are suggested in the Question.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, is the noble Earl able to tell us why the Egyptian Government will not pay the money that ought to have been paid?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, we have often discussed this question before. The reason given, which I think is true, is that they have not enough sterling to fulfil the obligations under the 1959 Agreement. I did mention, when I answered a Question on this subject on May 8, in reply to a supplementary, that we have in the past expressed, and we continued to express, the, view that the failure hitherto to implement the undertakings of the 1959 Agreement has prejudiced our relations with the U.A.R., and that the implementation of the agreement would greatly improve them. We are continually pressing that view upon the Government of the United Arab Republic.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, arising out of the refusal of the noble Earl to give the assurance for which my noble friend asked, is the noble Earl aware of a riddle which is now circulating in regard to British claims against Egypt, to wit: "When is a promise not a promise?" and of the answer—"When it is given to British claimants by the British Government"? To go one stage further, he talked about Egyptian lack of sterling. Does the noble Earl
136
remember that when the Agreement of February, 1959, was signed the result was a totally inadequate sum of £27½ million paid by Egypt in total fulfilment of all Egyptian obligations, and that Great Britain simultaneously released £41 million sterling? That is a fact. Is he further aware that in May, 1957 (I come back to the definition of a promise), an unequivocal promise was given to the House of Commons:
"The blocked accounts are our security for the claims of British subjects against the Egyptian Government. We have no intention of whittling away that position, the House can be sure of that."
That assurance was given by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, then Minister for Foreign Affairs. Am I not right in saying that the answer to the question, "When is a promise not a promise?" is: "When it is given by the British Government to British claimants in Egypt"?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, in reply to the first part of my noble friend's supplementary, the promise under the 1959 agreement was given by the Egyptian Government, and it is the Egyptian Government whom we are seeking to hold to that promise, while we all, I think, recognise the exchange difficulties which may hinder them in implementing it. In reply to the rest of my noble friend's supplementary, the quotations which he has made from the year 1957 are all of statements made considerably prior to the agreement of 1959, which was accepted by both Houses of Parliament as a settlement of our claims against Egypt. It is the 1959 agreement which we are seeking to get properly implemented.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, may I just follow that up? If the noble Earl would read the Hansard reporting the debate in which the agreement of 1959 was agreed to—I believe it was agreed to in both Houses—he will find it was done only on the strength of certain definite or almost explicit undertakings given by the Prime Minister and by the then Leader of this House. As the noble Earl has brought in the 1959 agreement, I would say it was only in consideration of certain definite commitments entered into at that time that that agreement was passed.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I think that is another question, my Lords, but whatever was said by the Prime Minister at that time in another place has not been departed from.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Earl not agree that many countries when short of currency indulge in barter trade; and have the Government considered making an arrangement with the Egyptian Government—if they are willing—to provide cotton over a period of years, in order that the Government could then sell that cotton and find the necessary money?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, we have considered a great many expedients of that kind and of other kinds, and we certainly hope that we shall reach a satisfactory settlement. I can assure the noble Lord that we are not leaving out of account any possible method of dealing with this problem.
LORD REA: My Lords, could the noble Earl say whether Her Majesty's Government have in mind any retaliatory measures or sanctions that can be applied, until this promise is fulfilled.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I do not think it is particularly helpful, during negotiations which you hope may lead to some results, to start talking about punitive retaliation. What we hope to do is to persuade the Egyptian Government to honour their obligations so far as it is possible to do so, having regard to their exchange difficulties.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, is there any indication as to what is the condition of the claimants who have been kept waiting all this time? What is their condition?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I think that is a completely separate question from the one on the Paper. As the noble Viscount is aware there are a vast number of claimants, whose conditions vary a very great deal. Under the agreement which we already have, those whose claims are the smallest and who are in the greatest need have been satisfied, as I think your Lordships have been told, to the extent of 90 per cent. With regard to the further parts of the 1959 agreement, which we are particularly considering now—that is, the
138
failure of the Egyptian Government to pay the amount of sterling to British holders of blocked sterling accounts in Egypt which they undertook to do under the 1959 agreement—I am hopeful that we may be able to make some statement before Parliament rises for the Recess, although I am not sure of that at this moment.

ADMINISTRATIVE INQUIRIES PROCEDURE
2.47 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: 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 when it is proposed to lay the new code of rules of procedure for the conduct of administrative inquiries before the House and what form this will take.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, it is proposed to lay before the House next Friday rules of procedure relating to appeals to the Minister of Housing and Local Government under Section 16 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations, 1960, as well as rules of procedure for inquiries into proposals by local authorities for the compulsory acquisition of land. These rules will be contained in statutory instruments which will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Viscount for his reply. Am I to assume from it that he has, unfortunately, found himself unable to accept the suggestion I made during the debate we had upon these rules of procedure in December last: that they should be laid before your Lordships' House in the form of a White Paper, instead of in a statutory instrument subject to the Negative Resolution procedure, to enable your Lordships to debate them if your Lordships so desired?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, my Lords. I am bound by Section 7A of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, which the

139
noble Lord will remember we inserted in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959. That section states:
"The power to make rules under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument; and any instrument containing any such rules shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
I am quite sure, however, that the ingenuity of my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth will find a substitute for the procedure which he would have liked. Of course, he can put a Prayer to the regulations and I will consider with great sympathy any points that are raised on the Prayer. I think the House would feel it would be a perfectly legitimate way of using a Prayer, to have some discussion of the rules, and for those of your Lordships who have suggestions to make them at that time.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am even more thankful to the noble and learned Viscount for the courtesy of his reply. From that, I assume that he will not take it amiss if I lay a Prayer for their annulment in order to allow the House to debate them, and to hear the explanation from the noble and learned Viscount, which I am sure will be entirely satisfactory to your Lordships' House.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I may reply to that in a sentence, may I say that I should never take anything amiss which would give me the chance of hearing a speech from my noble and learned friend.

MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL
Read 2a, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

TRANSPORT BILL
2.52 p.m.
Further considered on Report (according to Order).
Clause 52 [Coastal shipping]:
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM)THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM) moved, in subsection (1) (b), after first "to" to insert "or from". The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to speak to Amendments 34, 35, 36 and 37 together, as they are related. Your Lordships will remember that during the Committee stage my noble friend Lord Teynham moved Amendments to protect the coastal shipping industry in certain circumstances where they were dependent upon railway transport for part of the journey of the goods. He withdrew those Amendments on my giving an undertaking that I would consider whether the points justified their being covered, and that I would put down Amendments if that proved to be so.
The points concerned were, first, that the Minister should be empowered to give directions to the Railways Board with regard to Charges for the carriage of goods by rail, not only from their point of origin to the port of shipment but from the port of destination to their final destination, if they had to depend on rail transport for either of those journeys. Secondly, I was asked to consider that the Minister should be placed under a duty to refer complaints about railway charges under the clause to a suitably qualified person for investigation and advice before considering Whether a direction to the Railways Board should be given—that is, to place a duty on him in respect of something he had already said that he would do. The third point was that the clause should apply to charges which were proposed to be made by the railways as well as to charges actually made. It is really a point of clarification, to make quite sure that those two points are covered.
These points were found to be reasonable, and these Amendments 34 to 37 have been put down to cover them—and, indeed, they do. They do two other things as well, which were found on consideration to be necessary for

141
drafting purposes. First, they introduce provision for a procedure which is designed for speed—which I think several noble Lords have already said is desirable—so that any complaint can be considered as quickly as possible. Further, it seemed that it was desirable to lay down some provision if the railways refused to quote any charge at all other than for very sound operational purposes. So those two points have been included in the Amendments. I hope I may say that the Amendments achieve a degree of protection which is justifiable and reasonable in the circumstances, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 2, after first ("to") insert ("or from").—(Lord Chesham.)
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity of thanking Her Majesty's Government for this series of Amendments, which I think fully meets those points which referred to coastal shipping which I raised during the Committee stage of the Bill. I should like to say just one word with regard to Amendment No. 37, which refers to complaints. I think the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has already mentioned the fact that speed is very important. I would suggest it would be a good thing that when in fact a complaint is made to the Minister it should be made at the same time to the investigator. I would say that speed is the essence of this matter, and this procedure would, I suggest, help to clarify the position more quickly. It would enable the investigator immediately to make some preliminary inquiries, and possibly hold the position pending the more formal investigation of the policy. Perhaps the noble Lord in charge of the Bill could give us his assurance that he would have no objection to this procedure.
There is one other point I should like to mention on this clause. I hope it may be possible for Her Majesty's Government to give an assurance that they will welcome the voluntary arrangements whereby the railways and coastal shipping can consult together to avoid needless and wasteful competition. Again, I wish to thank Her Majesty's Government for meeting my views in such a very handsome way.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, before the noble Lord in charge of the Bill
142
replies, may I support what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham? It seems to me that if an application is made or a complaint is laid by a responsible body, such as the Chamber of Shipping, it should be dealt with without any delay at all, and referred to the investigator forthwith. Now I can see the objections that Departments and Ministers naturally take to statutory directions to be quick about things regarding which they say they have no intention of being dilatory, and far be it from me to suspect my successor at the Ministry of Transport of any tendency of that kind. But the machine has become very complicated, and Departments have a habit (and I think that perhaps it has grown greater as time has gone on) of consulting everybody they can think of before they take any action at all. In this case, the suggestion is that the complaints might be simultaneously referred to the investigator, and that some assurance should be given by the Minister that, provided the complaint comes from a responsible body, a representative body, and not some individual shipowner, then it will be investigated, not only without prejudice to the eventual decision, of course, but without any delay at all. I think an assurance of that kind would give some satisfaction to an industry which is very hard pressed.
I said several years ago to your Lordships that in this new era of intense competition in transport—a policy with which, in many respects, I was not in complete agreement—we must expect that the devil would take the hindmost, and that the hindmost in the intensified road-rail competition would be likely to be coastwise shipping. That, my Lords, I am afraid, has proved only too true, and therefore I think their demand for even firmer assurances that their complaints will be dealt with rapidly is justified. I recognise, as the noble Lord has, that the Government have gone a very long way in meeting the substance of the representations made on behalf of coastline shipping, and I feel that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill need have no hesitation in giving an assurance that complaints from this highly responsible representative body will in fact, as a matter of administration, be dealt with forthwith.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I very much appreciate the support of my noble friend Lord Teynham and the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, for this Amendment, and for once, perhaps, it looks as if we even have something fairly near right. As regards the assurances for which I have been asked, I should have thought that it stood to reason that, where the commercial interests of both parties coincide, it would no doubt be to their mutual advantage to ensure that the arrangements under Clause 52 are made to work satisfactorily, and I should have thought that it would have been a normal and beneficial arrangement if they did so.
As regard the speed of the matter, I cannot quite give my noble friend the positive assurance for Which he asks, in the terms for which he asks, for the following two reasons. First of all, of course, there is the practical one: that the investigator concerned may not necessarily be the same man in each case. Therefore, it is not necessarily the case that the people making the complaint would toe able to know to whom they should send a duplicate copy, so to speak. Secondly, the procedure allows for a certain degree of discretion on the part of the Minister in referring the complaints to the investigator, and I think that that discretion should be preserved to avoid a spate of complaints, some of which might well be duplicated, descending on the investigator, or investigators, if there were more than one individual involved, and, therefore, even tending to slow down consideration of a particular matter rather than speed it up. But one thing I can assure my noble friend is that the necessity for speed in this matter is very well appreciated, and it was, indeed, for that reason that the procedure in the Amendments has been put in.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 3, after ("be") insert ("or have been").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 18, after ("him") insert ("(a)").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 21, at end insert:
("and
(b) that the goods in question cannot reasonably be carried by coastal shipping unless they are carried by rail to or from the harbour specified in the complaint.
( ) If it appears to the Minister that a body making a complaint under subsection (1) of this section has a reasonable case to make in support of the complaint, he shall refer the complaint for investigation to a person appearing to him to have suitable qualifications for that purpose, and the Minister shall consider the report of that person before giving a direction upon the complaint under this section:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply to a complaint if it appears to the Minister that he has no power to give a direction upon the complaint by reason of paragraph (b) of subsection (2) or paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of this section.
( ) If it appears to the Minister on a complaint by any such body as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section—

(a) that the Railways Board have refused to quote a charge for the carriage by rail to or from any harbour of goods which are to be or have been carried by coastal shipping, and

(b) that the goods in question cannot reasonably be carried by coastal shipping unless they are carried by rail to or from the harbour specified in the complaint,

the Minister may give directions to the Board requiring them to quote a charge for the carriage in question.
( ) The procedure on any complaint under this section (including any reference of the complaint for investigation) shall be such as the Minister may determine.
( ) In this section, references to a charge made by the Railways Board for the carriage of any goods include references to a charge at which the Board hold themselves out as willing to carry any goods.").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 54 [The Nationalised Transport Advisory Council]:
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MILLS): My Lords, Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 go together. The effect of these Amendments is to enable the Nationalised Transport Advisory Council to advise

145
the Minister on any questions relating to co-ordination or any other aspect of the nationalised transport undertakings. As the Bill is at present drafted, they can advise the Minister on only such matters as he may direct. These Amendments have been put down following the statement I made in Committee on June 5, in which I gave the actual wording of these proposed Amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was good enough to say that he thought that if we put down Amendments to that effect they would meet the case. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 7, leave out ("such").—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 9, leave out from ("undertakings") to end of line.—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to allow the Nationalised Transport Advisory Council to advise the Minister on questions relating to the Transport Holding Company. The definition at present in the Bill excludes the Holding Company although it includes its subsidiaries, and thus is defective. This Amendment has been put down to remedy that defect, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 9, leave out ("and") and insert ("the activities of the Holding Company and the undertakings").—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 55:
The Transport Consultative Committees
55.—
(4) Subject to the following provisions of this section, it shall be the duty of the Central Committee and of each Area Committee to consider and, where it appears to them to be desirable, make recommendations with respect to any matter affecting the services and facilities provided by any of the Boards—

(a) which has been the subject of representations (other than representations appearing to the committee to be frivolous) made to the committee by or on behalf of users of those services or facilities, or

146

(b) which has been referred to the committee by the Minister or by a Board, or

(c) which appears to the committee to be a matter to which consideration ought to be given;

and copies of the minutes, conclusions and recommendations of each committee shall be sent to the Board concerned and—

(i) in the case of any Area Committee, to the Central Committee: and

(ii) in the case of the Central Committee and the Area Committees for Scotland and for Wales and Monmouthshire, to the Minister.

(5) Nothing in the last foregoing subsection shall entitle any committee to consider the charges made for any service or facility, or to consider any question relating to the discontinuance or reduction of railway services except as provided in the following provisions of this section; and the Central Committee shall not be obliged to consider any representation which appears to them to be more suitable for consideration by an Area Committee or which has been previously considered by an Area Committee.
3.8 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN LORD LINDGREN moved, in subsection (4), after "Boards" to insert "or Transport Companies". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it would lead to the convenience of the House if your Lordships would agree to take Amendments Nos. 41, 42, 43 and 44 together, because they cover the same point right the way through. Had we reached this Amendment, as I had hoped, during the course of our discussions yesterday I should have hoped that there would be a ready acceptance of the Amendments or, at least, the principle behind the Amendments. Because the noble Lord, Lord Mills, in one of our discussions yesterday, in reply to my noble friend Lord Shepherd, led me to believe from his speech that it was possible for the Transport Users' Consultative Committees to discuss, and to make recommendations to the Minister on, the question of bus services. The discussion I am referring to is included in column 78 of yesterday's Hansard. But on reading the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Mills, during that discussion yesterday, in order that I might quote it against him to-day, I found it might be that my impression from listening to his speech was not correct, because it now appears to me that what the noble Lord, Lord Mills, said was that the Transport Users' Consultative Committees could deal with bus services where

147
those bus services were in fact provided at the direction of the Minister, and with a subsidy from the Railway Boards.
We on this side of the House take the view that, in this changing pattern of transport that we must face, the Transport Users' Consultative Committees should really be transport users' consultative committees and have reference to all forms of surface transport. We should like them to be able to deal both with the companies within the Holding Company and also with the private enterprise bus companies which are providing services. I admit that, to remain within the scope of the Bill, this Amendment can refer only to those services which are provided by the companies included under the Holding Company. It is important that the general public, through their local authorities and representative organisations—trade unions, chambers of commerce, ratepayers' associations and political Parties—and ordinary individuals as well, should be able to make their views about the provision of service known to the Minister through the T.U.C.C.s, groups of persons who are giving specialised study to transport problems and making recommendations to the Minister. Then the Minister can use his power to see that a reasonable standard of service is provided for the general public. It seemed to us that the clause as it stands referred only to complaints of the public about the railways, but it now appears that the T.U.C.C.s can also make representation where there are bus services resulting from a change in railway transport. We should like this power extended to cover the services of all companies included within the Holding Company. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 6, after ("Boards") insert ("or Transport Companies").—(Lord Lindgren.)
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, we considered this matter in some detail—may I say, in interesting detail—in Committee, therefore, what the noble Lords opposite want can come as no surprise. I am sure that the noble Lord will not feel me guilty of making any kind of "crack" about this, when I say that it emphasises the fundamentally different approach of noble Lords opposite to the Bill. The noble Lord suggests that we
148
should bring within the jurisdiction of the T.U.C.C.s the nationalised bus undertakings, road haulage undertakings and some shipping companies, in some of which all the shares are owned by the Commission and others of which they have merely a minority share-holding. His Amendment would bring within the ambit of the T.U.C.C. a number of undertakings that have never been within their ambit before.
I should not like there to be any misunderstanding about what was said by my noble friend Lord Mills. What he was referring to, as the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, hinted, was the power which the Minister has to give directions for services to be provided by the subsidiaries of the Holding Company. Except in certain circumstances connected with railway closures, when directions can be given to the Railways Boards to continue these services by working agreement, including subsidy or otherwise, they are free of control of the T.U.C.C.s. At one time, the nationalised undertakings were under that control because of the monopoly aspect. It was felt that when the Commission took them over they might be subjected to pressure in favour of the railways, and this control was to safeguard them from that. But neither of these situations applies any longer. The whole purpose of the Bill, to allow these transport undertakings to operate freely as best they can, requires them to be freed from control which previously existed and I do not think that it is a good thing that control should be reimposed and widened in scope by putting them under the T.U.C.C.s. In addition, the T.U.C.C.s are not the best qualified bodies to exert the kind of control the noble Lord has in mind.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord says that the T.U.CCs. have powers, but as I understand the Bill they are purely advisory bodies. It is the Minister, on the advice he receives from a Council, who makes a decision, not the Council itself.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lord, that is correct. The Councils would not decide; they would present the case. As these transport undertakings are to operate commercially, in competition with other companies to which no such restriction would apply, if representations could

149
be made to the T.U.C.Cs. for onward transmission to the Minister, that would put them under a form of control which we regard as restrictive and unjustified. In short, there is something of a collision between what the noble Lords opposite advocate and the purposes of the Bill, as we see them, and because of that collision I feel that we should not accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if we have these fairly massive railway closures, obviously many rural districts will have to depend upon buses for passenger transport. Let us assume that the Consultative Committee has advised the Minister that a certain bus service should be provided; that it is provided by a Holding Company subsidiary, and that at first it is economically viable without any assistance from the railways by way of subsidy. But, supposing things change in the course of two or three years, will not the Holding Company, taking into account the responsibility placed upon them to be profitable, decide either drastically to reduce the bus service or, maybe, out it right out? Does that not mean that the people in that area, who have lost their railway, and now their buses, will have no other means, as I see it, of making their case to the Minister?
This is the real point that my noble friend Lord Lindgren has. We are trying to give this protection to these rural districts: that where they lose their bus services, where there are these subsidaries of the Holding Company, the public should have an opportunity to make their case. It should not be left to the Council to make up their minds, and refer the matter to the Minister, who will then make up his mind what is to be done, in much the same way as the Minister makes up his mind whether he will close a railway line.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, if I may have the leave of the House to speak further, I know that such worries are in the minds of noble Lords, because we also discussed them before. On the last occasion (and I do not think I need to repeat it now) I explained at some length the Minister's powers in this situation about which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is worried. I hope I made it clear that his powers of
150
direction in such matters were quite adequate to ensure that such services would be continued. But the power comes on, so to speak, through the Railways Board. The Minister has power to give directions to the Railways Board that in the event of a closure there should be provided certain bus services, if necessary; and, if they are to be run at a loss, that the Railways Board shall subsidise them, or even, in the final case, provide the services themselves. There is that safeguard.
So far as services are provided by any operator—whether by one of the Holding Company's subsidiaries, by an entirely private operator or by anyone else—the direction to the Railways Board to subsidise that service holds equally good. I think the situation the noble Lord is worried about is fully covered. I should like to add one point on that. We shall be coming in a minute to Amendment No. 49, which extends the protection I mentioned (I will not go into it fully) not only to future closures, but also to existing ones, and to those that are, so to speak, in the pipeline at the moment.
LORD SHEPHERD: Do I understand then that if a bus company operating in an area in which there has been a rail closure operates for two or three years perfectly all right, balancing its accounts, suddenly finds there is a change, and that the service could be kept running only at a loss, in spite of this interval the bus company can then go to the Railways Board and ask for a subsidy?
LORD CHESHAM: That is not quite the way of it. On a complaint, which there would no doubt be—
LORD SHEPHERD: To whom would the complaint be made?
LORD CHESHAM: In the case where, as I imagine would be fairly usual, there had been a railway closure and alternative bus services were provided instead, those services, I think, would normally be provided technically by the Board, although they might be provided by a working agreement with some other company. In the case where the service is provided by the Board, as part of the Minister's conditions in agreeing to the closure (which is the point of having these powers), it then becomes a service by the Board, so that representation

151
could be made to the Railways Board concerned on the matter. It is possible that if the service is withdrawn two or three years later because it no longer pays, a further direction (because directions can be varied and given from time to time, as the Bill states) may be made for the Railways Board to subsidise the service, if necessary, to ensure that it does continue.
VISCOUNT LONG: My Lords, I venture to ask this question of the noble Lord who has just spoken. I am in an area where, I am told, the railways are going to discontinue their service to the public. How long is the interval to be between the time the railways have ceased to exist in my area in Wiltshire, and the coming of the buses, whether they are controlled by the railways or not? I can assure your Lordships that the public in my part of the world are vastly disturbed about this idea. Can the noble Lord say how long the interval will be between the railways saying, "We are not going to continue the service", and the bus services coming?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, if I may speak again, in reply to that question, of course it is not possible to say how long the interval will be. But I can reassure my noble friend by saying that closures will be subject to the Minister's consent, and in giving that consent he can impose conditions or directions that the bus services shall be provided instead. I cannot visualise that he is likely to agree that the line shall be closed down until the buses are provided. Therefore, I should have thought that in the normal case there would not be any interval.
VISCOUNT LONG: It has already been done.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, arising from that point, it underlines our uneasiness in this matter when we are told—and we all know it is true—that closures have taken place and that no alternative services have been provided. The procedure at present, as I understand it, is exactly the same as it will be under this Bill: namely, that there are complaints; they are considered by the Transport Users' Consultative Committee; and if there is evidence of hardship, then the Minister has to decide. We all know
152
that the procedure which has been described over and over again in our debates at various stages of this Bill is largely the procedure which operates now. But it is not operating effectively.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I would ask your Lordships' indulgence to speak again, because this is a most important point, and it is one on which I do not entirely disagree with the noble Lord. I should also like my noble friend Lord Long to know about this. I mentioned Amendment No. 49, which we shall reach shortly and which gives the Minister the same powers to deal with existing closures and closures that have occurred—closures that are in process now, as well as future ones, all on the same lines.
LORD STONHAM: I am glad to know that. But the point the noble Lord appears to have missed is that we have this procedure operating now, and all over the country we know it is operating unsatisfactorily, in that certain areas have been deprived of any service. They have lost their rail service and have no bus service in its place. I do not want to speak again, and the noble Lord may say that he can deal with this point on Amendment No. 49. But when he carefully explained the procedure that would be followed he said that, assuming that the Railway Board has itself been directed to provide a bus service, or to enter into agreement with some other company to provide one, and in two or three years' time it is not paying, they will then have to subsidise it. But that brings us back to the whole point we have made on this Bill. The cardinal sin, if I may put it that way, would be for the railways, or anything to do with the railways, to run a service which was not paying. If, therefore, the Minister directs them to go on doing just that and they are to subsidise the service, the question we should like answered is: Who is going to subsidise the railway company?
On Question, Amendment negatived.
3.30 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, in subsection 5, after "the charges" to insert "(other than special charges, as defined in the next following subsection)". The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I wish to speak

153
also to Amendment No. 46. We are still dealing with the Transport Consultative Committee, which many of us regard as a guardian and an advocate for the general public in transport. This Amendment would provide an opportunity for the Committee to examine the problem and to make recommendations to the Minister. Clause 55 specifically excludes from the terms of reference any question of consideration by the Committee of charges that may be made by the Boards for any service or facility. It is a fact that under Clause 34 the railways will be free to charge what they require and what they can obtain for their particular line. They will no longer be bound by the restrictions that have been imposed upon them for many years, and which we on this side of the House freely admit have caused many of the losses.
In the past the railways have not been able to adjust their passenger or freight rates quickly enough to meet rising costs. We certainly wish the railways to have this flexibility. But we are rather concerned in case one area may be at a disadvantage compared to another area, because the railways are obviously going to be free to charge what they wish on a particular line. It is a fact to-day that our freight and passenger rates are based on a common factor throughout the country. Therefore, to move cabbages in Essex costs the same as moving cabbages in Scotland. Under this Bill there could be a different rate for moving cabbages in Essex from the rate in Scotland.
The setting free of the railways raises two problems. We have already dealt with the first; where coastal shipping is concerned we are perturbed that the railways might use their organisation to put coastal shipping at a disadvantage. We have supported the Government this afternoon on the Amendments which give a good deal of protection to coastal shipping, to ensure that the railways will not use their position to put coastal shipping at a serious disadvantage. On the other side, of course, we have the fact that the railways will be empowered in this Bill to charge what they wish. If an industry in Scotland, North-East England or Wales wished to move merchandise to a port and was required to pay freights which were a good deal higher than a similar industry producing
154
similar merchandise in the South of England would have to pay to move its material to the ports, this would be a serious disadvantage to that industry. It will apply equally in the moving of agricultural produce in various parts of the country.
I do not say that the railways should not have the right, the freedom, to charge what they feel is necessary to make a particular line viable. But, realising some of the effects of such a policy, I feel that there should be an opportunity for local organisations, trading organisations, county councils or the like, to be able to put a case, for that case to be considered, and for the report to he sent to the Minister, and for the Minister to decide whether it is fair and just that these charges should be higher in a particular area.
That is the purpose of the Amendment which I have on the Order Paper. It is very simple. It says that the Transport Consultative Committees will be empowered to consider the question of special charges as defined in the following subsection, Amendment No. 46. That Amendment describes what is a "special charge". It means:
"… charges or rates which differ from those in force in the rest of the country, or which are computed on a system which differs from that normally used; and in case of doubt the committee shall decide whether a charge is a special charge."
I think this may well prove to be of great importance to some of our minor industries in some of our struggling agricultural areas.
I would echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, When he was supporting the Government Amendment, that there should be an investigation if there is a dispute on the rates of the railways when in competition with coastal shipping. Speed will fee essential, because obviously a market or an industrial line could well be lost fey rates acting with serious effect upon their selling price. Therefore, I believe this is the best way in obtaining a speedy consideration of the problem. It will be considered fey men on these committees who will fee experienced and, I think, broad-minded. Their report can, or should, be in the hands of the Minister in sufficient time to prevent any irreparable harm being done to the areas concerned. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 23, after ("charges") insert the said words.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, we have once more a fundamental disagreement about the objects of the Bill. I do not find it very easy to accept the analogy which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, found with the provision which was made in earlier Amendments for the protection of coastal shipping interests in certain monopoly circumstances. Certainly I do not think I can accept for a moment that that particular case which was argued as a special consideration can be argued on those lines to embrace virtually the whole of the activity in the country.
As the noble Lord pointed out, in the Bill the Transport Consultative Committees are expressly barred from considering charges. That was obviously necessary—particularly following the removal of the control by the Transport Tribunal of railway freight and passenger fares outside London—in the interests of adequate commercial freedom for the railways. It made no sense to remove control of one and leave it in the sphere of interest of the other. Because, of course, previously T.U.C.C.s had been able to consider charges. Therefore, there would be, if it had been left, a growing tendency for the T.U.C.C.s to become involved in rates and charges and, in a sense, to replace the restriction which it is desired to remove by taking away the consideration of the Transport Tribunal. I may say, in passing, that the T.U.C.C.s in the past have considered charges only on one or two exceptional occasions. Therefore I think it is fairly clear that the Amendments, if they were accepted, would give the Committees a considerable responsibility and standing in considering the rates and charges which the Boards made, and the exact extent of that responsibility and standing is not a bit certain.
The noble Lord thought—unless I misunderstood him, in which case I apologise—that the railways had need to negotiate all kinds of rates and charges in the ordinary commercial course with traders and other people who use their services. Even under the present system where their rates and charges are governed by maxima laid down by the
156
Tribunal, there is still a very wide range of individual rates and charges which are addressed to particular circumstances and which relate to particular traders or classes of traders. It would be extremely difficult, therefore, in relation to the Railways Board at any rate, to establish what was a special charge within the meaning of the definition in the noble Lord's Amendment.
It seems to me that there is still a considerable risk that wherever in the ordinary commercial course the railways were charging some customers different rates from those which they were charging others, probably for some perfectly legitimate reason, it might be held that special rates within the meaning of the Amendment were in force, so that there would be a right of complaint with the T.U.C.C.s concerned; and a customer who could show that he was being charged higher rates for his goods than somebody else in what he thought were generally comparable circumstances would be able to go and claim that his charge was a special charge and that they should consider it. Even if it were doubtful the Committee would, as I understand the noble Lord wishes, be able to decide whether or not to accept those representations. What the Amendment would in practice achieve would be to re-impose the same kind of old statutory obligations relating to equality of charging and avoidance of undue preference, and so on, which have long since been swept away. That I do not think is desirable. And I think what is less desirable is that the charging control over the railway should be removed by the Bill and re-imposed by these Amendments, which would be in a form less efficient than that which is being removed. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will not wish to press his Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I must say I am very disappointed with the Minister's reply. I thought he rather glossed over the fears that are held in many parts of the country on the question of the future of rail rates. In view of the amount of business which is on the Order Paper I do not propose to press this Amendment this afternoon. I will carefully consider the remarks of the noble Lord, which, as I said, on listening I found most disappointing, and I

157
shall decide what to do, in consultation with my friends, on the Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I would ask your Lordships whether I may speak to this and to No. 48 as well, Which goes with it. Subsection (14) of Clause 55 at present provides that the Central Committee may from time to time make recommendations to the Area Committees with respect to any matter affecting the procedure of those Committees. The Central Committee, of course, includes the Chairmen of the Area Committees in its membership, and the intention was to enable those on the Central Committee to discuss matters in which uniformity among the Area Committees was desirable and to make recommendations accordingly. In fact, it now appears that the word "procedure" may be too narrow for them to do that properly.
It is most important that there should be uniformity of action, subject only to local considerations, and in particular it is desirable that there should be uniformity among the Area Committees in the general lines of the reports which they will make to the Minister. They will have to report direct to the Minister on the hardship likely to be involved in closures and for making proposals to alleviate it. It is clearly desirable that the reports the Minister receives on which he is to found his considerations should be based on broadly similar lines and should adopt broadly similar criteria and standards for the assessment of hardships. I think that this slight widening of the scope of the Central Committee to bring about this uniformity is entirely desirable, and that is what these two Amendments do. I would add only that the present Chairman of the Central Committee and the Chairmen of the Area Committees are in entire agreement with the Amendments and their purpose and intention.
I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 23, after ("make") insert ("general").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move that Amendment No. 48 be agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 25, after ("procedure") insert ("or functions").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment goes with Amendment No. 98 and therefore, again with your Lordships' permission, I will speak to the two together. Amendment No. 98 is a very lengthy one. The idea of them is to give effect to a point which noble Lords opposite raised at an earlier stage, and, indeed, it was mentioned again only a few minutes ago. It was whether it was desirable that the Minister's powers of imposing conditions and directions where there were bus services in lieu of railway closures should apply clearly to passenger closures which have already taken place and are in the process of being considered at the present time. These Amendments do just that and, I think, meet the point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 44, leave out from ("effect") to end of line 48 and insert ("for the purposes of this secton").—(Lord Chesham.)
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, when I spoke a few moments ago I had not then studied Amendment No. 98 and was only considering No. 49, and could therefore not quite see how the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Transport was going to be able to do what the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, said he could do. I can see that now, and we are in favour of these two Amendments, but it leaves us in a difficulty. The Minister will have power to give directions with regard to the effects of a closure which has already taken place, and will have all the necessary power to give orders to deal with conditions arising out of future closures. Nevertheless we know from many parts of the country of the considerable hardship and difficulty which has been caused, particularly in rural areas, by the suspension of rail services in those areas where either there is no bus service, no bus service has been provided, or the bus service which exists is regarded as extremely inadequate. We must therefore hope, not only that this same procedure, now that it is going into a new Act of Parliament, will be better known and applied more rigorously, but that it will have the desired

159
effect. I think myself it will be for members of the public, quite apart from these Committees, to know what their rights are and pursue them vigorously in the hope that they will get a better transport service than might otherwise be the case.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 58:
Special restrictions on grant to London Board of road service licences
58.—(1) The traffic commissioners shall not under Part III of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, grant to the London Board a road service licence (whether or not in substitution for another licence) to provide a road service over a route which is not within the London Passenger Transport Area unless they are satisfied that any person who is providing transport facilities along or near any part of the route, and whose interest will in their opinion be substantially affected if the licence is granted,—

(a) has, whether as one of the terms of a working agreement made with the London Board or otherwise, consented to the making of an application for the licence, or

(b) has unreasonably refused or withheld his consent.

3.52 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "are satisfied" and insert "determine". The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, perhaps I could speak to Amendments Nos. 50 to 57 inclusive. These Amendments have been slightly varied since the Committee stage of the Bill. It is rather a complicated matter of the preliminary inquiry and the actual application for a licence. The object of these Amendments is to distinguish between the preliminary inquiry and the hearing of the application. I think I am right in saying that the preliminary inquiry is to find out whether an operator will be substantially affected if a licence is granted and if he has unreasonably refused or withheld his consent. I suggest that until the questions raised in the preliminary inquiry are disposed of, the consideration of the actual application for the licence should not be dealt with. I would say that it is clearly the purpose of this clause, Clause 58, to give this kind of favourable protection to an operator, and these Amendments are merely set down to meet this case.
I would point out that a very near precedent to this is an application under
160
the Road Traffic Act, 1930, by a local authority far consent for powers to run services outside its area. In those cases I think it is tame to say the application for consent is treated strictly as a separate hearing to the application for the licences themselves. I think the noble Lord, Lord Mills, at the Committee stage, perhaps inadvertently, took it for granted that all the questions would run into one another and be disposed of at the same time, but, of course, that is not exactly correct.
I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 63, line 10, leave out ("are satisfied") and insert ("determine").—(Lord Teynham.)
LORD MILLS: My Lords, Clause 58 sets out the conditions under which the Traffic Commissioners can grant licences to the London Board for road services outside the London Passenger Transport Area. The purpose of these Amendments, Nos. 50 to 57, which my noble friend Lord Teynham said were all related, is to place a more positive prohibition on the grant of licences to the London Board where the interests of other bus operators might be substantially affected, and to make the application of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of the clause absolute—that is, it would no longer depend on whether another bus operator near the route would be substantially affected by the grant of a licence to the London Board.
The position under the Bill as at present drafted is that the commissioners are not to grant a licence unless they "are satisfied" that any person who is providing transport facilities along or near the route and whose interest, in their opinion, will be substantially affected has consented (by making a working agreement or otherwise) to the Board's application or has unreasonably refused or withheld his consent. The Amendment provides that the commissioners are not to grant a licence unless they "determine" that a person providing transport facilities along or near the route has consented (by making a working agreement or otherwise) to the Board's application, will not be substantially affected, or has unreasonably refused or withheld consent. The differences are, first, that the commissioners must "determine" certain things, instead of "satisfying themselves", and

161
secondly, that a determination by the commissioners that an operator will not be substantially affected becomes a condition precedent to the grant of a licence.
By using the word "determine", which has a flavour of something formally carried out, in relation to finding out whether an operator is affected, the Amendment is no doubt seeking to protect operators other than the Board. It is by no means clear why this form of protection is needed. In dealing with similar Amendments in Committee I pointed out that the safeguard was not necessary. An operator along or near the route already has a statutory right of objection to an application for a road service licence. Anyone claiming to be "substantially affected" comes within this provision and thus has a right to appear in court. It is highly unlikely, as I pointed out in Committee, that the commissioners would refuse to entertain any such objections in court in cases where there was doubt whether an operator was substantially affected or not. The commissioners in practice use their discretion very much in favour of hearing objectors. Moreover, under Section 135 of the Road Traffic Act anyone will be in a position to object against the Board's application for a road service licence. Unless the objector withdraws his objection, the commissioners must take into consideration what he has to say, and once he has appeared as a party involved in the application he has a right of appeal to the Minister.
The Amendments have another effect. By using the word "determine" and by proposing that a determination that other bus operators will not be substantially affected must be a condition precedent to the grant of a licence, the Amendments suggest a procedural distinction between the grant of consent to the London Board and the grant of a road service licence. If there were this procedural distinction it would mean that the grant of consent to the London Board, either by another operator or by the traffic commissioners (after deliberation on the refusal of a consent) would be dealt with first and separately. Then, when it was determined, the London Board would apply for a road service licence in the normal way. Thus, there would be two distinct stages in the process of the London
162
Board's going outside its area. Proposals to have this kind of two-tier arrangement have been fully and carefully considered, but it has been concluded that, in practice, the traffic commissioners would have the same sort of considerations in mind whether the points before them were on a consent application or an application for a road service licence. For this reason, I consider it would be unnecessarily cumbersome to have two distinct procedures laid down in the clause, or to have a tendency towards such a distinction as represented by the Amendments.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I do not want to keep your Lordships long because we all want to be as brief as possible, but I am not quite satisfied over one or two points. The noble Lord, Lord Mills, seems to imply that extra protection for the local services which will be affected by London Transport is not likely to be necessary. But I would point out to your Lordships that this extension of London Transport's power of going ten miles outside its area is in fact going to open up an area of something like 2,200 square miles. Local services running outside that area are in a much less financially stable position than London Transport itself, and I feel that in that case every protection that one can grant to them is necessary. After all, there is precedent for this two-tier arrangement. I believe it has been quite a usual thing to have, first of all, the inquiry as to whether there is any objection or whether another operator is going to be affected, and then the hearing of the application itself. I think that that precedent is already in the Road Traffic Act, 1930. I see that in that case the objection, although usually heard on the same day as the application, was treated strictly as separate from and a condition precedent to the application for licence. In that case, I cannot see that the Amendment is unreasonable or undesirable; in fact, I think, in view of the protection which is necessary for these smaller operators, that it is extremely desirable.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend a question? As the Bill is now drafted, would it be possible for the Traffic Commissioners to decide the question, and to say that they are satisfied, without hearing the interested

163
party who might be affected? If that is the case, would it not be better to amend the Bill in such a way that the interested party is bound to appear before the traffic commissioners? I understand that that would be the case if they had to make a determination rather than merely to satisfy themselves.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, may I by leave of the House answer that point? I thought I had dealt with it fully, showing what the rights of an operator were: that he had the right, if he objected, to apply to the court. As I said in Committee, the application to the traffic commissioners is surely ample protection for the operators. I do not see any case made out for other safeguards when they appear to me to have a complete safeguard already.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, are they bound to hear him in open court?
LORD MILLS: The traffic commissioners would be bound to hear an interested party, if the party persists in his objection.
LORD HAWKE: In open court?
LORD MILLS: In open court.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD MILLS LORD MILLS moved, in subsection (3) (a), to leave out "the next following subsection" and to insert "subsection (5) of this section". The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 could, with your Lordships' permission, conveniently be taken together. The purpose of these two Amendments is to provide that current road service licences which vest in the London Board on vesting date are to contain a notional condition to the same effect as any restriction imposed under the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933, if the licence related to a "restricted route". A "restricted route" is defined in subsection (4) of the clause as one over which the London Transport Executive had power to run at any time in the twelve months before the publication of the Bill subject to a condition that they should not both pick up and set down a passenger on the route. The first Amendment is a purely consequential drafting Amendment to the second.
The Amendments have been put down following an undertaking I gave in Committee
164
on June 5 on an Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Teynham. The main purpose of this Amendment of Lord Teynham's was to secure that conditions about both picking up and setting down passengers on a restricted route should be enforced as regards both current and future licences as though they were conditions attached to a road service licence. It also would have prevented the Traffic Commissioners from revoking such conditions or dispensing with compliance with them, or, except in accordance with Clause 58, from varying them. In speaking on the Amendment, I made it clear that the position as regards future applications for licences was fully covered, since any such application for a restricted route would have to go through the special procedure set out in subsection (1) of Clause 58 if the licence was not subject to a condition that the London Board should not both pick up and set down passengers on the route. However, I said that as current licences are not similarly covered and as they last for up to three years, the Government should cover this point by an Amendment deeming licences in force on vesting date to be subject to such conditions. On this assurance the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, withdrew his Amendment.
These Government Amendments provide accordingly. It should be noted that, although the Amendments refer to variation of conditions, the Traffic Commissioners will not be able to dispense with such conditions under their powers in Section 134 (3) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960. Thus, any attempt by the Board to vary the conditions of restriction of existing licences would bring the routes outside the conditions of exemption and would involve a variation of the conditions of a road service licence. The protection for other operators provided for in Clause 58 (2) would then apply automatically. My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 63, line 42, leave out ("the next following subsection") and insert ("subsection (5) of this section")—(Lord Mills.)
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, as this Amendment largely meets the points I raised during the Committee stage of the Bill.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, from this side of the House, we do not object to this, nor did we do so during earlier stages of the Bill. But we must point out that it is really using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It is reciprocal. There are private operators within the London Transport area operating under exactly the same conditions. I think it is true to say in regard to both the private operator in the London Transport area and London Transport operating outside their own area under special licence that they normally maintain faithfully the conditions under which they operate. From the point of view of public convenience, very often, particularly during holiday times, they do not normally keep to this procedure. It is not uncommon, as your Lordships know, for many of the services to be run to points at which attractions are taking place during Bank holidays and so on, when people are liable to be left behind. There have been occasions, and there will be occasions in the future, when private operators operating into London and, perhaps, out into Northamptonshire, may assist the public by taking passengers as far as Barnet, let us say, because London Transport during peak holiday periods cannot do it. This equally applies south of the river where London Transport may often go outside its area.
I hope there is not going to be any objection to what has really been a "blind eye" turned during public holidays to this arrangement—or perhaps I should say "agreement"—between public servants in order to deal with members of the public who are waiting at bus stations. If, afterwards, it is going to be used to vary the licence of the private operator or the London Transport operator, I think it would be a little unfair. But I think one ought to point out that where it has been broken in the past, it has been generally for the public good on both sides.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 12, leave out ("(4) In the last foregoing subsection") and insert—
("( ) Any road service licence which is transferred on the vesting date to the London Board under Part II of this Act and which authorises the London Board to provide a road
166
service on a restricted route shall have effect as if it contained a condition that the Board shall not both pick up and set down a passenger on the route, but any such condition may be varied subject to the provisions of this section.
( ) In the two last foregoing subsections"). —(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, after subsection (5), to insert:
( ) The decision of the traffic commissioners to grant a licence or to vary the conditions attached to a licence pursuant to an application to which this section relates, notwithstanding that any person providing transport facilities along or near the route of the service has not consented to the application, shall not become operative until after the expiration of one month, and if at the expiration of that period an appeal by that person to the Minister is pending, the decision of the commissioners shall not become operative until the appeal has been determined."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have set this Amendment down again in order to try to clarify the position a little further. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Mills, who said during the Committee stage that this Amendment was directly contrary to the general usage of the licensing system; but I would say that this is not really true because, as I shall endeavour to show, he is not comparing like with like.
The noble Lord's view in regard to appeals against decisions of the Traffic Commissioners in relation to road service licences is perfectly correct, but that is not the case I am now putting before your Lordships. I would say that the correct analogy and precedent here are the preliminary proceedings for consent under Section 101 of the Transport Act, 1930. The Amendment has been carefully drafted to follow closely the provisions of that Section. I think it is in Section 102 (7) of the 1930 Act, which I will read to your Lordships:
"A decision of the commissioners to grant any consent shall not become operative until after the expiration of one month, and a decision to revoke or modify a consent, or to modify any conditions attached to a consent, shall not become operative until after the expiration of three months from the date of the commissioners' decision, and if at the expiration of that period an appeal to the Minister is pending the decision of the commissioners shall not become operative until the appeal has been determined."
I think that sets out the precedent very clearly, and I cannot see why it cannot be used in this particular case. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 29, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Teynham.)
LORD MILLS: My Lords, it is true that the Amendment follows the wording of Section 102 (7) of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. Section 102 sets out the arrangements under which municipal operators have to obtain consent from the Traffic Commissioners to run outside their boundaries. Having got this consent they then have to apply for road service licences in the usual way. There are thus, as the noble Lord says, two distinct procedures to be followed.
The point behind the Amendment seems to be to delay the operation of a service by the Board beyond the area boundaries. The normal usage is for a service to come into effect as soon as possible after the Traffic Commissioners give a decision. The model of the 1930 Act provisions, to which the noble Lord has referred, applies only to municipal operators, and then only to the first part of the rather complicated procedure they have to go through before they can obtain a road service licence for services outside their boundaries. London Transport's services outside their boundaries have always been subject to special statutory provisions, and not to the general procedure of Section 102 of the 1930 Act. Thus, I suggest, the model is not apt. The effect of this Amendment, perhaps the aim of it, is to open up a procedural distinction between the grant of a consent to the London Board and the grant of a road service licence.
If there were a procedural distinction it would mean that the grant of consent to the London Board, by another operator or by the Traffic Commissioners (after deliberation on a refusal of consent), would be dealt with first and separately. Once it was determined, the London Board would then apply for a road service licence. There would thus be two distinct stages in the process of the London Board's going outside its area. We consider it would be unnecessarily cumbersome in this case to have two procedures.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 60:
Amendment of enactments relating to inland waterways
60.—(1) As from the vesting date section seventeen of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873 (which requires the Commission to maintain certain inland waterways), shall have effect as if—
(b)) for the references in that section to a canal there were substituted, in relation to that Board, references to any inland waterway comprised in the undertaking of the Board which was by virtue of the Transport Act, 1947, transferred to the Commission from a railway company and which has not been closed to navigation by or under any statutory provision.
4.21 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD moved, in subsection (1) (b) to leave out "from a railway company". The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the discussion on Clause 60 at the Committee stage on June 7 an Amendment in rather different terms was set down by the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, and was withdrawn after a discussion in which only the noble Lord who moved it and my noble friend Lord Chesham took part. I am not sure if the exact effect of the clause, as it stands unamended, was then appreciated by the Committee. The present Amendment which I am moving makes, I think, the exact point absolutely clear, and I very much hope it is an Amendment which Her Majesty's Government find it possible to accept.
My Lords, if Clause 60 is examined it will be seen that, in general, it appears to be an adaptation of the duty of maintenance now binding on the Commission to the new circumstances created by this Bill, and to transfer that duty to the British Waterways Board. If that were all the clause did, I think that that would be an entirely proper clause with which the whole House could agree. But, as a result of the way in which it is now drafted, it has a very different effect. The effect of the clause as now drafted is to transfer to the new Board the obligation in respect of a few canals, but not of many others.
Perhaps I might remind the House that the Transport Act, 1947, transferred to the Commission certain railway canals and also eighteen different undertakings, which are set out in Part II of the Third

169
Schedule to that Act. The canals so transferred include some of the most important which were transferred to the Commission under the Statute—the Grand Union Canal Company and many others. In respect of all the canals transferred to the Commission, both those that came from the railways and those that are set out in Part II of the Third Schedule to the Act, there was the same obligation under the section of the Statute of 1873 that is mentioned in Clause 60 of this Bill. This was made abundantly clear in the year 1956, when the Commission took the opinion of Mr. Denys Buckley, as he then was—now Mr. Justice Buckley—and the opinion then given, with which I need not bother the House in detail, contained this sentence:
"Consequently, Section 17 of that Act applies, in my opinion, to any canal owned or managed by the Commission".
It is the law as there set out in that opinion by Mr. Denys Buckley, as he then was, that the Amendment is designed to preserve in the new circumstances created by this Bill.
My Lords, I do not think it would be the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make so great a change in the law, and so purposeless a change, as is made by this clause as now drafted. But I feel perfectly confident that, if it were their intention to make this change, they would not conceal it as it is concealed, at least to the layman, by the present form of words. The result was that in Committee in another place this clause was not discussed at ail, as I think the whole House will agree it certainly would have been discussed, if it had been known that it had these sensational effects. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 36, leave out ("from a railway company")—(Lord Conesford.)
4.27 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I think it might assist the House if I gave the Government's view on this matter straight away. I have considered this particular Amendment, and whilst I do not concede everything that my noble and learned friend has said, I do not think any purpose is served by resisting this Amendment. As it involves
170
rather an amusing piece of legal history, I might perhaps just indicate in a sentence why I have come to this conclusion.
The main canal companies were started by a Private Act of Parliament in the last century, and broadly speaking, with some exceptions Parliament did not think fit to impose upon the companies any obligation to maintain their canals, because it was thought that, if they wanted to make money by their canals, they would in fact maintain them. However, in the course of years the railway companies overtook the canals and bought a great number of them—900 miles of them, unless I am mistaken. Parliament took a different view about the taking over of canals by railway companies, because, whereas it was thought by Parliament that canal companies, on the whole, would tend to maintain their canals, it was thought, on the whole, that railway companies could not be trusted to do so. In retrospect this has proved to be a perfectly shrewd assessment of the position. The result was that every time a railway company took over a canal, Parliament imposed an obligation to maintain it, notwithstanding that most of the canals taken over by the railways are in pretty poor shape.
When in due course nationalisation overtook the railway companies, of course the British Transport Commission became a sort of universal railway company, and was advised by Mr. Justice Buckley, when he was Treasury "devil", that this involved the proposition, on a true reading of the Acts, of their accepting an obligation in respect not merely of what one might call the railway-operated canals, but of all the canals which were taken over, which included the 2,000 miles of canals operated under their original Acts, all of which then became subject to what I might call the railway clause with an obligation to maintain. The Government, on the whole, thought that when they devolved the obligation to look after the canals away from the universal railway company and gave it to a universal canal company they might very well put the clock back, as regards an obligation to maintain, to the situation which existed in 1946. But as I have, after thinking about this matter, rather come to the

171
conclusion that those parts of the canal network which remain open after the interim period will be used, and that, if they are used, the new canal company will want to maintain them, I do not see any real purpose in resisting my noble and learned friend's Amendment.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. My differences with him are so slight now that I can only thank him for accepting this most reasonable Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.31 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, after Clause 60, to insert the following new clause:
Saving of public rights on navigable waterway
"Save as in this Act expressly provided, nothing in this Act shall operate to prejudice the public in the exercise of any right to which, upon payment or otherwise, they are entitled in or upon any inland waterway dedicated as a public navigable waterway."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another of this group of Amendments; and this proposed new clause is designed to make quite sure that the rights of the public in these canals are not going to be prejudiced by the passing of this Bill. I think I can explain this very shortly. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has repeatedly assured us that nothing is further from the intention of the Government than to bring about any such situation as that; and, if this really is so, then surely he should be prepared to accept this Amendment, because the Amendment is designed simply to make this clear beyond peradventure, which I suggest that at the moment it certainly is not.
I have no doubt he will say that it is quite unnecessary, and, if he does, then I shall ask your Lordships to take his observations with a grain of salt. They involve actually accepting the advice which he has had from his legal advisers, and he himself, more than once, has made it clear that there is a certain difference of opinion (perhaps rather a serious difference of opinion) between his advisers and the learned counsel who have been advising my noble friend Lord St. Davids and advising the Inland Waterways Association. This, by itself, I think, would make it highly desirable that the position should be absolutely clear in the Bill, and that
172
is the object of this Amendment, which I think one could colloquially describe as a "long-stop" clause in case the ball gets past the wicket-keeper—in other words, in case the noble Lord's advisers turn out to be wrong. I might add that it would not be the first time in the history of Parliament that a situation had arisen in which the official views expressed about the likely operation of a Bull had been shown to be wrong as a result of decisions by the courts.
Moreover, if I may say so, the desirability of this Amendment has been strengthened by the fact that the legal advisers to the National Trust, who are quite independent of the legal counsel which have been advising the Inland Waterways Association, and who have been brought into this business since the Committee stage of this Bill in the way in which I explained to your Lordships last night, having considered the whole position, have felt that they must agree with the opinion given to the Inland Waterways Association. So the position has, in a sense, changed to the extent that we now have (as it were) two sets of legal advisers advising one way against the advice to which the noble Lord has referred, which is the other way. In the circumstances, I hope that the Government will feel able to take the same course as they have just taken in respect of the last Amendment, and will accept this one. I therefore beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 60, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Chorley.)
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I have spent some considerable time in preparation for this stage of the Bill, and I spent some considerable time considering just exactly what it was that the noble Lords who put their names to this Amendment wished to achieve by it, and I found some difficulty in understanding that. I must confess, with the greatest respect, and with absolutely no personal intent towards the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, that I am not very much clearer now as to what it is intended to achieve than I was beforehand, because the noble Lord was not very specific. He talked of a "long-stop" in case there should be some unobserved, unnoticed effect through this Bill, and on that, if I took him rightly, seemed to rest the main

173
weight of his case. He referred to things that I said earlier on, that in certain cases there was doubt; but it would surely be a strange principle of legislation if provisions were inserted in Bills in all cases where the legal advisers of an interested body took an opposite or a different view from those advising the Government, who are in charge of the Bill. I do not think that that is an argument I can accept for one moment.
The noble Lord referred to my assurances about this Bill, and he obviously referred to them with some doubt. In fact, I can do no more, because I am going to assure your Lordships—
LORD CHORLEY: May I tell the noble Lord that I was not referring to his assurances with regard to the Government's intentions with any doubt at all? What I am doubting is the advice he has received. If his intentions are that the public shall not in fact be prejudiced, then that is what this clause says, and surely he can accept it.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, as I say, it is a strange principle of legislation to include clauses with really unspecified purposes in case they might cover something. I have repeatedly assured your Lordships—I know the noble Lord still doubts it, and he is quite welcome to do so, so far as I am concerned, but I still give the same assurance—that this Bill leaves untouched the whole body of Private Acts which confer rights of navigation, and it does not amend the Common Law relating to the public right of access to rivers. In fact, Clause 42 preserves specifically any special statutory rights to exemption from charges.
From what I have heard, and from what I read into the noble Lord's words, I think that the is perhaps a little more concerned with the exercise of these rights than with their existence; because the words "Save as in this Act expressly provided" would seem to remove the moratorium provisions of Clause 63, which might in fact be said to prejudice public rights. The words "upon payment or otherwise" may possibly remove from the ambit of the Amendment any question about the level of charges, because if the right is subject to payment of lawful charges the right is not prejudiced by a charge which is lawful,
174
and under the Bill this means any charge which the Board may impose as they see fit. I thought I understood the noble Lord to say that, even so, the commercial freedom to be conferred on to the Board could prejudice public rights; but, my Lords, that certainly is not so, and the Amendment does not specify or lay down any criterion as to what level might be regarded as prejudicing the public.
I think that if the lawful charges under the Bill are going to be regarded as prejudicial to the exercise of public rights, any increase in charges could be held to be prejudicial in some degree Quite honestly, this Amendment is vague in its operation and uncertain, and that is one reason why I do not think we should accept it. If it means anything, it is really a kind of half-way house (I think that is what the noble Lord must mean) between commercial freedom and the imposition of some kind of control over canal charges, and as such it does not create a very satisfactory position. If charges are to be controlled, then they should be controlled by clear provisions, because vague prohibitions would leave everybody in a state of uncertainty, and the new British Waterways Board particularly would be put in a rather strange position. It seems to me that if, as I say, it has any read meaning, it must be directed at the freedom of the Boards to charge, and therefore, as it certainly conflicts with the purpose of the Bill, I must ask your Lordships not to accept it.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, perhaps I could make the position with regard to what this new clause seeks a little clearer to the House. Everybody in this House, I think, is keen that these waterways Shall get on to a decent commercial footing, get out of the red and pay their way, and be used for all those waterways purposes for which they have always been used. I think the Government will agree with that, and that they will recognise that we on this side of this particular question are trying to help rather than hinder in making these canals viable. The trouble with this Bill is that, although the Government's intentions are clear, and although we all agree with those intentions, the effects of this Bill, where they are likely to prejudice the waterways, seem to be

175
unintentional side-winds which have somehow crept in (I am sorry to mix the metaphor in such a shocking manner) just like the Amendment, now happily accepted, Which was put so clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. The things which the Government desire are laid out, so far as they can be, clearly in the Bill, and those we accept. The trouble is that, in so many of these cases, there seem to be these entirely unwanted effects, and if these unwanted effects can be guarded against by this clause, which is the main intention of it, I think that safeguard ought to go into the Bill.
On Question, Amendment negatived
4.43 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD moved, after Clause 60 to insert the following new clause.
Saving for charitable and public bodies
. Where any undertaking to which the provisions of this Act apply is carried on by any body established with public or public charitable objects, nothing in this Act shall disentitle any such body to claim or continue to claim any benefit or exemption in respect of such undertaking which it could otherwise claim by reason of its public or public charitable status."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it will be remembered that in the debate on another Amendment on June 7 of this year some anxiety was expressed on the position of charitable bodies that might take over a canal, or part of a canal, in a similar way to that in which the National Trust has already operated in one case. A good deal of sympathy was expressed in many quarters of the House with the position of such a charitable body, and anxiety was shown that it should not be prejudiced in the ways that appeared to be possible. The noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, put down a rather complicated provision which the Government, for the reasons they then gave, found it impossible to accept, but an attempt has been made to frame a far simpler new clause, which is embodied in the Amendment which I now beg to move. Those Who framed it hope that some of the objections which Her Majesty's Government thought existed against the previous Amendment may not apply to the Amendment which has now been drafted. My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 60, insert the said new Clause.—(Lord Conesford.)
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I am sure this is a much better Amendment than the one I framed. It has been dealt with by far better brains than mine; it is clearer and shorter, and it is very much to the point. We had a most interesting exchange on the Committee stage as to the doubts and fears of the legal position of either side. It became clear that, since everybody's legal advisers were utterly convinced and certain of the position, the result was complete uncertainty. A further point has now arisen which reinforces this matter—a point which had not become clear to anybody before, but which suddenly dawned on me; and my legal advisers say it is correct.
Where the National Trust, or some other trust, takes over a waterway, it is likely in course of time, upon the decease of various waterways enthusiasts, to find itself being left sums of money in order to carry on and improve "trustified" waterways. But it is the case that if some disgruntled relative of a deceased looked into the matter and discovered that the trust status of a particular waterway operator was removed or damaged by this Bill, that person might challenge the will, on the ground that the money was not, in fact, being left to a trust purpose. So it is not merely a revenue matter, as we thought on Committee stage; it is not merely a matter of the waterways trusts versus the Inland Revenue. It is also the case that the capital of the waterways trusts may similarly be endangered, and this is a reinforcing point to the arguments advanced in the Committee stage.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I have just had some words to say, which I shall not repeat, on divergent legal opinions, and therefore I shall carry on addressing myself to this Amendment. I am glad to tell my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford, and the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, that there is nothing for them to fear, and that the Amendment is therefore unnecessary. Your Lordships will remember that we considered this question at some length and in some detail, and very interestingly, on Committee. Your Lordships will also remember that I agreed to reconsider the

177
matter very carefully, and on that undertaking the Amendment was withdrawn.
This matter has been carefully reconsidered, in consultation with the Charity Commission and the Board of Inland Revenue, in an effort to discover what mischief might be done to charities by the Bill, and, if such mischief could be discovered, how best to deal with it. In the process of that reconsideration, we carefully examined the speeches of the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, in Committee, and the representations made to the Department by the legal advisers of the Inland Waterways Association. In particular, careful consideration has been given to the position of the three bodies to which the noble Viscount referred—the Lower Avon Navigation Trust, the Kennet and Avon Canal Trust and the National Trust.
As a result of this reconsideration, I am firmly advised—and the Charity Commission and the Board of Inland Revenue concur in this advice—that there is nothing in the Bill which will affect the charitable status of these three trusts or of any other body which, apart from the provisions of the Bill, would be entitled to the status of a charitable trust. The suggestion that the status of charitable bodies will be irretrievably lost by reason of Clause 42 of the Bill, unless there is special legislation, is quite without justification. In reconsideration, we looked carefully to see whether there were any doubtful points which might prejudice the position of charities, so that the doubts might be removed by some special provision. The plain fact is that no malady can be discovered, and therefore there is no remedy which can be appropriately suggested. I think that the position is adequately covered and that the Amendment is unnecessary. I hope that my noble and learned friend will not press it.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 62 [Abstraction of water by British Waterways Board]:
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, Clause 62 deals with cases where the British Waterways Board wish to sell water. On the Committee stage, I moved an Amendment on similar lines
178
to this one but it went further. I will not repeat the arguments that I used on that occasion. The Amendment I then had, while including the present Amendment, also provided that the Minister should receive objections and consider them before giving his decision. The Government found this objectionable, and, on thinking it over, I consider there was merit in their case. The Amendment I am moving now goes much less far. It puts a duty on the Waterways Board merely to publish in the local papers the fact that they are making an application to the Minister, so that anybody affected can take such steps as he wishes to object or to let his objection be known. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 8, at end insert—
"( ) The British Waterways Board shall publish in one or more newspapers circulating in the area in which the point of abstraction is situated a notice of any application made by them for the consent of the Minister, giving sufficient particulars of their proposals and of the terms of consent applied for."—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, for the reasons my noble friend has stated, I like this Amendment better than the one he moved in Committee, though I wish I could say that I was entirely happy about it. I am not entirely happy about the publication of this information leading to objections being, as it were, invited. However, I think there is force in his argument. By and large, it is justifiable that the people affected should have information, and I hope that your Lordships will accept this Amendment, but I must make it abundantly clear that this publication will be entirely a matter of information. It will not import any right or even suggestion that anyone should object. I accept the Amendment in that spirit. Statutory bodies concerned have the right to object, but I want to make it clear that any affected individual who is damaged has his recourse in the courts, and if he wishes to object in any way it is up to him to bring it to the notice of a statutory body, such as his local council, who have some standing in the matter. I stress this point, because this requirement relates only to the purposes of supplying information.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 63 [Temporary suspension of liability to maintain inland waterways]:
4.59 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS moved, in subsection (3), to leave out all words after the first "waterway". The noble Viscount said: My Lords, we have heard a lot of talk about my adding 2-acre Amendments to the Bill. This is in the nature of a 2-acre removal. It is a removal which I am frankly sorry to see, but I put the Amendment down on the Marshalled List for a firm and necessary purpose. Clause 63 (3) states the circumstances under which persons shall be entitled to recover damages from the Commission in respect of any inability to navigate any inland waterway. We heard all the argument on this subject at a very late hour last night, and for those noble Lords who were not in the House at the time I will try to sum it up very briefly.
Where the charge that may be made by law is unlimited, there is in fact no right of navigation, because the operators of the waterway can, if they wish, raise the charge to such a point that navigation inevitably ceases; and where they can raise a Charge in that manner they are able to defeat any attempt to claim damages by the simple expedient of raising the charges, immediately they hear of the possibility of a claim, to such a point that when the man goes to the court and Claims that the profits of his operation have been cut short they can show that, owing to the height of their charges, there is no possibility of profit. That was what they tried to do in the John Gould case that we spoke about last night; and if it had not been for the fact that it was possible to Show that they were not physically able to raise their Charges as high as they thought, Mr. John Gould would have received no damages.
With the new clause on unlimited charges which has now been passed by the House, the position now stands as the clause would read subject to my Amendment, namely:
"No person shall be entitled to recover from the Commission or from the British Waterways Board any damages or other sum or compensation in respect of any liability to navigate any inland waterway."
That is horrible, and I am sure it is not What the Government wish. However, that is the effect, and I think if we realise
180
its effect we must be honest about it and so word the Bill that it reveals the truth. We must not have any misstatements of truth in a Public Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 45, leave out from ("waterway") to end of line 34 on page 70.—(Viscount St. Davids.)
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the whole of the argument on which the noble Viscount has based his case took place last night, and I have no intention of going over that ground again. I had thought, up to his last sentence, that the noble Viscount had put this in as a sort of slightly wry joke in order to give himself the opportunity to refer to the matters to which he has in fact referred. But at the end he assured us that he thought, the situation being what it was, the Bill should reflect the truth of the matter. To be honest, my Lords, until the noble Viscount said that, I had thought of a further wry joke by offering to accept the Amendment. However, I could not accept the Amendment, for quite simple reasons.
The first reason is that the whole basis of his case is wrong. We spent a good deal of time last night talking about that, and I endeavoured to persuade your Lordships that the truth of the matter was not as the noble Viscount stated. I can understand that that little effort was probably not very helpful to your Lordships. But my noble and learned Leader then went to considerably greater heights—very great heights, indeed, many thought—in confirming that the matter which the noble Viscount claims to be true is, in fact, not true at all; and my noble and learned Leader's contention can be said to have been supported by a large number of the Members of the House. One could not conceive of accepting this Amendment because of the very real injustice, unfairness and hardship it would cause to canal users. Without repeating last night's arguments, I still maintain that they can in the courts get the damages where they are aggrieved or suffer damage. Therefore, I must advise your Lordships not to accept this Amendment.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, and I think it may have done some good to air this matter. We know that there will be subsequent waterways legislation

181
(the noble Lord told us so yesterday) and we shall see in the interval what happens. I think it is just as well that we keep the matter in mind, so that, if what I fear does occur, in subsequent legislation we shall be able to put the matter right. In the hope that the noble Lord is correct, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I say one word to your Lordships which I think might not be unhelpful with regard to the procedure on the next series of Amendments? The procedure we follow, in these circumstances, is that my noble friend Lord Mills or my noble friend Lord Chesham moves the new clause, and we then proceed to the Amendments. I will call on my noble friend Lord Merrivale to move the Amendments that are in his name and those of his noble friends, and after we have disposed of the Amendments one way or another, we come back to the clause. I only want all your Lordships to understand what is the procedure we usually follow.
5.8 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM LORD CHESHAM moved, after Clause 67 to insert the following new clause:
Organisation of transport police
.—(1) Within one year from the vesting date the Railways Board shall, after consulting the other Boards, prepare and submit to the Minister a scheme for the organisation of the transport police of the Boards.
In this section, references to "transport police" are references to constables appointed under section fifty-three of the British Transport Commission Act, 1949.
(2) A scheme under this section which provides for the organisation of transport police in a joint force shall contain provisions with respect to—

(a) the control and administration of the force by or on behalf of the Boards, participating in the force,

(b) the contributions to be made by those Boards to the expenses of the force, and

(c) the method of settling disputes between those Boards in relation to the force.

(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, a scheme under this section may make provision—

(a) for the transfer or appropriation for the purposes of the scheme of property vested in the Railways Board by paragraph (e) of subsection (2) of section thirty of this Act, and

182

(b) for enabling the services of transport police organised in a force for any Board or Boards to be made available to another Board on such terms as may be agreed with that Board,

and may contain such incidental and transitional provisions as may appear to the Railways Board or the Minister to be expedient.
(4) A scheme under this section may make modifications consequential on the provisions of the scheme in section fifty-three of the said Act of 1949, but nothing in the scheme shall require any Board to exercise its powers under that section.
(5) On a scheme being submitted to the Minister under this section, the Minister may by order approve the scheme with or without amendment; and the scheme, as so approved, shall come into effect on such date as may be specified therein and it shall be the duty of the Boards to comply with the scheme as so approved.
(6) The Minister shall consult the Boards before approving a scheme under this section; and the Minister shall not approve a scheme under this section which provides for the organisation of transport police in more than one force unless it appears to him, after consultation with the Boards, that there are special reasons which make it desirable that such provision should be made.
(7) If after a scheme has been approved under this section any Board apply to the Minister and satisfy him that the scheme should be amended in any respect the Minister may, after consulting the Boards, by order make such amendments of the scheme as he thinks fit.
(8) The power conferred by this section on the Minister to make orders shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(9) During the period between the vesting date and the coming into effect of a scheme under this section the Railways Board shall make police services available to the other Boards to such extent and on such terms as the Railways Board and the other Board concerned may agree or as may, in default of agreement, be determined by the Minister."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now come to the major Amendment with regard to the British Transport Commission Police about which I had a fairly full explanation to offer yesterday, and I will now keep the matter as brief as I can. I told your Lordships that this was one of a string of Amendments (I will not repeat the numbers) and the main Amendment. If this Amendment is accepted by your Lordships, the others are all consequential in one way or another, and we can consider those as we come to them. This, as I say, is really the "meat" of the whole thing.
Before I say any more, I should like to call the attention of your Lordships

183
to the fact that I yesterday put down an Amendment to my own Amendment, and because of the method of printing the Marsalled List that Amendment has gone straight into the Amendment. I want to point out to your Lordships what it is, because it is not entirely without importance. Subsection (2) says:
"A scheme under this section which provides for the organisation of transport police in a joint force shall contain provisions"—
and so on. Originally, it read:
"… a joint force for two or more boards".
Again, paragraph (a) of the proposed subsection (2) is merely consequential; it is a drafting Amendment. Although the change may not be of great substance, I thought that the original words might have been construed as indicating that the force should not remain unified. That is the reason why I put down the Amendment to my Amendment, which I hope will be accepted.
I told your Lordships that the British Transport Commission, in their complete discretion, had decided to organise their force in this way. I told your Lordships that the force had been a great success, and it was strongly thought—and many of your Lordships supported that view—that it should remain unified. Indeed, your Lordships accepted an Amendment to make certain that it should remain unified, at any rate during the interim period. Amendment No. 65 says, first of all, that the force shall remain unified, that it shall be placed under the Railways Board—because it has to have a home somewhere. It seems the most sensible thing to do, since the Railways Board are the biggest employers of the police—or, rather, will be—and will have the largest umbrella under which they can shelter. In due course, within a year after vesting date, the Railways Board, in conjunction with the other Boards, are to prepare a scheme for the employment of the force. That is the main part of this Amendment.
We are in agreement with the concept of the force remaining unified in the interests of working conditions, efficiency, and all the rest. We have gone as far as we reasonably could to make sure that it shall remain unified, because in subsection (6) of the proposed new clause your Lordships will
184
find that, the Boards having prepared their scheme and submitted it to the Minister,
"… the Minister shall not approve a scheme under this section which provides for the organisation of transport police in more than one force unless it appears to him … that there are special reasons …"
Short of saying that there shall be one force, that is as near as one can get to it. The reason why it is scarcely desirable to go the whole way is because the new Boards do not yet exist, and I think it is quite reasonable that they should have some opportunity to express views on their police requirements, so that the scheme can be properly drawn up to meet the needs for which it is intended.
I certainly envisage—and this also is of importance to their temporary home under the Railways Board—that there will come out of this a joint standing committee, if your Lordships like to call it that, of the Boards and the police for their control and administration. I think this is the right method of control, because the whole reason for the existence of the police force is to serve the Boards in that respect, and I think that would be the way to ensure it. In short, these Amendments go as far as we can to ensure that the views of the police, the views of noble Lords, and, indeed, the reasonableness of the case for retaining a unified force, are safeguarded, subject only to a reasonable if rather restricted consultation with those who will utilise the services of the police. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 67 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Chesham.)
5.17 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved, as an Amendment to the proposed new clause, to leave out subsection (1) and substitute:
"(1) Within one year from the vesting date the Minister shall, after consulting the Boards, prepare a scheme for the organisation of the transport police of the Boards."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, having aired fairly considerably yesterday evening my views and those of the transport police on Amendment No. 27, which was moved by my noble friend Lord Chesham, I propose to be brief now. Yesterday, and to some extent

185
to-day, my noble friend said that he was providing a home for a unified police force as from the vesting date, and that the whole emphasis of the Government clause was tilted in the direction of continuing with a unified force on the present lines. He also mentioned again to-day the safeguard of subsection (6), as well as that of the Negative Resolution procedure applicable to any ministerial order made under the Government clause. Here, I would definitely say that Her Majesty's Government have gone a very long way indeed to meet our requests, and there is now only a very small gap which separates our two ways of thinking. I am therefore hoping that possibly my noble friend, when replying, will agree to narrow this gap just a little further.
I fear—and this fear is shared by the transport police as a whole—that a scheme which is prepared by the Railways Board might be strongly biased to the advantage of the railways police, that is, those who would be serving only the railways, although I agree that the probability is that they would want a joint force. Also, I fear that there is a possibility that the needs or requirements of the docks, London Transport, or the Waterways Police, in spite of consultation which is allowed for under the new clause, might not be fairly considered by the Railways Board. Therefore, the transport police force, as it exists now, and I would be most grateful to my noble friend if he could give an assurance that the members of those police forces which will be serving the lesser Boards will have their say in the formulation of a transport police policy, as well as in day-to-day matters. It is because of these fears which arise mainly, as the noble Lord has said, from the fact that the Railways Board will be the largest user, and the fear that the interests of the police force—although a joint force—of the police officers and constables who would be working on the docks, on the waterways and on the London Board might not be taken sufficiently into consideration when the scheme is proposed by the Railways Board at a later date that I move this Amendment to the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
Leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) Within one year from the vesting date the Minister shall after consulting the Boards, prepare a Scheme for the organisation of the transport police of the Boards."—(Lord Merrivale.)
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, between yesterday and to-day the question, to my mind, of the police force, as my noble friend said, has become a narrow one. I am sure all of us, and Her Majesty's Government in particular, are convinced in our own minds that in this scheme what is wanted is a single police force, one joint force. So we have that point fixed. That is a principle. To my mind the difficulty which remains is one of administration, which my noble friend pointed out. The ideal would be to have what we put down in our last Amendment, which would be a transport police authority, and I should still like to know again why that cannot be so. That would obviously be the ideal.
I quite understand why at the moment the force must be under the Railways Board. It must have a home temporarily. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, when he said that the standing joint committee will be of great assistance. But to my mind the preservation of the status quo, where you have an authority such as the British Transport Commission has at the moment, would obviously be the ideal. I think that then everyone would be happy and we should get the best service. After all, the two points, surely, that all of us are thinking about, are, first, to secure the best police service possible, and, second, that all the members of that police force should be satisfied with their terms of service, and all that goes with that, and that they are under the correct authority. To my mind those are the narrow points which are needed, and I should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, if he could just go a little further and say again why this authority cannot be made. That is my point of view. I may have missed a point—my noble friend says I have—and I will rest on that one.
VISCOUNT TENBY: My Lords, may I say, very briefly, that I support what has been said, and I am very grateful

187
to any noble friend Lord Chesham for the undoubted advance that has been made since this matter was last discussed. However, I am still worried about one thing. Everyone is agreed—in fact, the noble Lord has just repeated it—that the Government are in favour of a unified force. Anybody who has had experience of this particular force will agree, I think, that it has been an extremely efficient one, although it is a fairly new one.
There is a point here that I should like to stress. It was by Act of Parliament that this body was brought into being, in, I think, 1949. Under the suggestion of subsection (6) of the Amendment which the noble Lord has just moved, that can be changed by administrative action. In other words, if the Minister thinks fit he can, in fact, split up this force or add another one to it. I think that is unfortunate, because this new force has done very well, and the co-ordination of the police forces of this country has taken a considerable time. The civil police forces celebrated their centenary about six years ago, but the co-ordination was not really complete until 1919, when the Secretary of State was empowered to lay down conditions as to pay and service uniformly throughout the country. I feel that if we retained this one authority here there would be no trouble over conditions of service and pay, which might well occur without it, and therefore I most strongly reinforce what has been said by my two noble friends. Why change the present force? If it had done badly, I could have understood it; but it has done well. I do not see the purpose of this change at all. Surely there could be a police authority which would be responsible for this police force, and on that authority could be represented all the Boards which are concerned with transport under this Bill. I hope very much that, although we are grateful for the extent to which the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has gone, he will still consider it possible to leave out those words in subsection (6).
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am in a little difficulty at the moment, because several matters have been raised on what I thought was the consideration of Amendment 65A, and a question arises whether I should address myself to all
188
the points. I rather think that perhaps I should address myself to No. 65A as an Amendment and take the other Amendments when we reach them. I think that I, at any rate, if not your Lordships, will remain clearer if I do that.
The main point my noble friend Lord Merrivale wanted was that in any scheme which would be drawn up there should not be railways bias. I am not entirely clear why he was so very suspicious that there would be, but perhaps he has some reason and he would prefer the Minister to do it. Nevertheless, I think his fears are not well grounded, because consultation with the other Boards is already written into the Bill. If that is not enough, the scheme requires the Minister's consent and he has the power to modify it, which, I think, in this case, if there is anything in my noble friend's fears, would be an advantage and not a disadvantage; and finally, of course, there is the Parliamentary control to which I have already referred. I think that the safeguard for the point that my noble friend wishes covered is adequate in this matter and I hope he will not wish to press his Amendment.
LORD MERRIVALE: The reason for moving this Amendment to the Amendment was mainly to get an assurance from my noble friend with regard to those fears, and with that I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 65A.
Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, in subsection (2), to leave out the first two lines and insert:
"A scheme under this section shall provide for the organisation of transport police in a single force for the Boards under a Police Authority responsible to the Minister and".
The noble Lord said: In view of the fact that the Government put down a different Amendment overnight, I think I could possibly mention, for clarification, that with this Amendment, No. 65B, there should be added to it at the end the words, "shall contain provisions"; otherwise it does not make sense. In moving this Amendment, I would agree that there may be—and I

189
emphasise "may be"—strong arguments for not having a -police authority responsible to the Ministry of Transport, but as we are considering the future of a transport police force I would strongly ask my noble friend Lord chesham whether he would consider (paragraph 69 of the Final Report of the Royal Commission on the Police, sub-paragraph 2, which could well read as follows had this Royal Commission been asked to recommend upon the future of a transport police:
"The Minister of Transport would be responsible to Parliament for the proper maintenance and administration of the transport police in England, Wales and Scotland. He must therefore be given an ultimate control in regard to all transport police matters. As there could be no responsibility without a power to control and direct, the Minister of Transport would answer all questions relating to the transport police."
I would stress that I am not reading from the Report; I am saying that that would have been a feasible possibility had this Royal Commission had to consider the future of a transport police force.
As there would now appear to be a certain amount of harmony between the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, and ourselves on the question of the unification and administration of this transport police force, I am hoping that my noble friend would agree to the principle, which, if I understood my noble friend Lord Tenby aright, would be to set up an authority, and I presume he meant, too, a chairman appointed by the Minister, and on which the various Boards would be represented. I feel, however, that my noble friend is not completely happy with the idea of setting up a police authority, because he referred to a joint standing committee as a possibility. However, he might be willing to consider the setting up of a police committee. Whether it be a committee or an authority, I think it is important that it should be a body consisting of a chairman, and members appointed by the Minister on a recommendation from the Boards. The executive head of the joint police force should be responsible only to this body, whether it be a committee or an authority.
I think this would go a long way to satisfying the transport police force as now set up. The police officers or constables would not be—after an interim
190
period, that is—employees of one particular Board but would be employees of this composite body. This would lessen the possibility of disputes and also of any variation in conditions due to service being given to one Board or to another by various police officers or constables. Finally, as I said yesterday, I feel, too, that the fine esprit de corps which exists now would be still better maintained if such a force did not come under the direct authority of one particular Board. I beg to move.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
Subsection (2), leave out the first two lines and insert the said words.—(Lord Merrivale.)
5.35 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I have listened carefully to what my noble friend said on this matter, and, as I tried to indicate before, I think I can see what is in the minds of the police. First of all, let me say that I should have thought that the constitution of a separate authority would be rather odd in this context. We should be having a separate board responsible solely for the police, as an independent entity that would be outside the control of the managements of the undertakings whom they have no other purpose than to serve. I cannot help thinking that the establishment and the maintenance of a statutory transport police force irrespective of the circumstances and the views of the managements would be bound to lead to a lack of effective control and, not impossibly, some degree of antagonism between the police management and the management of the new Boards. That is my principal reason for not wanting a separate authority. Having said that, I cannot very well give my noble friend very much assurance about how they will be set up, because I cannot anticipate what will be the shape and conditions of the scheme which is to be drawn up.
I hope that noble Lords will not have picked up too definitely my reference to a joint standing committee; it was the first suitable title that flew into my head, and I think I added, "or something like that". Because it is perfectly clear that in the consultations and incorporated in the scheme when it came along there would have to be arrangements for the joint control, employment,

191
application and administration of the force. Clearly, there would have to be police representation on that, and there would also have to be Board representation. As it would be a joint affair, with all Boards participating, that would achieve just the kind of body that my noble friend, as I understand it, has in mind. I hope he will feel more satisfied about it.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I am sorry indeed that my noble friend could not go just a little further and be a little more specific as to how such, what I would term, central administrative organisation would be set up in the future. But I do not wish to press this matter now, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.40 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, after Clause 67, to insert the following new clause:
Station car parks
".—(1) It shall be the duty of each Regional Railway Board to make reasonable provision for the parking of motor vehicles used by passengers and other users of railway stations within their control.
(2) The council of a county in England or Wales may contribute towards the cost of any provision made under the foregoing subsection in respect of railway stations within the council's area."
The noble Lord said: I think this is the sixteenth day of our deliberations on this Bill and I have been moving Amendments on almost every day, but with little success. I am hoping that the Government will see their way to accepting what I must say is a reasonable Amendment. It is so obvious that it is surprising that the Government themselves have not put it in the Bill.
It is well known to all that our railway stations, particularly those on the outskirts of London, will play an increasing part in bringing people into London; and I am sure it is the wish of Parliament that more people will use the railways, instead of bringing their cars to the centre of London. But I think we must also recognise that existing branch-line services in the Home Counties to what one might call the main junctions
192
are poor; and with the axe falling on these branch lines it may well be that these inadequate services will themselves disappear, and that people in the outlying districts will be forced either to come to London in their own car or to take it to the railway junction.
I have had some experience of these stations, and I cannot remember a case where it could be said that car parking facilities were in any way adequate. I have had some consultation with the county council associations who are expressing perturbation at the serious congestion of the roads, in towns where there are railway junction stations, caused by motor cars being parked at seven o'clock in the morning and remaining until eight o'clock in the evening. Apart from causing inconvenience to the normal users in the locality (as the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, will agree) these vehicles present a considerable danger to pedestrians in the area. I think it would be the obvious wish of the House that car parking facilities should be adequate, and that they should be provided at these railway junction stations, certainly as an inducement to people to use the railway instead of their cars, to come to the centre of London.
The Road Traffic Act, 1960, allows county boroughs and county district councils outside London to provide parking places. There was an extension of this power by Section 13 (6) of the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act, 1960, which allows local authorities to make arrangements with other persons to provide off-street parking. It would therefore appear that under the later provision the county councils could make arrangements, and go into partnership with the railway boards in a joint effort to provide adequate parking. If this were done, obviously both parties would benefit: the county councils would see that their streets were free from congestion by vehicles, and the railways would be providing an inducement to people to use the railways in coming to London.
There is a suspicion that the railway boards, whose main function in life, as we shall see, will be dealing with deficits and overheads, may show an understandable reluctance to embark upon any capital expenditure which, in the short

193
term, will not be remunerative to them. But I think we must take the long view. I believe that there may be some hesitancy on the part of the Railway Boards to provide these car parks, even with the support of the county councils. Therefore, after carefully considering the case that was put to me by the county council associations, I decided to put down this Amendment.
The Amendment lays on each Railway Board the duty to see that there is reasonable provision for the parking of motor vehicles used by their passengers and other users of the railway stations within their control, and authorises the council of a county in England or Wales to contribute towards the cost of any provision made under this subsection. The contribution may be in the form of a contribution in capital; it may equally be something in the way of assistance to the Railway Board to meet the costs of maintaining these car parks. I think that if this new clause were inserted there would be a great opportunity for the Railway Boards and the county councils to get together in a joint effort to provide a service which I think is needed now, with the reduction of branch lines and the like, a service that will become more and more important in the years to come. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 67 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, may I say how much I hope that he will accept this Amendment? As a motorist, and one who drives to your Lordships' House regularly, may I say that if it were possible to park at the station that I should normally come from I should seldom drive. I am sure that that is the case with many other motorists. As cars become more and more numerous, driving conditions will become worse, and more people will be persuaded to come by train. But at the moment, unless one comes first thing in the morning, it is absolutely impossible at the majority of stations to find a parking space. Therefore, I hope that this Amendment will find favour with the Government.
5.48 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, of course I at once agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and my noble
194
friend Lord Somers that this question of car parks at railway stations is most important. There is no doubt about that. I also agree that they should be encouraged wherever possible. I feel genuine sorrow that I cannot leap up and accept the noble Lord's Amendment, because in fact the situation is in hand and I do not think his fears are justified. But, in particular, it is a question of his approach and method which makes me unable to accept it.
It is not right to single out the provision of car parks as the one matter in the Bill by which an express duty is to be laid on the regional Railway Boards under the Bill. These Boards are not corporate bodies, and they do not, and will not, own any railway assets. I think I made it clear on Second Reading that their responsibility will be to exercise such functions of the Railways Board as are delegated to them by the main Board—I think the expression "tools of management" was used. That does not in any way detract from their importance, but I think it would be wrong, and against the general concept underlying the Bill of the right relationship between the Railways Board and the regional Boards, to start laying down in the Bill what the regional Boards should and should not specifically do. I think that it would be rather unbalanced, to say the least of it, to lay down a single provision for car parks when there are a hundred other things that might be put in the Bill, some of which, important as is the provision of car parks, might be even more important.
The right answer is that the legal provider of car parks should be the British Railways Board itself. It certainly can do so. It has powers under Clause 13 (1) (d) to provide
"such other amenities and facilities as it may appear to the Board requisite or expedient to provide".
It can certainly provide and operate car parks for its customers and other people in places where they are needed. The Commission can now build car parks without having them specifically mentioned in their powers; so they have all the powers they need to provide them. As a matter of fact, in passing, I think the Amendment, as drawn, would be a little narrow, because it would restrict

195
the use of the car parks to railway customers, and, while they should be primarily for the use of travellers, I think that, in the same way as the buffets are used by other people, any spare space that is available should be open to use by the general public. For that reason, sad as I find it, I think I should ask the noble Lord to consider not pressing this Amendment.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I think that that is a most inadequate answer, as well as a most unimaginative one. All the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has done is to quibble over words—to say that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has put down "Regional Railway Board" when it should be the Commission itself. It is perfectly true that British Railways have a right to do this. The point is that they "may" do it. The question is: will they? They have not done it yet, and I guarantee they will not do so unless it is in the Bill. I regard this as one of the most important issues that have come out of this Bill. I ask the noble Lord, as the Minister responsible in this House, to go on any day of the week, except possibly at the weekend, and stand on one of the main bridges bringing traffic into London, or on the Cromwell Road. He will see not one, not one hundred, but thousands of motor cars coming in, each containing one person. It has always seemed to me fantastic that this situation should exist in this day and age. We have an old mediaeval city like London, with vast numbers of offices cluttering up its narrow mediaeval streets, and we permit motor cars to come in by the scores of thousands, each carrying one person, the driver, and nobody else. This is the very negation of any sort of planning. And we wonder why there is so much congestion in London when this sort of thing happens!
If you ask any of these motorists why they come in, why they take up space in the narrow streets of London with their motor cars, they will say, "What else can I do? I cannot go to the railway station and park my car there because there is no space in which to park it. It is much more convenient to come into town by car." I know the situation, because when I was in the Commons I represented a constituency, Croydon, where this sort of thing happened, with commuters travelling into and out of
196
London. There was no place locally for them to park.
So we go on, year after year, accepting a situation in which vast numbers of unnecessary motor cars pour into the business districts of London every day of the week, except at weekends. With a little forethought, a little planning, a little imagination, most motorists would prefer, as the noble Lord, Lord Somers, said, to leave their motor cars in parking places on the outskirts and to come the rest of the way by train. This matter goes far beyond the mere convenience of British Railways. It is a service that British Railways could perform to the passengers; it is a service they could perform in the cause of better traffic conditions in London generally. So I do ask the Minister to look at this question again, with a far more imaginative outlook than he has shown up to now, and to realise that Lord Shepherd's Amendment would go a very long way towards relieving the appalling traffic congestion, with its attendant waste of money, danger to life and injury to limb, in London at the present moment I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, will accept the Amendment, even though the wording here and there may need a little alteration.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, there is only one point I want to make, and it arises from the observation of the noble Lord, Lord Chesham—which was quite right, in my opinion—that these car parks ought to be used not only by railways passengers, but by the general public as part of the facilities in the area. As one who has had some experience of the provision of railway car parks, I would say that one of the problems facing the railways is that the station car park is used not for railway passengers, but by people who come in for other purposes. During our discussions the Government spokesman has time and again said that the job of the Railways Board is to run the railways. Might I suggest that one of the difficulties now is that in many areas the old railway stations have very little land indeed, except for the forecourts. This applies even to stations some ten or fifteen miles out of London.
If in fact these car parks are to be provided—and I agree that they should be provided—someone has to acquire

197
the land, to surface it and to provide supervision. Surely, if it is done it should be a local government function, or a joint function as between the Board and the local authority. But, my Lords, during this debate there has been considerable pressure on the point of the viability of the railways. When it is suggested that it is the function of the Railway Boards to provide these car parks, and at the same time talk about the viability of the railways, I say that it cannot be done. Land is costly—
LORD OGMORE: The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, talks about the viability of the railways. Surely this is one way in which the railways will get passengers, because the people who use the railway car park will then use the trains to travel in to the City, and thus become fare-paying passengers. I should have thought this would add to the viability of the concern.
LORD LINDGREN: I am not a cost accountant, but it seems to me obvious that when one takes into account the cost of the land, the interest, the maintenance, the supervision that has to be applied 365 days in the year, a great deal of the actual fare paid by the passenger is absorbed.
But what I am trying to point out is that the point of this Amendment—which is a good one, and one which I hope the Government will appreciate—is that we cannot have these facilities unless they are a joint function of the local authority and the Railways Board. Car parking facilities are a public requirement; they are not necessarily a transport requirement. If they were provided, they could not be restricted to that single use. Equally, when they are provided, they will not be a viable proposition.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am used to being disappointed, but to-night I am shocked. The noble Lord is in this House the Minister of the Ministry of Transport. This is a Minister who has repeatedly appealed to the public not to bring their cars into the centre of London; and here, when we make a constructive suggestion, we get a legalistic reply. I know that the railways have powers to provide car parks. I want to impose a duty to provide them, in conjunction with the county
198
councils or the highway authorities. I should like to see these people who are all involved, who all have an interest sharing what may be the cost of upkeep. I fully accept from the noble Lord that perhaps the term "Regional Railway Board" was not the right one. It seemed to me when drafting that it was the right one because the people in the local area would probably know the needs better than would this great central body. I feel so strongly in this matter—I will not press it to-night, because I realise the words are not the right ones on which to press it—that I will tell the noble Lord that this matter will be brought up on Third Reading, when I shall move an Amendment, and I hope I shall have the support of the House.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I would finally and very briefly say that noble Lords, and the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, in particular, must not complain if I address myself to Amendments put down to a Bill which I am conducting. I am perfectly well aware of the shortcomings of the car parking and traffic arrangements in London, but we are not at the moment conducting a Bill dealing with them. I am perfectly well aware of what the noble Lord wants. I said, to start with, that he was doing a good thing in the wrong way. But even if noble Lords complain about my addressing myself to Amendments, I shall continue to do so.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, as the Government have been in office for eleven years, will the noble Lord tell us when they are going to do something about transport in London?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 68 [Transport police]:
6.3 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 66, 67, 68 and 69 are, in fact, purely consequential on No. 65. I beg to move No. 66.
Amendment moved—
Page 79, line 21, leave out from ("1949") to end of line.—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 79, leave out lines 27 to 31 and insert—
("(3) For the first two references in subsection (1) of the section to the Commission there shall be substituted—

(a) during the interim period, references to the Railways Board, and

(b) thereafter, references to any of the Boards acting jointly or separately in pursuance of a scheme under section (Organisation of transport police) of this Act.").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 80, line 7, leave out from ("substituted") to end of line 8 and insert—

("(a) during the interim period, a reference to the Railways Board, and

(b) thereafter, a reference to any of the Boards acting jointly or separately in pursuance of a scheme under section (Organisation of transport police) of this Act.").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 80, line 13, at end insert—
("(7) In this section 'the interim period' means the period referred to in subsection (9) of section (Organisation of transport police) of this Act.").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 69 [Terms and conditions of employment of police]:
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, these Amendments are consequential. I beg to move Nos. 70 and 71.
Amendments moved—
Page 80, line 14, after ("Boards") insert ("in pursuance of a scheme under section (Organisation of transport police) of this Act.")
Page 80, line 23, after ("Board") insert ("in pursuance of a scheme under section (Organisation of transport police) of this Act.").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 70 [General provisions as to terms and conditions of employment of staff]:
6.5 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, in view of Amendment No. 80, I do not propose to move Nos. 72 to 79.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Champion, in Committee on June 7, made a proposal to include in the provisions of Clause 70 the Holding Company and its subsidiaries. We discussed it at length and there was a Division on it, when the proposal was negatived. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said it would be some consolation to the Opposition if we could see our way to include the staff of the Holding Company under the provisions of this clause, which has to do With the establishment and maintenance of suitable machinery for staff negotiation and consultation. I undertook to consider that, and the result is that we have put down this Amendment to the Bill, which I hope meets the point.
Amendment moved—
("(4) This section shall apply, with any necessary modifications, to the Holding Company as it applies to the Boards").—(Lord Mills.)
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I am very grateful indeed to the Minister for putting down this Amendment. I must say that, on reflection, I fully appreciated the position in regard to the staff of the subsidiary companies, and it is quite a good thing that the position in regard to the staff of the Holding Company, Who are in an entirely different position from the staff of the subsidiary companies, should have been recognised in this way. I should like to thank the Minister for his courtesy in putting down this Amendment.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I would thank the Minister for having carried out the undertaking he gave When we discussed this matter. There is just one point on this. I have wondered when reading this Amendment who will decide what are the necessary modifications. I am not quite sure how this will apply. I wonder if by any chance the Minister could give us an illustration of the sort of thing he has in mind here when he italics of the "necessary modifications". This is just a simple question, and I am not going to take up the time of the House except, as I said at the beginning, to thank him for carrying out his undertaking.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, by leave of the House, I should like to answer that question. I think the answer is that it

201
depends upon the nature of the staff of the Holding Company, which is not yet precisely known, There Will be certain people in the Holding Company who will not need to be governed by these provisions. That is the kind of modification which is in mind.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask whether that means that the Holding Company would consult any organisation Which would appear to cater for the employees of the Holding Company, and then decide the modification?
LORD MILLS: Yes, my Lords. So far as members of the staff are covered by organisations, of course there will be consultation arrangements; but the staff may, for example, consist of solicitors or barristers, and there may not be any suitable organisation.
LORD LINDGREN: Do not worry about them: they have it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 75 [Commission's power to develop land]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with your Lordships' approval, I will direct your attention to Amendments 80A to 80E, because they arise out of a matter that I discussed yesterday. They are drafting Amendments to clarify the intentions of Clause 75, which is to enable the Commission, during the period up to vesting date, to develop its surplus land for sale, rent or lease, or use other than for the purpose of its primary business. Your Lordships may have noticed that these Amendments are similar to, and for exactly the same purpose as, Government Amendments made to the former Clause 11 at Committee stage immediately before it was moved out of the Bill. Amendments similar to the above were intended to be made, like those to the former Clause 11, at the Committee stage, and were standing on the Order Paper. In view, however, of the deletion of Clause 11 and the reconsideration of the land development powers of the Boards and the Commission, they were not moved. Your Lordships moved back the words of Clause 11 yesterday, and these Amendments must now be made at this stage so as to bring Clause 75 into line with
202
the reinserted clause. I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 85, line 31, leave out from ("power") to second ("to") in line 34.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 85, line 37, leave out from ("section") to end of line 41 and insert—

("(a) retain any part of their land which is not required for the purposes of their business and develop it for use by other persons, and

(b) where the use of their land for the purposes of their business can be combined with its use for other purposes, develop the land by constructing or adapting buildings thereon for use wholly or partly by other persons,

with a view to selling or otherwise disposing of any right or interest in the land or, as the case may be, the buildings or any part of the buildings, after the development is carried out").—(The Lord Chancellor)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 85, line 43, after ("land") insert ("for use").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 86, line 6, after ("land") insert ("for use").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 86, line 15, after ("compulsorily") insert ("for use").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 84 [Application of Town and Country Planning Acts]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, perhaps your Lordships would consider Amendments Nos. 80F and 80G together. No. 80F is a drafting Amendment to make it clear that subsection (1) of Clause 84 does not apply to a case where the Commission or one

203
of the new Boards are developing their property for operational purposes—that is, development for use for the purposes of their business—under the powers conferred upon them by Clauses 11 and 75. Amendment 80G is a purely drafting Amendment to reinsert a formal reference to the clause dealing with development of land. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 94, line 5, leave out ("of this Act") and insert ("(development of land) of this Act so far as that section relates to development of land for use otherwise than for the purposes of the business of the Board").—(The Lord Chancellor)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 95, line 15, at beginning insert ("(development of land)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 84 to insert the following new clause:
Temporary provision as to development of land in London
.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Commission and of the Boards to consult the London County Council as to the use of their land in the administrative county of London so far as that land is not required for the purposes of their business, and to submit for the approval of the Minister of Housing and Local Government proposals with regard to the use of that land in a manner which is consistent with proper planning and which, in particular, is consistent with the need for keeping a proper balance in the use of their land as between new office accommodation and other accommodation for trade and business on the one hand, and new living accommodation (with the amenities required by a resident community) on the other hand; and in making those proposals account may be taken of living accommodation provided or to be provided on any land belonging to the Commission or the Board which lies outside, but in the immediate vicinity of, the administrative County of London.
(2) The following provisions of this section shall have effect as regards any application made before the date certified by the Minister of Housing and Local Government as that on which he has approved proposals under the foregoing subsection, being an application for permission under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, for development of land in the administrative county of London which belongs to the Commission or a Board at the time when the application is
204
made; and the said date shall be certified by the said Minister by order contained in a statutory instrument.
(3) If on any such application for permission for development consisting of the construction, reconstruction or alteration of a building

(a) which is designed or intended for use as office premises, or

(b) part of which is designed or intended for use as office premises and is suited for separate occupation,

permission is refused by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, either on appeal or on the reference of the application to him for determination, or is so granted subject to conditions, no compensation shall be payable in respect of the refusal or imposition of conditions under section twenty of the said Act of 1947 (which relates to development not involving an increase of more than 10 per cent. in cubic content) or paragraph 1 of the Fifth Schedule to that Act (which relates to statutory undertakers' operational land).
(4) Subsection (3) of this section shall not apply to an application for permission for development consisting of the reconstruction of a building destroyed or damaged by fire or accident.
(5) In this section references to the Minister refusing permission or granting permission subject to conditions include references to the Minister and the appropriate Minister refusing permission, or granting permission subject to conditions, under paragraph 1 of the Fifth Schedule to the said Act of 1947.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that yesterday I thought it was essential that I should deal with the new clause shown in Amendment 80H when I moved Amendment 14A, replacing the old Clause 11. I think it would be convenient if we followed the same procedure. I shall move it formally, then I shall call the Amendments to the new clause, and then, after the Amendments are disposed of, we can return to the clause.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I just ask one question? During the earlier proceedings on this Report stage I raised a question on the wording (the noble Viscount will probably remember it) with regard to office space and housing. I asked whether, within these words, it would be possible to take into account proper planning, having regard to roads and the like, or whether the noble Viscount considered there should be some amendment to these words.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: So far as those associated with me in this matter are concerned, they think the

205
words are all right to govern the noble Lord's point, but may I take one more look at it and write to him before the Third Reading, in case there is any difficulty which has not been observed? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 84, insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I should like to seek the guidance of my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. There are some rather broad issues and there are still a number of points which do not necessarily arise conveniently under particular Amendments to be moved; and I wonder whether it would be convenient at some stage for me to put to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack some of those points which, after careful perusal of his speeches yesterday, are still not entirely clear.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly. It is entirely for my noble friend. After we have disposed of the Amendments, we shall return to the clause, and he can then put any points he likes, and I can deal with them.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, as an Amendment to the proposed new clause, in line 2 of subsection (1) after "Council" to insert:
"or, as the case may be, of the Corporations of Manchester or Birmingham".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I, in moving Amendment 801, also speak to Nos. 80J, 80L, 80N and 80Q? For some of us there has been a conflict as to the correct approach to this subject. Certainly we do not wish to do anything which would shackle the Railway Boards or impose upon them provisions which we have not imposed, or cannot at this stage impose, upon the private operators. I am well aware of the need to reduce the present deficits, and I fully appreciate that very large sums of money may be recovered through the development and sale of railway property. On the other hand, I cannot but feel that we should take into account community interests—and when I mention the interests of the community I do not mean merely those of the locality but, perhaps, those of the nation itself.
Here, my Lords, I would say that I very much like the Government's Amendment. In fact, I like it to such an extent that I should like to see its provisions cover the main towns and cities of this country which, in relation to their size, have problems just as difficult and serious as London. There is no special significance in (the use of the cities of Manchester and Birmingham, but in drafting this series of Amendments I felt it was necessary to give some idea of the type of city I have in mind. I mentioned these two to illustrate what I had in mind; but, of course, Amendment No. 80Q, to which I am speaking, covers the point that the Minister of Housing and Local Government may, if he so feels, include within the provisions of this new clause any city or area where there is a large density of population.
My Lords, apart from London there are a number of cities in which railway sidings and railway stations cover a considerable acreage, perhaps not far short, relatively, of the type of acreage of which we have heard in the case of London. It may well be that the problem of office space and housing in these cities is not so acute as it is in London. Nevertheless, as I am sure the noble and learned Viscount will appreciate, while our debate at the Committee stage dwelt largely on office accommodation and housing, there were a number of us who took the rather broader view, and we were considering that in the community interest these areas might well be set aside for other types of development. I mentioned yesterday the question of open spaces, which the noble Viscount says is covered in the terms of the Government clause. But there is also the question of road-building. We shall need drastic improvements and planning if we are to relieve the congestion in our main cities, and unless the land is available, this planning and these improvements will hardly be possible.
We may well need car parks, which are certainly not as remunerative as office building. As I understand it, the Railways Boards are at present in consultation with the London County Council. Can the noble Viscount give us an assurance that the Railways Boards, if they are not already doing so, will have consultations with the

207
councils in our main cities before the Boards decide on any major development of their property or land within those cities? Because, by Lords, what is right for the County of London, is, I believe, equally right in the case of Manchester, Birmingham and Glasgow. It is a fact that under the Town and Country Planning Act councils can restrict and prevent certain types of development in the areas of the Railway Boards. It may well be that they will say: "We don't wish that type of development, but we should like to have the land for road building". There will then be a case, as I see it, for the payment of compensation. It is true that, under this Bill, compensation will be waived for a period; but I am not looking just at the immediate future; I am thinking of three, four or five years hence, when more property will become available.
I should like to see this State property—because it is State property—used to the maximum of community interests. Whilst there is an undoubted case to be made for London, a city about which, perhaps, we are more knowledgeable, those who have anything to do with Liverpool, Birmingham or Manchester may see very much the same problems which exist now, or may see those problems arising. My Lords, we have this valuable land, valuable not only in the sense of money and of importance, but also in the sense of its locality in our main cities. I hope that we shall seize this opportunity and not let it go; that we shall first consider how this property can be developed in the community interest. I know that this may not be very acceptable to some friends of mine, who would like to see this property being sold and developed to produce very large sums of money for a State Board. I think I understand their view, but I should find it hard to take that narrow view—because I believe it is a narrow view. I have been at this Table right the way through this long debate on this Bill, advocating that the State Boards should first of all provide a service to the community. We have this land, and I believe we should use it to maximum community advantage. If this is the case which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, it has
208
been supported in every quarter of the House. My Lords, what is good for London is good for our main provincial cities. I beg to move.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
In line 2 of subsection (1) after ("Council") insert ("or, as the case may be, the Corporations of Manchester or Birmingham").—(Lord Shepherd.)
5.27 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I say at once that I have nothing with which to quarrel in the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, to this Amendment? I was very glad that he began by stating his own desire to give (to put it colloquially) a fair crack of the whip to these Boards, because I think that is one of the difficulties which we have to consider: that, for a purpose which is quite admirable, and which, as Lord Shepherd said, is in the minds of everyone in this House, the result, of course, will be to take action which is discriminatory against the Board. We are really insisting that the Boards will take action which we think will have the proper social consequences, and their development and their profit will be limited for this purpose. We must face that; and, as I said yesterday, there is not one shred of a Party point in this at all.
This question raises the position of what is the proper way to treat the Boards in regard to this problem. We felt that, in view of the opinions expressed in this House, we ought to give special treatment to the position in London. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has very frankly agreed that the problem of office development and public commuter transport in London and the London area is unique in scale and stature, and that no such problem exists in other large cities on anything like the scale of the London situation. I was asked yesterday if I could get any figures for other towns. I should like to tell your Lordships that I tried to do so, but the B.T.C. could not say how much land there was, except, of course, that it is a great deal less than the amount we are dealing with in London.
The reason why the Government decided to introduce a new clause to deal with this matter was that they

209
recognised that the London problem is unique. Therefore, I put to the noble Lord whether he thinks it is right, where we have a lesser problem, as to the extent of land, density of population and difficulty of commuter travel, to extend the special and highly discriminatory provision in the new clause as regards development by the Commission and the Boards. I submit that it would be wrong to provide a power whereby these discriminatory provisions could be applied at large to other parts of the country. Apart from other reasons, it would place the Commission and Boards in a state of great uncertainty about the position of their land in other parts of the country. I know that the motives of the noble Lord's Amendment are excellent, that the Minister should go to a fresh town where he thinks it would be right, but, of course, it would be placing the Board in an extremely difficult position, because they would not know whether they also were going to be subjected to this discriminatory measure in relation to another town.
I said that there is no politics in this. It is an odd position, which I cannot remember having occurred often in your Lordships' House over the last ten years, that I, as a Conservative Minister, should be defending strongly the position of the nationalised Boards against discrimination. I said yesterday, and my noble and learned friend Lord Cones-ford nodded agreement with me, that we believe, where the country and Parliament have decided that nationalisation is right and we have decided not to denationalise, it is the duty of a Conservative Government, as of any other Government, to see that the nationalised industries are run in the most efficient way.
These are the two points which I put to the noble Lord and ask him not to press his Amendment to-day. First, we have really taken what is an extraordinary and almost unprecedented action because of the urgency of the London problem and, secondly, if we were to adopt his plan—because I think that he realises that we could not deal with just Manchester and Birmingham—to give a power to extend this to other cities, we should be putting the future policy of the Boards in great difficulty from a development and financial angle. But there is one point on which, if I may
210
say so, the noble Lord was perfectly right to press me: that is, would there be consultation in any case with the councils of these great cities? That will happen because there is no question of Boards being free from ordinary planning arrangements. It has been my experience that where there is a planning problem, inevitably there are discussions outside. But the answer to whether they will take place in any case is that the Boards will have to get planning permission and are bound to be in contact with the local authority on that point. These are the points which I ask the noble Lord to consider.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount has said that he was in a strange position as a Conservative speaking in stalwart support of a nationalised industry. I think that it would be strange if I were found to be in any way attacking a nationalised Board. Certainly I might criticise them but I would not attack them. I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for what he has said, and will give careful consideration to the points he has made. I am glad of his assurance that there will be consultation with the local authorities. It is important that this should take place before there is any question of the Boards' going into the market for the development of land and I hope that there will be agreement on that.
The noble and learned Viscount said yesterday that some parts of the Government's new clause make statutory provision for what is already taking place—consultation between the L.C.C. and the Board. I wonder whether between now and Third Reading the noble and learned Viscount would consider whether we could not have some phrase in the Bill which makes it clear that the Boards would be expected to have consultations with all these major authorities before they embark upon any development of their land and before they become involved in any negotiations with any of these large property developers. I think that the noble and learned Viscount will be with me in this. We want to see this land developed in the interests of the community as well as of the Boards. That is common ground. I think that this could come if we could be assured that there would be proper consultation as quickly as possible and certainly prior

211
to any stage where possible contracts for development were being negotiated by interested parties. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON moved in line 6 of subsection (1) to leave out "proposals" and to insert "a plan in accordance with Part II of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947,". The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the course of the explanation of this new clause given yesterday afternoon by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, he made several remarks about the close analogy between this clause and the existing town and country planning legislation. He said [col. 6]:
"It is not possible to do this by amendment to the former Clause 11 now to be reinserted, because the proposals which the Government are putting forward to meet the points raised in Committee are a substantive proposition modifying the application of the Town and Country Planning Acts in relation both to the British Transport Commission during the remainder of its life and the four new statutory Boards."
At column 9 my noble and learned friend elaborated the point a little further. After describing the procedure which is proposed, he said:
"In a sense, it is really a smaller London Plan, which must be made for the 1,500 acres which we are considering."
If I may interrupt my own argument for a moment, I should like to ask my noble and learned friend whether 1,500 acres is an accurate figure. We had previously thought, on the authority of the London County Council, that it was in the neighbourhood of 1,000 acres, and an increase of 50 per cent. greatly strengthens the arguments which we have put forward, and which I am glad to think the Government have largely accepted, for dealing with this great increase in the land available in London in this special way.
To resume my quotation, my noble and learned friend went on:
"Therefore, we say, first of all, that there must be consultation and there must be proposals; then the proposals have to be submitted for the approval of the Minister of Housing and Local Government, so that he can satisfy himself that they are consistent with proper planning and achieve a proper balance between housing and related amenities, on the one hand, and trade and business requirements … on the other."
At a later stage my noble friend Lord Conesford pointed out that in the clause which is now being discussed what are to be put forward are described as "proposals". If we turn to Part II of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, we find that there is an obligation on planning authorities to produce development plans. This is the form of the London Plan to which my noble and learned friend drew attention and compared with what is being proposed in this case. It seemed to me, therefore, that it would be helpful if in the case of what my noble and learned friend has described as a "smaller London Plan" we availed ourselves of the existing town and country planning legislation, because in Part II the whole of the procedure for preparing these plans and for amending them if necessary, and all the procedure for giving opportunity for public opinion to be consulted, could, I think, very conveniently be brought in for dealing with this.
At a later stage, and in replying to some of the proposals of my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford, the Lord Chancellor thought there was a danger of undue rigidity. Section 6 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947 provides:
"Without prejudice to the provisions of the foregoing subsection, any local planning authority may at any time, and shall if so required by directions of the Minister, submit to the Minister proposals for such alterations or additions to the development plan relating to their area or any part thereof as appear to them to be expedient, or as may be required by those directions, as the case may be."
If 1,000 to 1,500 acres are suddenly being made available for non-transport purposes in the administrative county of London, surely this is a case where the proper procedure would be to have an amendment of the existing London Plan under Part II of the Act of 1947. It seemed to me that this was in line with the thoughts of the Government on the subject, and I thought it might be helpful if I moved this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
In line 6 of subsection (1), leave out ("proposals") and insert the said words.—(Lord Molson.)
6.45 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Molson has certainly added a new terror to

213
the use of analogies and similes. I do not complain about it, because I have always recognised that it is a dangerous path, and it is one which generally I try to eschew. But he has used my expression a "little London Plan" to raise a point which I find of considerable interest, although I am sorry to say I do not agree with him. My noble friend wants to see that there would be a development plan running the full course of the Town and Country Planning Act procedure for development plans, including publication, the lodging of objections and full public inquiry, before the Minister reached a decision. That would be the effect of this Amendment.
The next Amendment, which really goes with it, seeks to add a new subsection to the clause, and provides for the special development plan to be submitted under the first Amendment to be amended by the same procedure under Section 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, as ordinary development plans. In other words, the full procedure of the Town and Country Planning Acts would be applied to any revision. The essence of my noble friend's proposals, and the reasons behind them, are that he takes the view that there is no direct relationship between the proposals submitted under subsection (1) and subsequent applications for planning permission for individual projects affecting land covered by those proposals. He has not expressed the fear, but without that fear there would really not be any reason for his own proposal, that in having submitted proposals under subsection (1), after consultation with the London County Council, and having secured the Minister's approval and his certifying order under subsection (2), there is nothing to prevent the Commission or the new Boards from lodging applications for planning consent, for land comprised in the proposals, which are quite at variance with the proposals approved by the Minister. That is, coupled with the question of compensation, the real fear behind these Amendments.
I want to put some points as against that. My noble friend says that in order to deal with that position one should apply the whole of the planning law, as I put it in general terms. That would make a substantial change in the general planning law and procedures as regards
214
surplus land owned by the Commission and the new Boards. I am told—and I agree with my information—that this would give rise to great practical difficulty in attempting to graft a special development plan in the ordinary sense, in respect of the surplus land of the Commission and the Boards in London, formulated by an authority other than the planning authority, on to the Development Plan for London; and it would be quite inappropriate, I should have thought, in a Transport Bill, to make such a radical change in the Town and Country Planning Act procedure in relation to the Commission and the Boards in respect of their land in London. My noble and learned friend Lord Conesford fully appreciated that there are difficulties in putting into a Transport Bill proposais even as far as he suggested at that time, but he felt that the social problem and the questions of the balance of office accommodation and housing in London were so serious that we ought to do something about it. That is what we are doing. It is one thing to do something about it, and another thing to change the planning procedure.
I also think it is unnecessary for the reasons that I gave yesterday. The Commission and the new Boards will be public bodies, and it is wrong to assume that, having submitted proposals in consultation with the L.C.C. in discharge of their statutory duty under subsection (1) of the new clause, they would then proceed to tear up those proposals, subsequent to the Minister's approval, and proceed in an entirely different way with the use of their land covered by such proposals. As I said, apart from the question of what motives and what type of action you are prepared to impute to a public board, it would seem such a silly thing to do here, because they are arranging, negotiating, and consulting with the London County Council in order to get a fair balance of commercial and residential use. If you do that, and then take one of the methods suggested of selling a bit of land so that somebody else can make the application before the Minister has certified, what is going to happen? For one thing, apart from the question of breaking a statutory duty and the consequences of that, the London County Council and the Minister are going to say: "You

215
have taken that bit out of your housing site. You have destroyed the balance. You have not done what you said you would do; that is, put in proposals to keep a proper balance. You have destroyed that balance and, therefore, you have got to alter it again". It does not seem to me right from the practical view—and I have dealt with it on the practical basis—'but I think one ought to take into account that one is dealing with public boards.
Now I come to the point where I should like to deal with the other aspect of Lord Molson's approach. There will be a relation between the proposals under subsection (1) of the new clause, as approved by the Minister under subsection (2), and the Development Plan for London. When the proposals in subsection (1) are settled, any consequent change or modification in the Development Plan for London would be made at the next review of that Development Plan, and development would, in the meantime, as provided by the Town and Country Planning Acts, be permitted by way of "departure" procedure. In any event, there would be, under the procedure of the Town and Country Planning Acts, an opportunity for publication of these proposals and for objections to be lodged and heard in respect of any such consequential changes in the Development Plan for London. Though one does not, as my noble friend would say, have a new plan, it will still be necessary for these matters to be considered in the amendment of the present London Plan.
I hope my noble friend Lord Molson will not hold me to the figure of 1,500 acres. It is a figure which came up in discussion. It is not a measurement which was given to me, but it is something over 1,000 acres, with some other bits of land. I wanted not to underestimate the matter, and I should not like him to think that I have given it as a measured figure. It is something, as he said—and I think that is the best way to put it—between 1,000 and 1,500 acres. I do not think it detracts from my noble friend's point of importance, but I should not like anyone to think that I have given a measured figure—I was talking in round figures. I hope my noble friend will not press this Amendment because
216
we have come a long way, and to put the Boards under the procedure which he suggests, I think, would make it impossible for them to deal practically with their work.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, as I indicated, I was trying to probe and to understand how this still somewhat obscure clause is going to work. I think my Amendment has already served a useful purpose in obtaining a further explanation from my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. In view of the explanation that he has given, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
In line 10 of subsection (1) leave out ("and business") and insert ("business and industry").—(Lord Molson.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not know if it will help my noble friend, but although I am not absolutely certain whether "industry" is needed after "trade", there is no difference between us. I do not mind the insertion of the word, and I do not think it can have any repercussive effect. Therefore I advise the House to accept the Amendment.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble and learned friend. This was the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, yesterday, and I think it is a point to which a good deal of importance attaches. I am most grateful to the Government for accepting the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I presume that the description of industry, would involve factories and the like. The noble and learned Viscount suggested that it was a minor Amendment. I should have thought it was sweeping, so far as these words are concerned.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, what I said was that the words at the moment are "accommodation for trade and business". I am not at all

217
sure that "trade" in this context would not include "industry". But I do not want to be dogmatic in the matter. I think the term ought to be wide. It ought to be "industry" in the sense of factories as well. The split ought to be between "housing" and "commercial" in the widest sense.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, one is very reluctant to butt in at this stage, but I think the popular view would be—although the technical view may be different—that "business", "trade" and "industry" denote three different kinds of activity. In one case "trade" is selling, including warehousing. "Business" may be office business, and "industry", on the other hand, may be the manufacturing of things, involving (factories. I am not raising any serious objection, but I think it should be quite clear that what is meant by it is limited to exclude factories where the area in question is one in which factories may be objected to. Would the use of the word "industry" cover factories?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is all rather out of order because we have already accepted this Amendment, but, if the House will allow me, I am sure that this should be made clear. I wanted it to be as all-inclusive as possible. I wanted them all in because I wanted the distinction, on the one hand, to be commercial—lf I can use that word, as it is difficult to find a word that does not get into "he same trouble—and, on the other hand, housing. I think we are all agreed on that.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, could the matter be continued in order to find some alternative form of wording that would exclude these uncertainties?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think we have covered all the uncertainties. I think that was what the noble Lord, Lord Molson, had in mind: that if you simply had the first two words there was some uncertainty, but if you put in the word "industry" there was certainty. It is all included. But if the noble Lord has any ideas I shall be very grateful if he will have a word with me before Third Reading and I will look into it. I think now that it is all right. In the meantime, if we can put ourselves in
218
order I think we now come to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd.
LORD SHEPHERD: That Amendment, my Lords, I am not moving.
7.2 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD had given Notice of three Amendments to the proposed new clause, the first being in line 2 of subsection (2), after "regards" to insert "(a)". The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment 80M is preparatory to Amendment 80P, and for the convenience of the House I propose to take them together. The effect of this, in substance, is to add at the end of line 8 of subsection (2)
"and (b) any application made after the said date for such permission as aforesaid for development of the said land, if the development for which permission is sought is not in accordance with the proposals thus approved by the Minister;".
I think it will be for the convenience of the House if I assume that the main argument for my Amendment was sufficiently stated in the debate yesterday, and that that will have made my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack familiar with the motive of my Amendment. I thought that my noble and learned friend speaking to-day on my noble friend Lord Molson's Amendment slightly misunderstood the main motive that I have in mind in adding these words. The purpose is to deal with alienation effected not before the Minister has approved the proposals but after. If the Minister approves the proposals, I cannot see that thereafter there is any necessary impropriety, or even improbability, in a board selling part of the property dealt with in these proposals. After that alienation has taken place the new owners might put in an application to develop the land in a way that was quite antagonistic to the proposals approved by the Minister. That is at least a legal possibility, and, if that were done, I think that it would be the view of the House that the provisions of subsection (3) should apply.
Any layman reading this new clause of Her Majesty's Government would think that the proposals approved by the Minister were something of great importance. So far as I can see—and I hope my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will correct me if I am

219
wrong—unless my Amendment or something like it is adopted, the proposals approved by the Minister have one effect in law and one only; they fix a date. But, once that date is passed, those proposals approved by the Minister could be torn up and completely ignored. I do not believe that that is desired by this House. That is the reason for my Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
In line 2 of subsection (2) after ("regards") insert ("(a)").—(Lord Conesford.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Considering this Amendment 80M, which is introductory, and 80O, I have—
LORD CONESFORD: My noble and learned friend said 80O; it is 80P which goes with this Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps my noble friend would tell me. I am looking at the Fourth List of Amendments and I just want to be quite sure. Amendment 80M is the introductory one including the words "insert ('a')"; then on my copy 80O is the one which includes the words "Act is passed".
LORD CONESFORD: I think I see what is in my noble friend's mind. Of course, Amendment 80O does come earlier than 80P but it is not quite so directly connected with the little Amendment which is 80 M; but perhaps it might be for the convenience of the House if I dealt with all three together.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think it would.
LORD CONESFORD: In that case let me just add this about Amendment 80O. The main importance of Amendment 80O is, of course, that it will be incorporated when we come to deal with the applications for development at a later stage; that is, the development of the land which under the clause must belong to the Commission or Board at the time when the application is made. In the case which I have just imagined of the alienation of the land, then, of course, the application, inconsistent with the proposals approved by the Minister, would be put forward by developers who did not fall within those words. The land for which they applied would not fall within those words of "belonging
220
to a Board at the time when the application is made". But they would fall within the amended words "in the possession of the Commission or Board at the time when this Act is passed".
In the discussion that took place yesterday my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack gave various reasons for thinking that alienation would be either improper or improbable, but I do not think he gave any reason why any harm would be done by my proposed Amendment, which would make the test whether the land belonged to the Board at the time this Act is passed. I cannot see what would be lost if all applications for the development of this land that we have in mind and for which proposals for a balanced development are to be put forward, whether made before or after the approval of the proposals by the Minister, were subject to the provisions of the Government's clause. What would be lost? My case, therefore, for the Amendment to put in "this Act is passed" (that is, my Amendment No. 80O) is that it removes the loophole of an alienation defeating the scheme of the clause without, so far as I can see, doing any harm at all from any point of view.
The case for the other two linked Amendments is, as I have said, that without them the whole business of putting forward proposals for the Minister's approval and the Minister approving them affects only the fixing of the date and thereafter can be ignored for all purposes.
LORD MOLSON: Before my noble and learned friend replies, may I say that the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford has reminded me of what the Lord Chancellor said yesterday [col. 31]:
"The noble Lord then asked me, would persons to whom the Commission sold land covered by the proposals get compensation if they were refused planning permission? The answer to that is 'Yes'; the clause applies only to the Commission and the new Boards."
I do not want to be at all unfair. He went on.
"But, of course, it is subject to the point which I put earlier".
It seems to me that that is very relevant in considering the Amendment moved by my noble friend. The restriction

221
upon the compensation payable does not attach to the land; it attaches to the land only so long as it is in the possession of the Commission or one of the Boards. Therefore, it appears to me that my noble friend is quite correct, on what the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said yesterday, in saying that the limitation upon the compensation attaches only so long as the land is in the hands of the Board.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Molson is perfectly right, and I do not think I have ever said anything else. But I want to develop the point. The first Amendment to the new clause deals with the position up to the date of certification; the second deals with the position after certification. That is, I think, the easiest way of approaching it.
Let us look at it up to the date of certification by the Minister. As I said before, there is a statutory duty on the Commission and the Boards to do two things: first of all, to consult with the L.C.C.; and, secondly, to put forward proposals. The Minister can then certify the proposals. On that point, one would like to consider the matter on the basis that the Boards will carry out their statutory duty. In any case I believe they could be compelled to, although I never like, speaking from my position, giving opinions about the result of actions. That is the first point: they have to do that; they have to consult, they have to put forward proposals. The basis of this Amendment is that at the same time, and in relation to the same piece of land about which they are consulting and have put forward proposals in agreement with the L.C.C., they will go off and sell that piece of land. Usually the language which I think one has heard is that the Commission or the Boards could drive a coach and horses through the Act. As I say, I think at this stage, up to the date of certification, that is a serious and unjustified view of the way that a Board carries out its work. But the point I have made to your Lordships is that it would also be idiotic; whether it is moral or not, it would be completely idiotic, because this is the period up to certification.
If you put forward proposals dealing with, say, 1,000 acres of land, and you than sell off 250 acres of the land which is going to be used for housing purposes
222
(you do not want to sell the other land, because you are going to get a good price for it) what is the Minister going to say? He is going to look at this clause and see that the statutory duty is to keep a proper balance in the use of the land. If you say in your proposals that the proper balance is 500 acres each, and you then deduct 250 from the less profitable part, you have not a proper balance; so the Minister is going to say, "All right; 375 acres each". My arithmetic at this stage of the day, having been in your Lordships' House since half past two, is not very powerful, but it is something like that. It would be an entirely new scheme. In fact it might be worse for them. Of course, it is possible that a developer would make an application, but to make it in respect of the Commission's land will not help him.
The second point, which I think is also extremely improbable, is that the developer, without planning permission, knowing there is this tricky position behind it all. knowing that he is bound to get up against the planning authority, whom he will meet in other instances, is going to buy the land without planning permission. If the developer did that he would be taking a very great risk, and I should have thought his chances of getting into the multi-millionaire class were extremely slim. The other point I wanted to put is this. The noble Lord said to me, "Why not accept the Amendment?". First of all, I do not think one ought to accept Amendments which are based on a view of the Board's actions which one does not think are at all likely to happen. The other point is that, obviously, if one did this one would get into complications in dealing with the position of future purchasers of the land. The position is that by my noble friend's Amendment they would put up a notice that the land which they might be buying from persons who themselves bought from the B.T.C. in the future would be subject to some special restriction affecting their rights.
On the other point, I want to deal now with the position after the date of certification. There my noble friend says, quite rightly (I agree with him entirely; there is no moral question arising here), that this is a matter of policy at which

223
I think one has to look closely. I should like to put my point, because I think that I failed to make myself clear to my noble friends when I said that this would be too rigid in its effect. I said that there might be changes in circumstances which would make it desirable and acceptable, on planning grounds, to allow development of land belonging to the Commission and the new Boards otherwise than in accordance with the proposals. My noble friend has always taken that point. He said: "I have a perfectly good answer to that. My answer is that the Minister would then give planning permission, and the situation would be quite the same". My reply to his answer has always been: "Yes, he might give planning permission; he might be generally in favour of a change. But he might attach conditions which were not related to the 1962 position, and it would be unfair for the developer or the Board not to be entitled to compensation."
I had a happy and nostalgic thought when I was considering this matter. Eighteen years ago I did an inquiry on behalf of, inter alios, my noble friend Lord Conesford, and the subject of this inquiry was planning permission for statutory undertakers. I gave Mr. W. S. Morrison (as he then was, and who, if my recollection is right, was my noble friend's Minister) a long and elaborate report after six months' work on planning permission for statutory undertakers and all it involved. I did not want to give myself a pat on the back; all I wanted was to say to my noble friend that I heard of a great many ways in which statutory undertakers might be affected by conditions being imposed. That is a real point here: that the imposition of conditions in the future might be most unfair to the Boards.
I do not think the other point is so strong, but I ought to mention it. That is, that the effect of the Amendment might be to throw doubt on the position of additional lands becoming surplus to operational requirements in the future. Any application for planning permission to develop such land might not be in accordance with the proposals settled under subsection (1), because the land might not have been embraced in these proposals. My noble friend may say: "Well, you can find a way to clarify
224
that". But I am sure my noble friend would agree with the principle that if it were new land becoming surplus one would not necessarily apply the same rules, and I do not think he would want the compensation automatically to be excluded in that land. But one really comes back to the point that there are, for better or for worse, so many changes in life that to make the matter rigid for many years ahead would be wrong. I i have given a practical example, and therefore I feel that I cannot accept this point.
I should like only to add this (I said it yesterday I think, but I should like to say it again): that my noble friend's points were of great interest; I have tried my best to appreciate his point of view, and I assure him that if I have failed to do so the fault is entirely mine, and does not rest on the lucidity of his explanation. I have formed that view and I hope that he will not press the Amendment to-night.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, let me say at once to my noble and learned friend that I certainly will not press the matter to-night, but I entirely deny his last statement that the fault lies with him. I am quite convinced from his speech that the fault lies with me for not making the matter clear. Although I will not delay withdrawal of the Amendment more than a few moments, I should like my noble and learned friend to bear certain matters in mind in the thought he gives to the subject between now and Third Reading. First of all, there is the connection between Amendment No. 80O and Amendment No. 80P. Amendment No. 80O, of course, deals with the definition of the land in respect of which the application is made. That also affects my Amendment No. 80P because in that Amendment I use the words "the said land".
The substance which I wish my noble and learned friend to bear in mind is this: before the Minister approves proposals the Board may have alienated the land in a perfectly honest manner, thinking that the people to whom they alienated it would pay some regard to the proposals for which they have sought, and for which they later obtain, the Minister's approval. Nevertheless, the new owners of the land at a later date put forward a proposal that is not in

225
accordance with the plan approved by the Minister—not in accordance with the proposals approved by the Minister, and the Minister still thinks them undesirable. In those conditions the matter will be taken quite outside the purview of the scheme of the Government's new clause on two grounds: first of all, the land will not fall within the definition; and, secondly, there is nothing to stop an application being made which bears no reference to the proposals approved by the Minister. My noble and learned friend has convinced me that my drafting will not do. It does not provide for a number of the things to which he has called attention. But, in my submission, neither does the Government drafting do, for the reasons I have given. With the certainty that my noble and learned friend will further consider the points that I have now made, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment No. 80M, and I will not move Nos. 80O and 80P.
Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.28 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, in subsection (3) of the proposed new clause, to leave out paragraphs (a) and (b). The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Silkin, I beg to move Amendment No. 80PA and I think it might be convenient to deal at the same time with Amendment No. 80PB. I move these Amendments with great fear and trepidation. As I listened to the speeches of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, I could not help but feel that perhaps silence was best. But I have been given a duty; therefore, if I should cover some of the points that have been dealt with by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, I hope he will tell me so. The noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack accepted the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, in regard to the definition of trade and business, where I understand that, for a proper balance, there will be on the one side the housing requirements and on the other side new office accommodation and factory premises.
I think this is a very significant development. I would refer your Lordships
226
to subsection (3), which deals with the question of compensation and says that if the scheme prohibits a particular type of development the local authority will have to provide compensation. Paragraphs (a) and (b), which my Amendment seeks to delete, specifically relate to office premises, whether intended to be used fully or partly as office premises. It would appear that whilst the noble and learned Viscount has accepted that the proper balance must take into account factory space, it may be decided that a particular factory shall not be developed in that area. I would remind your Lordships that it is a declared policy, particularly under the Local Employment Act, 1960, that industrial development should not be encouraged within this area. It would appear, as the clause is before us, that the local authority would then be called upon to pay compensation when a factory's capacity has not been approved. I would ask the noble and learned Viscount whether that is to be the case, or whether we are going to treat offices and factory space alike.
By Amendment 80PB we wish to insert the words
"or of the making of a material change in the use of land, or a building".
It may be decided in the scheme that land shall not be materially altered. In the same way it is felt that compensation should not be paid. In other words, we should treat it in a similar fashion as we would treat office accommodation. My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
In line 4 of subsection (3) leave out paragraphs (a) and (b).—(Lord Shepherd.)
7.32 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on his dive into town and planning law. I am glad we have had a chance to discuss his point. The real issue is that under subsection (3) of the new clause the Commission and the new Boards are excluded from compensation for refusal or conditional grant of planning permission for office development in London. They cannot get compensation for office development until the Ministry so certify. The point of the Amendment which Lord Shepherd

227
has just put before your Lordships is to delete office development and to extend the area of exclusion from compensation to any "material change in the use of land"—that is development of any kind, even the lowest kind in the scale of developments. The argument really is that until the balanced proposals have been approved, applications for all developments affecting the land in question, not only office development, should be excluded from compensation.
I come back to my old point: that this is, as I submit, unnecessarily increasing the discrimination against the Commission and the Boards. As I have said, the clause is highly discriminatory; even if you bar them only from compensation for office development you are putting them in that position. In simple language, they have to make that sacrifice for the public good. But now you are going to say that not only office development but any kind of development is forbidden. I should have thought that the clause provides ample incentive and sanction for the Commission to submit their proposals, and the basis for the arrangements for which the new clause provides rests on this special problem in London of office accommodation. The noble Lord will appreciate that that comes in twice: whether it is an economic way of spending the money, and whether it is going to increase the traffic problem and the commuter problem as well. It would not be right to generalise the exclusion of compensation to cover all forms of development merely in order to exact stronger pressure against the Boards to reach agreement. I know that the noble Lord does not start from the point of view that the Commission and the Boards will deliberately seek to circumvent what is proposed. I think he would rather take my view that, having several proposals under subsection (1), they will stick to them unless in the future circumstances change.
Finally, I would, just put the one viewpoint to your Lordships. The Amendments of my noble friends Lord Conesford and Lord Molson, taken together with those of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, would, in my view, really produce a situation which would put a public body in an intolerable position.
228
The short answer to Lord Shepherd is that it is a point one wants to consider, but it is office accommodation that one wants to prevent. One wants to put the inducement against office development, not against any sort of development. For example, it might even be housing development of some kind. Therefore I would ask the noble Lord not to press his Amendment.
LORD GREENHILL: Is not the whole purpose of this clause a temporary provision? If that is so, it is not a clause that would be binding for all time on the subject. One would imagine, therefore, that the dangers that the noble Viscount envisages are perhaps a little exaggerated. In other words, if one could embody in the clause the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, which my noble friend Lord Shepherd has moved, it would not do any real harm, as a temporary purpose.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I will not press the noble and learned Viscount—I do not know whether I should have the authority of my noble friend Lord Silkin to do so. I think, however, the noble and learned Viscount will accept that it is policy to discourage, and I hope prevent, any industrial development in the centre of London, which is what we are really considering. Therefore, whilst the noble and learned Viscount has accepted that, under the temporary provisions of subsection (1), it would appear that the local authorities would in fact be liable to pay compensation even on a factory. I would agree with the noble Viscount that we do not wish to cover every field of development, but there are one or two types of development which the Government, in the public interest, should recognise should not take place. If that is the case, and if compensation is not to be paid on office buildings, I think that ruling should apply equally to factory space. Perhaps the noble Viscount would consider that point. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.40 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, again on behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move this Amendment. As I understand it, if the Board, or an organisation

229
to whom property has been disposed of, were to approach the London County Council for permission to develop, and the County Council refused permission, they would either have to pay compensation or they might receive a notice to purchase that particular property. That might well involve very considerable sums of money, probably not far short of what might have to be paid out in compensation. It is felt in the present circumstances, taking the principle behind this new clause, that for the period of this new clause the County Council should be relieved of the responsibility of being forced to buy that property if in their wisdom they had refused development permission. I beg to move.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
In line 11 of subsection (3) after ("conditions.") insert ("the provisions of section 19 of the Act of 1947 shall not apply and,").—(Lord Shepherd.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment again seeks to increase the disabilities of the Commission and the new Boards, in respect of the development of surplus land in London during the period prior to the approval of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government of their proposals under subsection (1). Under this Amendment, should the Commission or the new Boards be refused planning permission for office development on surplus land, before the date on which the Minister approved their proposals under subsection (1), not only would they be excluded from compensation under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, but they would also be prevented, where in consequence of the refusal of planning permission there was no reasonable beneficial use to which they could put the land in question, from serving notice on the local authority under Section 19 of that Act. I hope your Lordships appreciate how far that would be going, because, if I may speak from memory and not having checked it, the way it works is this.
Suppose you have a piece of land for which you want to get planning permission and that is refused, then the question of compensation will turn on whether your land has such a low value that the planning authority could not give you permission for something else which would still be higher than the
230
value of the land. That would mean that if you had a piece of waste land, and you wanted to put up office accommodation and you did not get planning permission, so long as the local authority could say, "All right, you can build houses there", then, generally, building houses there would be more valuable than an old disused railway site. That is the way I have approached it, and it seemed to me that the Amendment was really going a little too far, because it was excluding the ground that I have just stated. I am very interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said, and I will consider it, but on reflection we are really dealing with a problem that has exercised your Lordships' minds. Your Lordships did not really intend that there would be any greater discrimination than that I will consider it but, again, I hope the noble Lord will not press it tonight.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I convey to the noble and learned Viscount our extreme thanks for the manner in which he has dealt with the Amendments from this side, in a very intricate matter. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.46 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I feel that we are all working in conditions of very great difficulty, and I hope that the flexibility of the procedure of your Lordships' House may enable something to be done about the matter. I think it is known to many of your Lordships that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has an engagement, which he really cannot avoid keeping, and this is a matter of extreme importance which he himself has handled completely. I am seeking elucidation not on my own account only. I do not think I should be breaking any secret if I indicated that I believe the London County Council themselves are not clear as to exactly how this is going to work. It seems to me, therefore, that it would be most unfair to my noble and learned friend, and would really render your Lordships proceedings almost nugatory, if in a matter which is so specially within his knowledge we sought to press him further upon this in the last few moments

231
that he can be here. It really would be impossible to do justice to a matter of the greatest importance, which involves over a thousand acres of London land and a very large sum of money.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I feel I must accept what the noble Lord, Lord Molson, says, and I propose that the Report stage of this Bill be further adjourned.
Moved, That the Report stage of the Bill be further adjourned.—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Report stage adjourned accordingly.

LANDLORD AND TENANT BILL
7.48 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that the Landlord and Tenant Bill be read a second time. This Bill comes to this House from another place where it received universal commendation on Second Reading, although I think it is true to say that that commendation was considerably spiced with constructive criticism. During the passage of the Bill through the Committee stage it was considerably amended, but principally in matters of detail and not so much as to affect the original principle of the Bill. So that when it came to its Third Reading in another place it again received universal approbation from all parts of that House. I mention this fact in the hope that it will receive a like reception in your Lordships' House.
The relationship of landlord and tenant may well be considered by many of your Lordships, in so far as weekly tenancies are concerned (and those are the tenancies which are dealt with by this Bill), as something of a personal relationship. But it remains the fact that it has been found in practice that there are a by no means insignificant number of landlords in this country, and particularly in urban areas, who do not share such a view. In fact, they prefer to remain incognito; to hide their light, as well as their name, under a bushel; and to avoid any possible contact with their tenants—the result being, of course,
232
that if the tenant has a legitimate complaint which he desires to make concerning the state of the property, or anything of that description, there are no means by which he can get behind the agent who collects his rent and get in touch with the responsible person.
Another impression which I personally had before I started to delve into these matters was that it was incumbent upon a landlord to provide every weekly tenant whom he might have with a rent book containing the landlord's name and address. Such an impression, as I am sure your Lordships will know, is entirely erroneous. There are some forms of weekly tenants who are entitled to have a rent book provided for them by their landlords; some classes are entitled to have certain information set out in that rent book, and other classes other information set out in that rent book. But there is a substantial class of weekly tenants who are not entitled to a rent book at all, and that is the second point which we are seeking to overcome in this Bill.
In fact, the objects of this Bill, my Lords, are really fourfold. The first and primary object is that it shall be incumbent by law upon all landlords to provide their weekly tenants with a rent book which contains the landlord's name and address. Secondly, the Bill provides that where the law already provides that a rent book, where it is requisite, shall contain certain information of a specified character, that information shall continue to be required. Thirdly, it lays down that landlords which are companies shall provide their weekly tenants, upon written request, which the agent is bound to pass on to the landlord, with the names and addresses of the directors and the secretary of that company. I think that that is a logical extension of the principle that a tenant should be entitled to know the name and address of his landlord. Next, as a necessary corollary to the other provisions, there is a slight extension of these obligations to local authorities, housing associations and new town development corporations.
At the same time, certain of the powers of local authorities under the Rent Restriction Act, 1933, whereby they are entitled to supply information to

233
landlords and tenants concerning the Jaw as it applies to weekly tenancies of properties, and also to initiate prosecutions where such are liable, are automatically revoked by this Bill and are therefore reinstated in the Bill. Next, the Bill seeks to standardise the penalties which are applicable to the matters contained in the Bill, and in certain instances, my Lords, to increase those penalties to a more realistic figure. In fact, the offences with which the Bill deals carry at the present time penalties which range from £2 for the first offence, through £10 to £50; and so the provisions in the Bill standardise the penalties for all those offences at a maximum sum of £50 for the first offence and £100 for a second and each subsequent offence.
Finally, my Lords, one of the objects of this Bill is to consolidate the existing law. I hope that your Lordships will consider that at the same time it also clarifies it, and to some extent codifies it. It is quite arguable that much of this Bill's contents can be found, in part, in earlier legislation—particularly, for instance, in the 1925 Law of Property Act; but I think that your Lordships will agree that to expect the ordinary weekly tenant, for Whose benefit this Bill is primarily concerned, to know his way about and to find out the particulars contained in the Law of Property Act, 1925, is really asking the impossible. Therefore, the final object of this Bill is to try to provide, within its very limited compass, the law relating to those particular matters which affect the weekly tenant, and so to provide it for him to the exclusion of his having to seek it elsewhere. To that extent, it is a consolidation measure. My Lords, I have tried to explain (this matter briefly to your Lordships. I hope that I have not over-simplified it, and I hope also that your Lordships will see fit to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Brentford.)
7.57 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, we are most grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, for his very lucid explanation of this Bill. As he says, it both clarifies and codifies, to some extent, the present law; but I think it does quite a deal more than that. It
234
is going to be quite a useful Bill for many tenants, particularly of slum properties. In my own experience as a Member of another place I often came across cases of people being victimised because they did not have a rent book. They did not even know who their landlord was; and this often led to cases of hardship. Therefore we on this side of your Lordships' House warmly welcome this very useful measure.
7.58 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I, too, should like to congratulate my noble friend on the way in which he has explained this measure to your Lordships' House. I do not think that the noble Viscount has suggested that this is other than a fairly modest measure, and I would not suggest otherwise, either, but I feel, with the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that it is in fact a useful and desirable one.
The relationship between a landlord and his tenant is, by its very mature, a peculiarly close one. It is unlikely to be a satisfactory one unless the obligations which fall on both the landlord and his tenant are satisfactorily discharged on both sides. As some of your Lordships who are familiar with these matters know, there are a number of ways in which some landlords seek to evade their rightful obligations. One method is to make it difficult by one device or another for the tenant to establish direct contact—in order, for example (and it is not an uncommon example), to prevent the tenant from asking the landlord to carry out those repairs which are his, the landlord's responsibility. Only a minority of landlords—and a small minority at that—resort to such practices. Nevertheless, it is clear from the information reaching my Department that evasion of this sort, which sometimes involves very serious hardship on the tenant, is a too frequent occurrence. If, therefore, there are gaps here in the law, it is right that they should be closed, and it is for that reason that I, too, welcome this Bill.
Since my noble friend has explained the objects of this measure so clearly, I, for my part, wish to touch upon only one particular clause in the Bill,

235
Clause 5, which deals with the powers of local authorities. Under the 1933 Rent Act, as I understand it, local authorities can not only publish information for the assistance of landlords and tenants about their rights and duties under the various Rent Acts, but can also institute proceedings for any offence under those Acts. It is dearly desirable that local authorities should still be able to exercise these powers, and to exercise them over the rather wider field covered by this Bill. For example, tenants are often fairly naturally reluctant to institute proceedings of a sort on their own behalf. That is why my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government proposes, if and when Parliament approves this measure, to draw the attention of local authorities specifically to it, and to remind them of their duties under it. I have no hesitation in recommending your Lordships to give my noble friend's Bill your approval.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PENALTIES FOR DRUNKENNESS BILL
8.2 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD WESTWOOD: My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill. It is a Private Member's Bill, and was introduced in another place by the Member for Tynemouth, Dame Irene Ward. It seems appropriate that I should do so, as the honourable lady and I were appointed as Justices of the Peace on the same day, and for the same bench in the City and County of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, in 1949. When this Bill was introduced in another place and debated there, it had the support of all political Parties, so I shall not detain your Lordships for long over this small, but nevertheless important, Bill, and I shall endeavour, as briefly as I can, to explain the main points in it.
Clause 1 of the Bill is the operative and virtually the only clause in the Bill, and it sets out to increase the existing maximum penalties for certain forms of
236
drunkenness. The existing penalties have been laid down in Acts which, as you will see from subsection (2), go back as far as the Refreshment Act, 1860, which is over 100 years ago, and the Licensing Act, 1872, which is now 90 years old. Reference is also made to other Acts of various dates, the most recent being the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1959, although that was only a consolidating measure, and there was no discussion on penalties at that time.
The existing penalties for drunkenness under Section 12 of the Licensing Act, 1872, which this Bill seeks to amend, are as follows. The penalty for being drunk on any highway or other public place, whether a building or not, or in licensed premises, is 10s. for the first offence, 20s. for a second conviction within 12 months, and on a third or subsequent conviction within the same period of 12 months the fine is 40s. The penalties for being drunk and disorderly, or guilty of riotous or disorderly behaviour, are 40s., or imprisonment not exceeding one month. But here I would say that the provisions of Section 12 of the Licensing Act, 1872, do not apply to any persons who are drunk and in charge of a motor car. Provisions for them are dealt with under the Road Traffic Acts, and the relevant sections in those Acts provide that the person liable to be charged with an offence under them shall not be liable to be charged under Section 12 of the Licensing Act, 1872, or the equivalent Scottish Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, asked a Question in your Lordships' House on June 6 last. He asked Her Majesty's Government [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 241 (No. 91), col. 597]:
"whether they are satisfied that the current maximum fines prescribed in the Statutes … are in all cases adequate, having regard to the fall in the value of money since they were enacted".
The noble Lord was informed by the Government that they agreed that there is a case for the revision of some fines in the light of present-day monetary values, and it is for this very reason that this Bill has been introduced. The new penalties as laid down in the Bill are: for simple drunkenness, a fine not exceeding £5; and for being drunk and disorderly, the maximum fine is increased to £10, or imprisonment not

237
exceeding one month. I would hasten to assure your Lordships that these increases in the penalties for drunkenness are not due to any increase in drunkenness, or any fear that there would be a sudden increase in drunkenness. It is simply that the value of money and the deterrent effect of these fines of 10s. and up to 40s. have become very small with the passage of time. But I would not hazard a guess what the accurate measurement of the decrease in the value of money has been since the year 1860.
It is my firm belief that this Bill will be welcomed by the courts of summary jurisdiction, and it will certainly be welcomed by the police, who have a great deal of trouble with drunk and disorderly people. I can give an example. If a person who is drunk is arrested on a Saturday afternoon, it is usual for that person to be housed in a cell for two nights, obtain up to five meals, and when he or she appears before the magistrates on the Monday morning, he or she is fined the paltry sum of 10s. Consultations have taken place with the Home Office, and it has been agreed that the suggested new penalties are reasonable, and are up to date and in line with present-day standards. I commend this Bill to your Lordships, and I ask that you give it a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Westwood.)
8.8 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, again I would thank the noble Lord for the very lucid and careful way that he has explained this Bill. I am always very dubious about the value of deterrents, and although I do not in any way oppose this Bill, which I am quite prepared to accept as necessary, I very much doubt that, with the kind of people the noble Lord has mainly in mind, it will deter them very much from getting drunk. Having regard to the fact that the penalties for drunkenness were fixed when whisky was 3s. 6d. a bottle but it is now ten times the price, I think it is quite justifiable to step up the penalties somewhat, and the figures here of £5, or £10, or imprisonment not exceeding one month, are nothing to quarrel with.
238
My difficulty, however, and I have no doubt it is his difficulty as a magistrate—and these increased penalties, I hope, will throw up this difficulty even more—is that the kind of man or woman who continually comes before the magistrates and is fined 10s. and told not to come again, as the noble Lord said, is eventually sent to prison for a week, two weeks, or even a month. They are cleaned up, perhaps given a new suit of clothes, and sent out again. They pawn their clothes and come before the magistrates again well and truly drunk. I do not think that these enlarged fines are going to deter them, although the noble Lord may well say that that is not an argument against the Bill, and he is quite right. It is an argument, perhaps, in favour of providing the magistrates with different forms of treatment to which they can send persistent drunkards. Perhaps the increase of penalties in this Bill may throw that up more distinctly, and eventually we shall have a different way of treating persistent drunkards, other than sending them to general local prisons, where they are a great nuisance to prison officers and are mixed up with all kinds of criminals, at considerable expense to the State and with no permanent benefit to themselves. Apart from that, we welcome this Bill and will not oppose it.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Westwood on moving the Second Reading of this Bill and on giving an admirable explanation to its purpose and its scope. As he said, the Bill seeks simply to increase the penalties for drunkeness under the existing law of England and Wales and Scotland and to bring them into line with the present-day value of money. I think that that is a purpose with which most of your Lordships would concur. I shall be brief, especially at this late hour and with the scarcity of noble Lords in the House.
The Home Office are making a comprehensive review of all the smaller maximum fines, with a view to the possible introduction of legislation to bring them into line with the present-day value of money, as my noble friend has suggested. It is a large task. It is not possible just to multiply the old fines, some

239
of which go back hundreds of years, by a factor representing the change in the value of money. Some offences may have changed considerably in importance, and some of the heavier fines may be quite inappropriate.
The honourable lady who represents Tynemouth in another place decided, with the vigour for which she is noted, that fines for drunkeness might well be dealt with on their own in a short Bill, which is before your Lordships to-night under my noble friend's name. In its relatively narrow compass, it is comprehensive in its treatment of penalties for the several offences of drunkenness, which my noble friend has mentioned. We welcome the Bill, and I should like to take this opportunity of thanking my noble friend Lord Westwood, in particular, for his part in bringing this small but useful measure before your Lordships' House. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
LORD WESTWOOD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and also my noble friend Lord Bathurst for their support. I would now ask your Lordships to accord this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NORTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL
Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.
  RESEARCH IN THE HUMANITIES
  RESEARCH IN THE HUMANITIES